2005 GT ET's?

Discussion in '2005 - 2009 Specific Tech' started by shane3232, Jan 15, 2004.

  1. My buddy Matt in his bone stock 2000GT ran a 13.8 at 100mph!

  2. This was at Maple Grove Raceway in Pa!

  3. my friend ran a [email protected] bone stock. it took a 1.95 60-ft to pull that but it turned consistent 13.96s with normal (2.1-2.25) 60-fts.
    My prediction:
    [email protected] w/ 2.1 60-ft.
  4. hmmm... My 2000 GT ran a 13.663 (on video) completly stock ... including air filter and factory wheels. My 2002 GT ran a 13.77 completly stock... again factory everything. I will admit the conditions where ideal, and the track was near sea level.

    I will expect low 13s out of my 05 Stang when I get it.
  5. Well, im going to agree with the mid 13's you guys have said. The 3.55 gears, better weight distribution, 100% increase in torque rigidity(sp? LOL), ~35rwhp/13rwtq gains over current GT's should help net alot better times. Not ot mention the 3v design, meaning the car won't run outta breath so quick and pull harder up top. 13.5 @ 101-102mph is very possible.
  6. Not calling :bs: here or anything....just a legitimate question. If you ran a 14.0 @ 99.5, then why is your time in your sig listed as 14.2? Do you not have the slip from the 14.0 run or something?
  7. Everyone seems to know someone that has gotten their GT into the high 13's.. But an auto with mufflers welded in running a 13.7? The car gods shined on him that day. The average auto with minimal mods will not even get into the high 13's on a regular basis.

    I'm guessing the new GT will run mid to high 13's.. It'll still see my Mach's tail lights for awhile :)
  8. You're retarded for saying "So you are not going to see 13's on a bone stock 99 - 04 unless you have a big tail wind." Just because you haven't seen it, doesn't mean it hasn't been done or isn't done all the time. My bone stock 03 GT with not a single mod (even had the original paper air filter and silencer in place) ran [email protected] This is without even removing the spare or jack. The only difference between showroom stock was an aftermarket CD/MP3/DVD player in place of the stock CD player. My current best time in my sig was done with only a BBK o/r X pipe. I've got slips to back up my times.

    I predict that the 05 GT is capable of mid 13's. There are plenty of current GT's with 255rwhp (300fwhp) running low 13's. Take away the sticky tires and add a bit of weight and it's mid 13's. That's my prediction.
  9. See sig. Best stock (BONE STOCK) was [email protected] with a 2.1 60 ft. If you're interested in seeing the slips, let me know. I'll email them when I get home tonight. I've got the 13.90 slip with just BBK o/r X in my wallet. I'll email it to you right now if you want proof. In my opinion, there's no excuse for a 99-04 GT 5 speed coupe to not run high 13's or very low 14's. If you can't do it, it's cause you either can't drive, the track sucks, or the weather/altitude sucks.
  10. A lot of the mustangs I've seen run sub 14's are near sea level. You'll have a hard time running sub 14's in many areas in the US, even with great weather. :rolleyes:
  11. No kidding Sherlock. When comparing times from different parts of the country, it's more accurate to use corrected times. Fortunatly, the track I go to is at 66 ft and the DA lately has been pretty close to that.
  12. Well come to my world friend and you won't have those cherry time. Many on this board don't consider what location a Mag or person is in when they report times. Just temp and hum.

    Sound like your just being a smart A$$ :notnice:
  13. The time in my sig is 1 4 . 0 2

    not 1 4 . 2 0

    I have a friend that has an auto GT. he was running 13.9's with catback and midpipe...auto's are not far behind a perfectly driven stick shift...and are much more consitant (although i'll never own one).


    p.s. and if you need proof of course i'll scan the slip when i get home if you dont believe me.
  14. I drove my friends BONE STOCK 03 and got a 13.9 at the track the 05 gt should be able to do better than that.
  15. Me personally, I don't really put much weight on corrected times.. Course thats coming from someone thats near sea level.. Heh..

    In all the 99+ GT's I've seen run, and that has been many.. Perhaps 10-15% run get that sub 14 time stock or mildly modded. It can be done, but its no where near the norm at all.
  16. Not trying to be a smart ass, just trying to introduce a little reality to the conversation. My first time at the track I ran a [email protected] That was in September with 78% humidity and 77 degrees. The Density Altitude was over 1500 feet. That run corrected to a [email protected] So, even in Oklahoma it would have been a 14.0 run corrected to just over 800 ft (Tulsa). Not only that, but a 2.0 60 ft time would have been another .1 faster. It just ticks me off seeing guys say that 99-04 GT's CAN'T run high 13's. It seems as if there are a lot of skeptics out there. Just because you haven't personally seen it, doesn't mean it isn't possible.

  17. I agree. I was just pointing out the correction factor because someone in denver running mid 14's is every bit as fast as me here at sea level running high 13's. So, depending on where the magazine test was performed, it may not reflect the true capabilities of the car. When comparing runs from different locations, if we use the corrected run it will be more accurate. Know what I mean?

    At any rate, MY 2003 GT has run high 13's stock. :nice:
  18. 13.1 with a real driver. Note that this is faster than magazine drivers are getting with the 03 Cobra, so expect magazine times to be in the high 13's. If you want real times, check with MM&FF.

    Some of those mags compare the STI and SVT on the 1/4 mile, and guess what? Anybody can launch an STI down the 1/4 - rev it to redline and dump the clutch. Launching a stock RWD V8 is much harder, because unlike the AWD STI, you're going to have wheel spin. It actually takes skill to launch correctly, so magazines will generally get poor times.

    I figure this car will be just as fast as, if not slightly faster than, the 03/04 Mach 1.
  19. My faux pas Kirky....I misread it. Sorry about that. Must be that rabid dyslexia kicking in.