99-05 vs. 2005 Specification Comparison

351CJ

New Member
Dec 11, 2002
1,732
1
0
Visit site
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.
 
  • Sponsors(?)


Z28x

New Member
Sep 19, 2003
644
0
0
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
 

Jeffspeed24

New Member
Dec 22, 2003
66
0
0
stallion98gt said:
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:

With a good amount of boost, your going to have to change to lower compression pistons anyway.
 

Rootus

Officially Addicted
Feb 8, 2003
6,659
1
0
46
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
 

351CJ

New Member
Dec 11, 2002
1,732
1
0
Visit site
HairyCanary said:
I'd like to see more torque at a lower RPM.

Dave

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.
 

351CJ

New Member
Dec 11, 2002
1,732
1
0
Visit site
Blk01gt_ said:
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:

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.
 

Omegalock

New Member
Aug 31, 2003
616
0
0
Visit site
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.
 

Stangston

Member
Dec 28, 2003
144
0
16
37
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.
 

Omegalock

New Member
Aug 31, 2003
616
0
0
Visit site
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.
 

351CJ

New Member
Dec 11, 2002
1,732
1
0
Visit site
Omegalock said:
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.

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.