How fast are you???

Discussion in '2005 - 2014 S-197 Mustang -General/Talk-' started by black95gts5.0, Jul 15, 2005.

  1. Have any of you guys that own the 05 GTs raced any LS1's ?? Is it true what everyone says that it is so close it is all up to the driver??
     
  2. Actually, I've heard the LS1 is a little quicker, and not really a drivers race. Haven't found one to race myself.
     
  3. statistically speaking the LS1's still have the edge.

    As regraless of GM quoted numbers they all produce about 345bhp/350lb ft

    On a good day a M6 Ls1 should just nudge into the high 12's @105mph. Even the high geared (2.73) auto's will still be good 13.5 cars @ 103mph.
     
  4. My then stock 05 GT was outrun by a stock GTO the day after I got it.
     
  5. Yeah, my '05 GT got spanked by a LS1 Trans Am, which was stock except for Flowmaster and air box cut out.

    Those Trans Am's are fast as hell.
     
  6. i Took an LT1 powered camaro a couple weeks after I got mine and got worked fairly easily by an LS1 powered vette not long after that.. i figured I would though, but had to find out for sure..Last week I destroyed an Ls1 vette since the installation of my vortech blower :nice:..the priceless look on his girlfriends face was worth the price of admission :rlaugh:
     
  7. A blower will do the trick :nice:
     
  8. yeah, we really need to invest in Superchargers to keep up with factory Trans Am's and Camaros.
     
  9. No, you'll find that the typical LS1 will walk you every time. That is unless you've invested in some decent power upgrades to your car :)

    You're probably a closer match to an LT1 powered car, stock for stock.
     
  10. The magazines on the LS1 engine put it about even with an '05 Mustang. Look at factory 0-60 times, just search for 'factory "0-60". You will see that the LS1 Z28 runs 1/4 in 13.7 and the SS in 13.6 and 13.5 for the 2002 models. The Trans AM cranked out 13.5 and 13.4 WS6. They are very identical cars. I think when a lot of people on here talked about getting walked they are modded cars. And that simply is not a fair comparision. An '05 Mustang would eat an LT1. I owned one, it doesn't feel overall as fast. 1/4 in 14.2 and 0-100 in 16.6 vs the mustangs 1/4 of 13.5 and 0-100 of 13.2 (seen sources as fast as 12.6). Also Motortrend or one of the major ones got 0-60 in 4.9 with a broken in Mustang and fairly reliable 1/4s of 13.5.
     
  11. Magazine racing is one thing, actually running at the track is another. :)

    I've never been to the track until a few weeks ago with my 2002 Z28. It's an A4, but I managed better times than three other LS1 Camaros out there, as well as a 2005 Roush GT Mustang. I had him by 1/2 second. Granted the Roush was probably just the cosmetic package Roush, I doubt it had any power adders on it. It was a stick, and maybe he wasn't very experienced (like me).

    Not to say that I couldn't be beat by a stock 2005 Mustang, but the ones I saw running that night couldn't do it.

    I was also shocked to see how fast some of those built Neons can run. Granted, at the end of the day you're still driving a Neon, but some of them are quick. Amazing what a shot of Nitrous can do :)

    If you've never been to the track, I would encourage you to try it. It's a lot of fun, and was a very enjoyable experience. Everyone was cool, and it was interesting to see what cars driven by everyday Joe's could really do.
     
  12. I think the term "magazine racers" is a misnomer. Magazine specifications are done in tested conditions with factory cars, good drivers and adjusted for conditions. It is an attempt to put a number that can be used to compare the car to other stock vehicles. Granted if you were to claim the Z28 puts out more power than advertised in some cases. Well yes anyone who runs at the track can tell you there is something going on there. But the cars the magazines ran also had that horsepower.
     
  13. Which 2005 Trans am's and camaro's are you referring to?
     
  14. if you have a browes round the net you may come across an atricle from a Ford magazine.

    In 98 they tested a Z28 M6 it was running consistant high 12's. They though it was an odd ball car, so in 02 they tested an SS M6, it was running consistant 12.9's in crappy whether. They commented that it would pull 12.7's had the temp been more normal.

    If you look at my 1st post you'll see that the A4 automatic cars running the 2.73:1 rear end produced the slowest times. But in all reality they will more than likely just pip a stock 05 to the post.
     
  15. I don't know about those times on the ls1 camaro's and such
    Seems like stretch to say they can run high 12's, possibly a few freaks or maybe with optimal conditions but I would think low-mid 13's would come up far more often than high 12's
     
  16. That's what I have. I'd like to go 3.73 in the rear pretty soon - just to see how much difference it makes in the 1/4 :D
     
  17. So far to date, I have not been outran by any 05 GT I have raced. The only stangs to beat me since I bought my goat was a modded 03 Cobra and a modded 1970 Stang with a built 302 with 315 drags in the 1/8 (I got him in the 1/4).
     
  18. I was at the 1/8 mile yesterday and there was an 05 GTO (auto w/dr's and maybe exhaust), a beautiful blue 05 Mustang GT with dr's and at least the Steeda intake (saw it), an enlisted guy from my squadron with an LS1 Trans Am (318rwhp/350rwtq-intake, exhaust, tune), and my Vette. It was hot (85-90 degrees) and at 1500' or so. The quickest was the GTO at [email protected]. I ran a best of [email protected] vs [email protected] for the LS1. I saw the 05 GT run a [email protected]. The 05 GT was pretty quick and not that far off from the other cars. It seems that mph were a little slower due to the heat and maybe in my case, the driver.
     
  19. :lol: RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! magazines :rlaugh:

    another internet racer :banana:

    The only time I ran as slow as 13.7 is with bad traction, and I have a 99 a4 z28.
    You are truly mistaken if you think a car with 265 rwhp and a car with 300+rwhp are even. The 01-02 fbods are the fastest, so my car is a dog compared to 01-02.

    stock for stock its a good race with an lt1 not an ls1

    put down the crack pipe
     
  20. Justice!! :nice: LOL!! I would've love to have been there..

    Can anyone give a really good reason why Ford did not make the new Mustang, atleast faster than older cars which are stock? There may be a good reason.. It might make sense.. But for the life of me, I find it very hard to accept that a guy who just bought a cream of the crop 2005 Mustang GT has to eat crow against an older Trans AM.. Whats going on? Of course the GT500 wont have a problem, but thats a $40,000+ car, thats not released.. Why should a new Mustang GT owner have to get supercharged by way of another 3 to $4k to beat an older car?

    Do you all think Ford should have just put the GT at 350HP? This way, this would have been more than enough to settle some old scores, and some new ones.. Why was 300HP settled on, and not 350HP.. The GTO is @ 400HP.. Ford could have given another stock 50HP to the GT dont you guys think? I think its BS Ford plays games with peoples lives.. I demand that the GT be given another 50HP from the factory by years end.. This is ridiculous! I have never heard of such a ridiculous situation than this.. The 2005 GT Mustang is getting spanked all around the damn country!! Guys must lose face, self respect and honor, or blow another $4k to be happy with the damn GT!! This is the outrage of the year dammit!! :mad:

    I own a V6 Mustang, but I find no comfort in GT owners getting spanked around country!! LOL!! Where does that leave us V6'ers!! Up **** creek without a paddle!! Even if we get blown!! Jesus Christ!! Ford screwed up again!!!