Here is what the 05 Mustang GT REALLY runs

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

  1. I knew you would go back to the EVO again. So again, whay have you not bought the clearly (In your mind) superior EVO?

    By the way wasn't the 05 an automatic? So the manual should be even faster. And you don't know what the gear ratio in the automatics are. So maybe it ran out of top end in the auto.
  2. Actually he's not an idiot. He is a one trackminded troll. Who brags about how great a car he doesn't own and seems to have no intention of owning.
  3. I tend to take numbers from any source other than primary to be less than accurate. But seeing their pics, man I cannot wait for these rims to come out!

  4. You can certainly run a [email protected] It just has to be a real clean run.

    I ran a [email protected]. The autos seems to trap alot lower than 5-speeds, but run ver close times (my car anyhow). A [email protected] is believable.

    However I wont believe any times from ANY magazine until I see it for myself at the track. They are all biased one way or another.
  5. No, I am still waiting for the 05 to come out so I can drive one before I make a final desicion. However, from what I am seeing early on, I am not favoring the GT. MT has a pretty weak test with one and already complaing about the back end getting light, the steering response being weak and the brakes fading after only 2 laps. I hope Ford is not expecting people to pay near $30K for that kind of ****ty performance. If I get the same feeling when I drive it, there is no way in hell I would get one insted of paying a couple grand more for a near perfect car like an Evo or STi. I think its time to realize that American sports cars (with the exception of the C6 and Z06) are being built like crap these days and Mitsu and Subaru have put out highly capable cars that perform 10 times betterfor pretty much the same price.
  6. Mball, why in all honestly do you still post here, from reading all these sounds like you have little faith in the 05 and you are looking for reasons to get the EVO/Sti...So look to make it real easy...just buy the EVO (so called superior to the Mustang...but they're in different classes I believe) Look I respect you for waiting for the 05 to come out and really test it and that you're doing your research but you pounce on the opportunity to put it down and put the EVO back as said before, just cool down until the Stang comes out or save us hassle time and buy the EVO...its only a few grand more...
  7. The evo doesn't run low 13's. The evo tested by MT's in jul. 03 was a ringer/prep car. They usually run 13.4-13.7 at low 100-2mph. Even the evo RS which is faster than the regular evo ran a 13.2 @ 99.8 mph which really pathetic trapspeed for a 5spd. :rlaugh: Even your precious evo MR ran a 13.3 @ 102.2 which also pathetic for a $34,900 car.
    I bet that the GT 05 will be trapping higher than your little evos. The auto GT05 trapped 99.9 mph because a of tall 4th and 5th gears. The 5spd/stick GT will not has this problem.
    Anyways rumors are out that a GT05 ran agaisnt a mach 1 from 1st gear roll to 120mph winning by 1 1/2 cars. If this is true expect low 13's. But as everybody says here, these are only speculations will see what happens.
    evo= mid 13's at best with a weak trapspeed of 100-102 :lol:
    mach 1= low 13's at 104-106
    mach ~ GT05 :hail2:
  8. This is very simple...really it is. Follow along with me. I'll try to keep it simple for the f-ing EVO and leave us the HELL alone! You've obviously made up your mind so either ***** or get off the toilet. I believe I can speak for most of us on this board when I say we're sick of your incessant whining and cry-baby posts. BUY THE EVO AND GO AWAY!!!!
  9. Ok in that post you show your bias towards the EVO. You have closed your mind so badly. That you refuse to believe in any test MT does. You argue about the results instead of keeping an open mind towards them. Instead of discussing the motortrend results. You started this thread to argue against the results. Using times from MT before they had one to test. You say it has ****ty performance and is built like crap. And that the EVO and STI are near perfect. And perform 10 times better. If the mustang is as bad as you think. Where's the need to compare? Sorry you can't make those kinds of statements. While saying you are keeping an open mind. They are incompatible statements.
  10. He can't buy the EVO. If he does so now. Then it would prove him to be the close minded troll he has been acting like. And if additional testing shows the mustang to be better than the EVO. Then he looks stupid for arguing against it. Of course we all know that if the mustang is faster in the 1/4 mile. He'll argu that it isn't as fast on the road course. And if it is better on the road course (Who knows right now). Then he will argu that it doesn't have a momo steering wheel and brembo brakes. Or that it isn't as fast offroad.
  11. What retard ran the quarter in an MR at 13.3? Please post the link so I can laugh, they are high 12 cars when driven by someone who knows how to drive. The MR is lighter and has a bigger turbo then the standard Evo and you REALLY think it runs the same times? Dont be a dumbass.
  12. Why is it that the Evo and STi are supposedly easy 12-second cars, and yet I typically see them both running high-13's, occasionally into the mid-13's with a kickass launch, and only into the 12's with a few thousand dollars in modifications?

