kirkyg
Founding Member
Nov. issue of Motor Trend: Auto GT goes 13.6 @ 99
- Thread starter Avenger
- Start date
-
Sponsors (?)
NDBullitt
New Member
Oh, I didn't know LT1 F-bodies ran mid 13's?? My Bullitt is faster than a stock LT1 (I have driven several and they're quick, but they are not awesome). They can talk all the **** they want with an LS1, but the LT1 vs. a 99-04 is a driver's race. Now vs. the '05 I thinks it's gotta go to the '05 hands down.
peyotesands
New Member
TomServo92 said:I love this quote from the MT article (for all you GTO lovers out there):
That means all you current GTO owners will hav to upgrade! It'll be an interesting comparison between the 400HP GTO and any SE Mustangs we may see in the next year.
Read more of the article at:
http://forums.bradbarnett.net/index.php?showtopic=6235&st=0
The text of the article is posted farther down in the thread.
What GTO owners? There's like 3...
Thats pretty cool, right about what I thought it would run but look at the low trap speed of 99 mph? 
The GTO traps at 105 mph, oh ya....it also weighs 500 pounds more then the GT 
BTW: I thought you guys HATED magazine racing and now because of favorable numbers you all love it and accept it? This is the same Motor Trend magazine that claims they "spanked a 2003 SVT Cobra" with an Evo in a heat match and when I posted it, you all called
hmmm, what to believe?
The GTO traps at 105 mph, oh ya....it also weighs 500 pounds more then the GT BTW: I thought you guys HATED magazine racing and now because of favorable numbers you all love it and accept it? This is the same Motor Trend magazine that claims they "spanked a 2003 SVT Cobra" with an Evo in a heat match and when I posted it, you all called
hmmm, what to believe?This just about sums it up right here, same old crap that plagued every other Mustang in exsistence. Crappy handling, a back end that jumps and gets light with any little bump, pathetic braking power that sucks ass, just remember to keep it in a dead straight line if you buy one
"At the racetrack, the Mustang truly showed us what it's made of-and that is to say, slightly lesser stuff than similarly priced sport cars like the 350Z and RX-8. Oh , the lusty V-8 pulls stronger out of every corner, but the car carries more weight over its (all-season) front tires, so it pushes more than those cars and seems less eager to rotate without brutish steering and throttle inputs. And while MarcPherson struts can be made to work magic on a Barvarian budge, this humble horse falls short of world-class chassis poise in bumpy turns, where the front end chatters a bit and the heavy hardware out back can be felt moving around more than one would like. The GT's larger four-wheel-disc brakes boast 18 percent-more swept area and feel terrific on the road, but two hard laps at the track caused them to fade disconcertingly. All that siad, the new car felt quicker and easier to pivot smoothly around the track than its glue-factory-bound predecessor, and most of these issues fade in importance once you drive off the track."
that sucks ass, just remember to keep it in a dead straight line if you buy one "At the racetrack, the Mustang truly showed us what it's made of-and that is to say, slightly lesser stuff than similarly priced sport cars like the 350Z and RX-8. Oh , the lusty V-8 pulls stronger out of every corner, but the car carries more weight over its (all-season) front tires, so it pushes more than those cars and seems less eager to rotate without brutish steering and throttle inputs. And while MarcPherson struts can be made to work magic on a Barvarian budge, this humble horse falls short of world-class chassis poise in bumpy turns, where the front end chatters a bit and the heavy hardware out back can be felt moving around more than one would like. The GT's larger four-wheel-disc brakes boast 18 percent-more swept area and feel terrific on the road, but two hard laps at the track caused them to fade disconcertingly. All that siad, the new car felt quicker and easier to pivot smoothly around the track than its glue-factory-bound predecessor, and most of these issues fade in importance once you drive off the track."
mball use your brain a bit bud. You post something that's refuted by real world evidence to the contrary i.e. Cobras with average drivers running well into the 12s when the Motor Trend test only managed 13s.mball said:Thats pretty cool, right about what I thought it would run but look at the low trap speed of 99 mph?
