Dec 04 Car and Driver 2005 gt 1/4 in 13.8

Just got my dec 04 C&D they gave the 05 great reviews. Ran 0-50 in 5.2 and quarter in 13.8 . You can find full scans of the article here.
http://forums.bradbarnett.net/index.php?showtopic=8455

You mean 0-60 in 5.2

Overall a VERY positive review.

They really only ****ed about 3 things.

1. The brakes
2. Charcoal gray interior is "dour"
3. IC gages.

It seems that they are correct on the brakes, the other 2 items are a matter of opinion.

C&D really praised the handling and ride of the '05 Stang seveeral times. The 3 counterpoints were ALL positive.

This quote says it all:

"The Verdict: The best Mustang since April 17, 1964."

Im just glad it tested faster than the GTO... That ends an ongoing argument at my job. hehe

Yeah my bad, Im not a great typist.

Note that top speed is in 5th gear instead of 4th gear. That is usually not the case with stock 'stangs. All in all, a good review. Just kind of porky on the weight but we gotta have something to complain about! Start ripping out the sound deadener, etc.

Porky as compared to what?

C&D listed weights:

2003 Mach 1 MTX - 3471 lb

2003 SVT Cobra - 3680 lb

2005 GT - MTX - 3523 lb

2002 GT - ATX -3495 lb

2001 Cobra MTX - 3472 lb.

As compared to the various SN-95 Mustangs, the '05 doesn't seem all that "porky" to me. Only 52 lb more than a Mach 1

It's porky - it's heavier than the '01 Cobra with it's heavy IRS and 4 valve engine and it's heavier than a SN-95 GT with an iron block. Even the Ford engineers said it came in overweight. That being said, the 3500lb+ weigh is nothing that can't be overcome with horsepower and a set of wide tires (which I might add, are particularly whimpy on the '05. Is Ford in bed with the aftermarket wheel/tire manufacturers? What is up with the 235 tires on this car?)

At least in this case the weight finally buys us something we desperately needed - structural rigidity/strength. I don't mind the extra weight if it helps us have a much better car, and at least the weight is distributed MUCH better than before so it's hard to just compare numbers and get the full story.

I'm hoping that maybe the SVT Mustang will get some more aluminum goodies to help in the weight dept. Maybe aluminum-bodied struts, magnesium cast oil pan and supercharger casing , aluminum suspension parts, etc. Isn't the IRS reported to be lighter than the previous set-up? Magnesium wheels would be cool.

If they can deliver a 5.4 3V S/C w/6-spd and IRS for under 3500 lbs., and for under $40k, they will have a winner. Seems impossible though because the 5.4 and related S/C components, 6-spd trans are bound to add substantial weight. At this point, I just hope there is an SVT Mustang...

Didn't read the review but C&D is notorious for crappy driving, as i recall they tested a 99+ GT vert to a tune of 15.1 in the 1/4 which is a joke. So if you take their 13.8 and hack a couple tenths off you should be right where this car really runs.

That's the first thing I thought of when I saw this thread....they get the WORST times out of cars. I think the GTO runs somewhere around a 13.5 or.6....I expect that's right in the wheelhouse of the '05. Poor Pontiac...

Very True,

How many people had to weld on 10 -15 lbs of subframe connectors & bolt on shock tower braces just to keep a lowered SN95 car in one piece?

what is the top speed. i know its governed, but does anyone know what the top speed is?

It's probably electronically limited to 155mph.

Exactly. Think of it this way: It gained a little weight from working out, not porking on cheeseburgers and beer.

As the article says if you read it, top speed is limited to 149 mph. I dont think anyone at the moment knows what the top speed would be with the governor disabled.

I don't buy the "crappy driving" urban myth, C&D does fairly well. You may find some people running a tenth or two (or maybe 3) better, but you can always attribute it to better conditions, cooler weather, disparity between cars, and no, they don't usually speedshift as they prefer to test cars using STANDARDIZED driving methods to ensure good apples to apples comparisons. Case in point, C&D ran 12.70 @ 113 on one test, and 12.60 @ 114 in another of the 2005 Z51 Corvette. Now I'm sorry, but that is NOT notoriously crappy driving. They even managed to horsewhip a 355 h.p. '05 Carrera S to a 12.40 (from the STRONG numbers the new Porsches are running, I've got to believe that Porsche has hopped on-board the "under-promise and over-deliver" bandwagon of under-rating their horsepower figures). What most people don't understand is that the big car magazines try to test cars using driving techniques that can be easily replicated over and over on all different makes and models of cars from test to test to test, so that their results are consistent and can be compared in a standardized way. They're not like MM&FF, where they go out to the track and absolutely RAPE a car and beat it within a sliver of its life to get a fast e.t..

They will use whatever gear to achieve the fastest speed. in case anybody was wondering.

I agree with all of the above accept that last part. I subscribe to MM&FF and most of the time they firstly get the best time they can without powershifting. Then once they cant get a faster time, they powershift. Both times are usually published in the article. Don't knock the MM&FF boys!

Hey, I'm not knocking 'em!!! I'm all for it!! I'm just making the point that if you're going to be a magazine racing jockey, you need to know the context and perspective of the data you're obsessing over.