forbie

I got a 2005 GT in Canada for a rental car for a week. Nice change from the usual Taurus or 6 cylinders you get in the states.Over all a pretty nice car but I wasn't real impressed power wise. Seat of the pants feel I think my bone stock auto ws6 would hand it its *** in a race. Just my 2 cents worth
after running the **** out of it for a week. It only had 3000 Km on it so it couldn't have been beat on too long.

BLKWS.6

http://www.corral.net/forums/showthread.php?t=565495 DYNO CHART comparing it to a Mach 1.

Seems to me like the car should have no problem matching Mach 1 times i.e. low 13's....

x phantom x

iTrader: (14)

A lot more is involved with racing then dyno numbers, and what mags say ...

Motor Trend got a BEST of a 13.5 second 1/4 out of an 05 auto, on a near perfect day, with a professional driver, yada yada yada. Every other resource I have seen, including personal experience watching a few at the track, and racing a few on the street ... the 05 GT is a high 13 second car. A low-mid 13 second pass could be justified just as you would a high 12 second f-bod ... a factory freak with an amazing driver. Either way, the Average 05 GT is a high 13 second car.

Even though they most certainly aren't competition for an LS1, I wouldn't call them a joke. Just remember, there's always someone faster, and someday it will be that 05 that you believe is a joke.

urbanhunter44

iTrader: (1)

Everything I've seen puts them smackdab on par with a stock LT1. Especially considering an LT1 will dyno on average about 305 FWHP, around 260 RWHP. High 13 sec car, with most going 14s until they can drive.

I've personally handed an '05 it's *** on the freeway as well, and my car only has a couple bolt-ons. Well maybe not it's ***, but a few car lengths anyway

BLKWS.6

THe 05 GT has about the same power as the LT1, its main advantage comes in that it can pull 1.8 60's bone stock on stock tires. Its mph puts it in LT1 range, its 60' times put it in LS1 range FROM A DIG WITH A VERY GOOD DRIVER. Yes, i 100% agree, it is outpowered by the LS1 for raw speed, never argued that one. The point was, they arent dogs. BTW. I know ppl that run mid 14's in their A4 SS's (LS1) but that sure doesnt mean its a mid 14's car...

x phantom x

iTrader: (14)

Exactly. A unusually low or high run doesn't mean anything. You need to look at the average car, with the average driver. If 1 in a 1000 GT's run a 13.3 second quarter, and 1 in a 1000 run a 14.8 .... but 700 of the 1000 run in the 13.6-13.9 range .... it is obviously a high 13 second car. There will always be factory freaks, and factory duds ... as well as great drivers, and horrible drivers.

To state that a GT is fast because you once saw (in a mag) it run a 13.15, is just the same as calling an LS1 slow because you saw one run a 14.5.

Super Slow SS

iTrader: (9)

I agree how do you go from the most mod frendly 390hp supercharged true muscle car and he only mustake that would outrun a stock f-body to a 3 valve pile of leaky parts? I to have ran a few 05s and have been none the more impressed with the best stock 13.5 on drag radials or the extremely slow accel. on the interstate .... personally saw an acura RSX-s outrun one on I40 in NC kinda sad not even a real import car and truly haven't seen anything price - power comparable to a camaro

grey03mach1

iTrader: (3)

Low 13's are a stretch. Most I've seen run 13.8-14.3 stock (depending on driver skill, tranny type). I've dusted 2 05's with ease. Both were 5 speeds and both puckered out after 2nd gear. The 05's are a definite improvement over the 99-04 GT's but not quite LS1 material, stock at least.

LS1-450

iTrader: (33)

That's interesting. The 300 bhb Ford lists must be conservative 'cuz that car is right on 280 RWHP. There's more ponies left in that fueling map as well...surprizing. It also peters out early which leaves more room for aftermarket HP.

grey03mach1

iTrader: (3)

Of course I'm a little biased, but it baffles me that Ford didn't go with the DOHC 4.6 32 valve instead of the 24 valve 4.6. Maybe it was a production cost issue.

BLKWS.6

It was a cost issue. Also, that dyno DOES confirm what i have tried to say, actual #'s for the car are 320/340-350. It is underrated, not LS1 underrated, but underrated nonetheless.

99camarosupersport

iTrader: (6)

it was all in fun, and no unit i am not as cocky as that guy he came to me not vice versa. i realize their are much faster cars than mine out on the road mustangs, f-body's and even ricers. and as far as talking ****, i believe this is a street racing kill thread, again if i posted anything more than that let me know otherwise you're yet again putting words in my mouth unit213. It's also a matter of opinion that i don't like the new mustangs so there is no use arguing the point, you think the black 05' GT looks better than mine, i think it looks like crap so let's leave it at that.

BLKWS.6

AWww hell, I always get a kick out of the fact that a mustang/F-bod thread always has multiple pages ESPECIALLY 5.0 vs. F-bod threads

300bhp/ton

one word - BOLLOX

According to people like you EVERY single engine produced is underatted. Which is just crap. The only engine I've seen any form of physical, statistical and policitical proof for is the LS1 fitted to the Fbody.

And it's not being biased, as I'll back up and justify every claim. But the rest is just wishful thinking and mis reading or minupulation of numbers.

BLKWS.6

How is a slew of 280 rwhp dyno numbers when rated at 300bhp NOT overrated?? I guess you GM guys dont know about fords new trannies, only 7% drivetrain loss...all this from using KY instead of standard fluid!!! seriously though, i do NOT claim that every car is underrated. The 350Z is accurate, the 96-98 cobra was OVERRATED, and the LT1 was underrated SLIGHTLY.

99camarosupersport

iTrader: (6)

i do like the 04' body style stangs, my friend a silver GT with roush side exhuast, roll bar, TTII's black w/ chrome lip, bullit style gas tank cover and light engine mods. it looks good, and i am jealous that most stang's sound better than alot of the f-body's . i like how they did the retro thing, but that's part of the reason i dont like them, that style. now if chevy brought back the camaro and retro'd that.

300bhp/ton

BTW what frigg is that dyno graph - Excel!!!!!

Come one, it's computer generated. Yes the cars probably where dyno'd. But what sort of dyno was it? Where both cars run on the SAME dyno?????

All very important questions.

Also anyone who believe the 3v variant of the SAME engine will produce more power than the 4 valve variant has a screw loose. Really loose.

Same engine, 4v means better breathing, which means more power. EASY.


If you like internet proof so much hears one for you:


He's real not fictional, look see there's a picture what more proof do you need.

BLKWS.6

300BHP. Why then does the 99-04 4.6 2V GT make VERY CLOSE to the same hp as the 96 Cobra 4V ?

BLKWS.6

All dyno comparison's i have seen put the 05 GT within 10rwhp of the Mach 1's.

300bhp/ton

once again 280rwhp - WHAT????

What type of dyno is it derived on. If it's a dyno jet. Then it's nearer 260rwhp. Which funnily enough falls slap bang in the correct drivetrain loss area.

A reasonably accepted guesstimate equation is 12% + 10bhp, this applies loading, due to not all parts of the drive train being friction bearing.

(260 / 0.88) + 10 = 305bhp

So pretty darn close to stock. Correct to SAE instead of STD and you'll be anywhere from 298-302bhp.