BTW: I thought you guys HATED magazine racing and now because of favorable numbers you all love it and accept it? This is the same Motor Trend magazine that claims they "spanked a 2003 SVT Cobra" with an Evo in a heat match and when I posted it, you all called
This test thus far is the only credible source of information on the car. If let's say for instance the new 05s start running mid 14s in the hands of the owners and in manual form then we'll start calling bs on people using this as proof of their speed.
Is that clear enough for you? That shouldn't be a difficult concept to grasp dude.
Hey, there's one of the haters, right on cue...
It's not like we're engraving the magazine time in stone, but it's a nice ballpark figure to benchmark against when those of us getting an 05 take it to the track, and we all know that the manual = less weight = faster times.
Now where's srt4life? I can't wait for his "...but the SRT-4 is cheaper!" post.
It's not like we're engraving the magazine time in stone, but it's a nice ballpark figure to benchmark against when those of us getting an 05 take it to the track, and we all know that the manual = less weight = faster times.
Now where's srt4life? I can't wait for his "...but the SRT-4 is cheaper!" post.
lol dude you defeat your arguement in the quotes you post.
"All that siad, the new car felt quicker and easier to pivot smoothly around the track than its glue-factory-bound predecessor, and most of these issues fade in importance once you drive off the track"
There you have it right there. That line tells you all you need about the drivability of the car. No it's no uber handler but come on it's a 25k car who's objectional traits aren't going to be very evident to the average driver on the road so in the end who really gives a crap?
"All that siad, the new car felt quicker and easier to pivot smoothly around the track than its glue-factory-bound predecessor, and most of these issues fade in importance once you drive off the track"
There you have it right there. That line tells you all you need about the drivability of the car. No it's no uber handler but come on it's a 25k car who's objectional traits aren't going to be very evident to the average driver on the road so in the end who really gives a crap?
jasonlee0704 said:Now where's srt4life? I can't wait for his "...but the SRT-4 is cheaper!" post.
I dont know where he is but ya, the SRT-4 IS cheaper by about $6K. It posts almost identical times but also traps higher then 99 mph which is very weak. Oh ya, it also handles, corners and brakes better too but no biggie right?
heh the 05 SRT-4 is going to be right at 22k. And considering what you are giving up on overall package compared to the 25k 05 GT I don't think the guys who buy new SRT-4s will have the ability to make the claim of the best performance value anymore.jasonlee0704 said:Hey, there's one of the haters, right on cue...
It's not like we're engraving the magazine time in stone, but it's a nice ballpark figure to benchmark against when those of us getting an 05 take it to the track, and we all know that the manual = less weight = faster times.
Now where's srt4life? I can't wait for his "...but the SRT-4 is cheaper!" post.
Wrong wrong wrong...mball said:I dont know where he is but ya, the SRT-4 IS cheaper by about $6K. It posts almost identical times but also traps higher then 99 mph which is very weak. Oh ya, it also handles, corners and brakes better too but no biggie right?
The SRT-4 in 05 is going to be close to 22k to the 25k for the 05 GT so cheaper by 3k with windows you have to crank by hand and a crappy Neon interior.
It will be slower as the automatic numbers beat the manual SRT-4 numbers by about .2-.3 of a second. As far as who handles better is to be seen.
So want to try to bs the board again there mball about the SRT-4?
Omegalock said:
Well Ok, if you are happy to pay $26K or more for a car that only runs good in a straight line, be my guest. Its not like you can just pay another couple grand and get a car like say....the EVO that will shred those performance times and still handle, corner and brake a hundred times better right?
Another couple grand? How's about 32k. You seem to be the one with the double standard there mball trying to hype the SRT-4 as being superior due to it's cost while then trying to hold the EVO over everyone's head when it's a 30k car. But yeah nice try at trolling at least other trolls actually make some sense some what.mball said:Well Ok, if you are happy to pay $26K or more for a car that is only runs good in a straight line, be my guest. Its not like you can just pay another couple grand and get a car like say....the EVO that will shred those performance times and still handle, corner and brake a hundred times better right?