    It's getting so deep in here, I'm afraid I'm going to drown... :rolleyes:

    I have several friends with the above mentioned cars, heck one of them owns BOTH... he'd be awful surprised to know that he should be running 12-second quarter miles...

    Go buy yourself an Evo, or an STi, or whatever, and be done with it. Just don't expect any sympathy when it does not perform as you claim. By the way, isn't it past your bedtime anyway? Better not let your parents find out...
  13. I don't have a link but if you look on page 155 of the October issue of Car and Driver, they have a tested time of 13.4 in the quarter for the EVO MR. 0-60 is 4.7. Your turn! Post a link or reference a magazine test with 12s.

    BTW, they reference their earlier test of the EVO VIII in the article. They quote 13.6/quarter and 5.0/0-60 times.
  14. From R&T's test where they obviosly had someone run it who could drive unlike the sources you have quoted :owned:

    Transmission: 6-speed manual
    Gear ratios: 2.91/ 1.94/ 1.43/ 1.10/ 0.87/ 0.69
    Speed in gears: 43/ 63/ 86/ 112/ 112*/ 112*
    Final drive ratio: 4.58:1
    0-60 mph: 4.3 sec
    0-1320 ft (1/4): 12.9 sec @ 107.6 mph
    Braking 60, 80 mph: 117 ft, 195 ft
    200-ft skid lat. accel: 0.98g w/mild understeer
    700-ft slalom speed: 70.8 mph w/mild understeer

    Here is a link to the article if you would like to read it :nice:
  15. LOL! You're your own worst enemy! Did YOU bother to read the R&T article? It's a review of a Japanese spec EVO MR which isn't available in the US. It produces more power than the US version. That's why the C&D times were slower with the US version. You need to replace that :owned: with a :bs:! Totally pathetic!
  16. oooohhh, 4 more hp, big frickin deal. The Japenese version carries 280 and the US carries 276. If you think 4 hp adds up to half a second difference in the quarter mile you need help.
  17. I'm starting to think I know more about the EVO than you do. The Japanese and Euro spec MRs produce around 305HP not 280. I found that information on Mitsus UK website.
  18. LOL, now THAT is funny. Japan is not allowed to produce cars that carry more than 280 bhp. All you had to do was LOOK at the article I posted from the Japanese version because the hp is right on there too :rolleyes:

    Horsepower (SAE): 280 bhp @ 6500 rpm
    Torque: 295 lb-ft @ 3500 rpm
    Redline: 7000 rpm

  19. And that's been one of the biggest jokes in the auto industry. The law says 280 so that's what they rate them at but it isn't what they actaully produce. Car & Driver had a big article about that several years ago about how the Japanese car companies "fudge" the horsepower ratings. Japanese spec Nissan Skylines with twin turbo 3.0L V6 officially made 280 but performed like cars with 400HP. Ever wonder why? You're so clueless...

    EDIT: Here's some interesting info regarding the "280HP limit":
  20. STFU and buy an EVO, you're annoying as hell.