99-05 vs. 2005 Specification Comparison

Discussion in '2005 - 2014 S-197 Mustang -General/Talk-' started by 351CJ, Dec 28, 2003.

  1. 351CJ

    351CJ New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2002
    Messages:
    1,769
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Styling aside, the specs for the 2005 Mustang GT seem to blow away the 99-04 in almost every aspect. I especially like the big brakes, 2" wider track, longer wheel base and better F/R weight distribution.


    99-04 - 2005 .. Mustang GT Coupe

    183.2 - 187.6 .. Length, in
    73.1 - 72.1 .. Width, in.
    53.1 - 54.5 .. Height, in.
    101.3 - 107.1 .. Wheelbase, in.
    60.4 - 62.3 .. Front Track, in.
    60.6 - 62.5 .. Rear Track, in
    3350 - 3425 .. Curb Weight, lb.
    57/43 - 53/47 .. Weight Dist F/R %
    10.9 - 12.3 .. Trunk Capacity cu ft.

    260/5250 - 300/6000 .. HP @ RPM
    302/4000 - 315/4500 .. Torque @ RPM
    9.4:1 - 9.8:1 .. Compression Ratio
    1x65mm - 2x ? mm .. Throttle Body
    iron - aluminum .. Engine Block
    alum. - alum. .. Engine Heads
    3.27 - ? .... Rear Axle Ratio - Standard
    none - ? .... Rear Axle Ratio - Optional
    15.7 - ? .... Fuel Tank / gal

    17x8 - 17x8 .. Wheels - Standard
    none - 18x9 .. Wheels - Optional
    P245/45R17 - P235/55R17 .. Tires - Standard
    none - P255/45R18 .. Tires - Optional

    10.87x? - 12.44x1.18 .. Brakes - Front, dia. / thk.
    10.51xSolid -11.81x.75 .. Brakes - Rear, dia. / thk.

    38.1 - 38.6 .. Front Head room, in.
    53.6 - 55.4 .. Front Shoulder Room, in
    52.3 - 53.6 .. Front Hip Room
    41.9 - 42.7 .. Front Leg Room (manual)
    35.5 - 35.0 .. Rear Head room
    52.1 - 53.3 .. Rear Shoulder room
    47.4 - 46.7 .. Rear Hip Room
    29.9 - 31.0 .. Rear Leg Room
    83 - 96 .. EPA Interior Volume, cu, ft.
     
    #1
  2. 66Satellite

    66Satellite Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    665
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I was expecting more than 1 inch more rear leg room, but oh well...
     
    #2
  3. Z28x

    Z28x New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Messages:
    658
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Albany NY
    THe tires on the 05 are a lot taller, they went from a 45 series to a 55 series. THe base Mustang GT tires won't even be low profile
     
    #3
  4. stallion98gt

    stallion98gt New Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,805
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    compression ratio has increased from 9:4:1 to 9:8:!...that will lower our abilities to squeeze more boost on a stock engine (ie S/C) ..am I right ? :shrug:
     
    #4
  5. Jeffspeed24

    Jeffspeed24 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Messages:
    66
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    With a good amount of boost, your going to have to change to lower compression pistons anyway.
     
    #5
  6. Blk01gt_

    Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2001
    Messages:
    424
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    winnipeg, canada
    if those numbers are right, the new car is longer, narrower, and taller....

    might just be me, but i think thats a bad combo... :shrug:
     
    #6
  7. Rootus

    Rootus Officially Addicted

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2003
    Messages:
    6,747
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Portland, Oregon
    Longer, narrower, taller body ... yes. But the track width is two inches wider, the wheelbase is six inches longer, and the weight distribution better. These are all good things.

    What I don't like is the horsepower/torque numbers -- sure, the peaks are higher, but look at the RPM jump. I'd like to see more torque at a lower RPM.

    Dave
     
    #7
  8. 351CJ

    351CJ New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2002
    Messages:
    1,769
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    With the variable cam timing - VCT - torque should be significantly better at lower RPMs.

    When VCT was added to the Lincoln LS 3.9L V8, peak torque increased by 19 lb ft, but @ 2,000 RPM it increased by 26 lb ft and @ 3,000 RPM it increased by 30 lb ft.
     
    #8
  9. 351CJ

    351CJ New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2002
    Messages:
    1,769
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    With all the curves in the body, maximum width can loose its importance. I just measured my 2001 GT. The maximum width (not counting the mirrors) is over 73" and it occurs right at the front of the rear wheel opening bulges. The width across the front fenders (again maximum at the buldges) is less than 70".
    The outside of the rear wheels is 2" inside the fenders at the maximum width point.

    HairyCanary is correct, the track width is the important dimension and with the 2005 it is 2" wider both front and rear.

    As far as the height goes, a 1/2" difference is really insignificant.
     
    #9
  10. Omegalock

    Omegalock New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2003
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Man I had forgotten how bad the weight distrubution in the current GT was. There are gonna be a lot of ricers who are going to be surprised in this things slalom abilities.
     
    #10
  11. Stangston

    Stangston Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2003
    Messages:
    145
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Wow looks like the new car is still essentially a 2 seater? The rear leg room is not practical in the current car for friends, and an extra inch doesn't seem like it'll do much. And is the rear head room correct? Less than the current model...is that even possible?

    I have to kind of lie down in the current model to fit in the back. I can't believe this wouldn't be a target area so that the car could suit a wider market.
     
    #11
  12. Omegalock

    Omegalock New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2003
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It looks like the additional length in the chasis is more in the trunk(and likely in the engine compartment). I would think the head room being less would be attributed to the tear drop roofline.
     
    #12
  13. 351CJ

    351CJ New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2002
    Messages:
    1,769
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You can think of it this way. Compared to the old car, everything stays nearly the same except the front wheels move forward. So the engine is now more behind the front wheels. This is how the weight balance goes from 57/43 to 53/47 (F/R).

    From what I've seen so far I'd guess that 4" to 5" of the 6" longer wheelbase is the front wheels moving forward and 1" to 2" of the longer wheelbase are in the passenger compartment.
     
    #13

Share This Page