Only idiots pay that $32K sticker price on an Evo, go look at what people are getting them for in the Evo forums, they can easily be had for under $30K and some even as low as $27K because of their poor gas mileage and high insurance rates due to the turbocharger. So yes, a couple grand more 
You can play that game about any car out there dude arguement doesn't float one bit. So by your logic the Cobra now definately is 100% better than the Evo since I can find them for around 26k now?mball said:Only idiots pay that $32K sticker price on an Evo, go look at what people are getting them for in the Evo forums, they can easily be had for under $30K and some even as low as $27K because of their poor gas mileage and high insurance rates due to the turbocharger. So yes, a couple grand more
Omegalock said:
Couple of dealerships in Dallas will give you invoice pricing and the incentives on top of it.
Now that I've answered your question....
Answer me one honest question what den of fanboys spawned you?
Just curious.
LOL. I'm just giving you guys a hard time and arguing my case that yoiu have to respect what others cars can do and dont just say they 'suck" when you have never driven one. There are alot of great cars available now for great prices so dont buy an 05 GT just because its the NEW Mustang. Go drive some other cars and compare them, it doesnt sound like many of you are true enthusiasts because many have mentioned looks and comfort in your arguments. If looks and comfort are more important to you then owning the fastest or best handling car for the money, then go ahead
one2gamble
Founding Member
the srt-4 handles like a freaking a tank....its a pile of crap. Please go watch them get smoked on the track because I have and I know people who have driven them around the track and they all come back wondering what all the hype is about.
Ever consider people might want what the Mustang provides them? aka a passable ride and blazing straightline performance and a decent interior.mball said:LOL. I'm just giving you guys a hard time and arguing my case that yoiu have to respect what others cars can do and dont just say they 'suck" when you have never driven one. There are alot of great cars available now for great prices so dont buy an 05 GT just because its the NEW Mustang. Go drive some other cars and compare them, it doesnt sound like many of you are true enthusiasts because many have mentioned looks and comfort in your arguments. If looks and comfort are more important to you then owning the fastest or best handling car for the money, then go ahead
For an extremely low price?
I don't recall ever saying any of the cars you mentioned sucking. In fact I hang out on the SRT boards a lot because I also like and respect that car.
And I hate to disagree with you but styling and looks play a big factor in the realm of enthusiasts choices as well. Or else you wouldn't have exotics that make an effort to look good. Personally the STi doesn't appeal to me astheticly nor do I care much about turboed I-4 engines. If I'm paying 33k for a GTO I want something more than a car that blends in with the rest of Pontiacs line up.
My next car will have RWD a V8.
Thusly I'll be cross shopping between the Mustang,the new 05 GTO maybe and the Charger if it's not ugly and overweight. The new MazdaSpeed 6 doesn't interest me. The SRT-4...doesn't interest me. Evo,STi, etc...do not interest me. And I'm sure that goes for 90% of the people on the boards.
That's what I want. I and many others could give two craps if the Mustang is a few miles an hour slower in the slalom than the 350Z or holds a bit less on the skidpad than an SRT-4. That's now what we want. I kind of fail to see the point of this holy crusade of yours trying to talk people into something they obviously do not want. And I doublely don't get being purposefully abrasive and trollish in your attempts. Anybody that MIGHT be on the line considering what kind of car to buy would very likely would be turned off by your M.O.
If you can't persuade somebody to pick another car based on it's strengths alone then it's kind of pointless to begin with. And honestly trying to push something like the EVO on people who are looking at a Mustang GT is kind of foolish. The boy racer body kit and wing and engine likely would turn off the vast majority and if that's not enough the price and other things about the car likely would. Just like I wouldn't expect to go onto a WRX board and try to sell them on the GT. Two totally different kinds of audiences.
Oh and FYI I highly doubt the SRT-4, and EVO crowds are any more "enthusiasts" by your definition because often times they'll bring up that the Cobra is a Ford as if that's some kind of grand insult. And I damn sure know the GTO folks aren't enthusiasts since their first arguement for the GTO over cheaper faster cars is it has a better interior and eminities stock.
Similar threads
