Here is what the 05 Mustang GT REALLY runs

Discussion in '2005 - 2009 Specific Tech' started by mball, Sep 28, 2004.

  1. Those of us with any sense at all knew something was wrong with that MT test because a car that runs a 13.6 quarter traps alot higher then 99 mph. Fast Autos has tested a manual and posted on their site and they are usually more believable then the magazines. This test seems more like it, you didnt really think the GT was going to run mid 13's stock did you?

    Mustang
     
  2. where does it say they tested one?
     
  3. they have a nice picture set though
     
  4. This is not a road test. The results are estimates.

    Mark
     
  5. Incorrect. They did have estimated times up for the last few months, it said (est.) next to all the times but since they tested one last week, they took the estimates off and those are the times they got.

    0-60 mph: 5.2 sec
    0-100 mph: 13.2 sec
    Quarter Mile: 13.9 sec @ 104 mph
     
  6. i repeat, where does it say they tested one? all i see is "information provided by ford"
     
  7. Its just an internet site, they dont post every single detail of their ride in a car like magazines do. Go look at any of the other cars they have there and you wont find a review, they dont do that. I dont want to hear some reporter ramble on for 10 pages about how the car drives, I just want to see the results and thats what they provide.
     
  8. so your making an assumption that they tested the car?
     
  9. Stupid Moron!!! Those are MT estimates form Feb. 2004 :lol:

    http://motortrend.com/roadtests/coupe/112_0402_mustang/index5.html
     
  10. I don't see where they said they tested anything either. Oh and just to give you a note mball...they "tested" the Ford GT as well and look at it's numbers compared to what was gotten out of it in other sources. A hell of a lot lower than the others.

    They didn't test those cars they are just taking numbers from some place else and are providing a giant database for quickly accessible information.

    Dude at least wait until the other car magazines confirm or deny this performance don't run out and try to dig up info that isn't there.

    Also note they didn't have accurate pricing nor do they have other things like the slalom speed something most people if they are testing would definately have. Doublely so over them having the skidpad numbers.
     
  11. This is interesting:

    http://www.fordmuscle.com/archives/2004/01/05Mustang/index.shtml

    This site has the same text word for word. And this old page from MT:

    http://motortrend.com/roadtests/coupe/112_0402_mustang/index5.html

    It has exactly the same performance numbers as the one you posted, right down to the exact tenth. As does this page:

    http://www.engine-power.com/ford/2005_mustang_gt.html

    How can they all have the exact same numbers? That's some pretty consistent testing amongst all those sites. But I know the real answer (which has eluded the simple mind of mball)..it's because they are the original estimates provided by Ford before the release. Try again mball. You struck out again! :notnice:
     
  12. LOL that site is soooooo horrible. Its populated by a bunch of guys that idolize expensive cars (that they can never have) and have no practical or common knowege about cars at all. If you think fords gonna give them an 05 to eval. why don't you click on that forum link, your fit right in.

    Jeff
     
  13. You guys may be right, but you are smokin something if you think the 05 will run low to mid 13's stock with that ****ty trap speed of 99 mph, there are V6s that trap higher then that. It will be a high 13 car.
     
  14. We'll see won't we? There'll be plenty of magazine tests over the next month or so. Most important will be Muscle Mustangs & Fast Fords. They wring every single tenth out of a car they can.
     
  15. The current GT runs high 13s stock :(
     
  16. Remains to be seen and most people here are not waving this around like it's the gospel yet. From what I'm reading the people that REALLY want this to be true are wanting every last little bit of evidence to come in so we can make a judgement. But it's the people like you that seem to have some kind of death wager or something on the thing underperforming that are exhalting in the streets over the 14.2 run that was on video or getting just upset that the car ran a decent time in a reputable magazine. Just wait and see what happens and that goes for everybody. If the autos run mid to high 13s great. If they run low 14s oh well. Making these do or die statements about one or two bits and pieces of evidence is just crazy. You'll have all the info you need to make an arguement either way in about 4 weeks just sit on your anger until then.
     
  17. well put!!
     
  18. O.K., from all the recent posts I've read, it is obvious that mball is an idiot. Period. My vert ran 13.54 @ 101.9, 2.1ish 60 ft. on street tires, with 265/302 at the wheels, race weight 3450 w/ driver. The 05 traps at 99.9, and runs a 13.6, similar weight/power, probably better power curve with the vct, 5-spd auto, etc. Sounds pretty accurate to me, and having driven one, was about what my "seat-of-the-pants" track told me.
     
  19. Ya, and your point? That trap speed is still weak, go look at trap speeds of other cars with that time and they are all 103-105 mph. If it gets to 60 in a little over 5 seconds and doesnt clear the quarter till 13.6 (I doubt thats even true given the low trap speed) at a pathetic 99 mph, that means it really fizzles in the top end power. Hate to bring it up once agin but it seems like a good comparison, the Evo wil hit 60 in the same time but will run the quarter in the low 13s and trap at about 104 mph. So it seems to me (as I have said all along) the Evo will be capable of beating a Mustang GT in a quarter mile race as well as spanking it on a track. What does Ford want us to pay $26K or more for again? nifty colored gauges and re-designed look? :notnice: Get back to me when Ford actually gives the Mustang some balls.