Not enough power... In 2005

Discussion in '2005 - 2009 Specific Tech' started by CarrollShelby, Aug 17, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Please, I beg you, quit your magazine racing and go drive those two "rockets" you seem so impressed by. The S2000 drives on the street with about as much low-end punch as a Honda CIVIC, it only becomes mildly entertaining at the very top of the RPM range. It's a great little enthusiast car, but if a Mustang was that anemic throughout most of its power curve, the country would be calling for Bill Ford's resignation. AND, it costs over $30K and has only two seats. The SRT-4. First, get your friggin facts straight. BASE MSRP is $20,450. That's with zero options. For that, you get a one-trick pony in my opinion. And my opinion is damn valid, because I've DRIVEN ONE on a road course. It handles like a UPS truck, shifts like a butter churn, the brakes are so anemic that you're into serious fade after only one hard lap, and beyond the white gauges, nice steering wheel and seats, the rest of the interior and car is A CHEAP A$$ NEON. God forbid SRT4LIFE sees this and dives back into the fray. So for a few grand more, the '05 GT is a HUGE bargain compared to the SRT-4, when you look at what you get. These comparisons of yours are simply mind boggling. Why don't you go ahead and **** that the new GT can't hang with the Shelby Omni GLHS that you built :rolleyes:, or for that matter, a Honda CR250 dirtbike..... In any event, you're comparing the Mustang GT to two limited-production niche cars that sell like hot cocoa in Jamaica, and that are likely SLOWER than the upcoming '05 GT nonetheless.... Your car knowledge insults your namesake...
  2. I don't know about the other cars, but you are absolutely right about the S2000. I just drove one the other day (my friend just got one) and it is far from fast. It gives you the illusion of fast the way the car sits, the firmness of the seats and excellent handling, but when you glance down at the spedo, you say, "That's it?!? I'm only going 35?!?!" But, it definately out handles my Mustang, hands down. But, keep in mind, I have a 99 GT Vert with about 350lbs of competition stereo equipment in where the rear seats were and trunk. This could certainly have something to do with the handling aspect. I didn't dislike the S2000.

    Now, about the quarter mile, I have never had either car on a track and I am certainly no race car driver. I don't know which is faster on the track. I yield to the expert advice I find on this forum. I've been to a track and sat in the stands and have seen the same car perform excellently and then horrendously on the next run. Same car. Same driver. Go figure? And, while the S2000 is a fun car to drive, no doubt, I'm all All American Ford lover... I'll stick with my Stang.
  3. those qt times for the srt-4/s2000 are pretty damn funny
  4. Yep, infact I recently saw a stock 04' run 13.9 on stock tires.
  5. ya know i read most of this thread...why i don't know

    anyways my opinion on the 05 GTs power is this

    300Bhp is plenty for the GT remember it wasn't long ago when GTs had only 215Bhp

    But i do have a good idea for all the naysayers in here....just wait until some people start getting these cars and see what kind of times get turned out...i for one am looking foward to the MM&FF drag test until then i will not speculate on what i think the car is capable of

  6. I'm dead set on getting a GT this spring, or maybe the Cobra the following spring, but I've gotta chime in on this one as a 2004 WRX owner. I've got about $1k in mods and run low 13's. I embarrass Mustangs on a daily basis. I'm not saying this to stir things up, I'm just pointing out that on typical street conditions (i.e. not a rubber laden dragstrip where the stangs have drag radials), it's not even challenging.

    As for handling, I'm hoping and praying that the '05 handles as well as it is rumored to. I had the pleasure of driving a vorteched '02 for a week. It only had slight suspension mods. It was a total pig compared to my WRX.

    That said, I don't feel like I'm driving a sports car, so it just isn't as much fun. I like my Subie, I appreciate the AWD when it is rainy or snowy, but in the end it just doesn't make me as happy as I know the '05 GT will. As long as the '05 GT is in the mid to high 13's and handles fairly well, I'll be in a new one this spring. Hopefully with some suspension mods it will become a road course beast. :banana:
  7. I can understand your points completely. My Lightning hauls absolute a$$, with only $600 bucks of bolt-ons that took all of one hour to install. Instant EXTREMELY low 13's with extremely grippy street traction out of a heavy windbrick truck. But it is not a sporty car, it's heavy and clumsy and big, and I still enjoy driving something more sporty. Which brings me to my point.... Can we all agree that ANY factory forced-induction vehicle can be made much faster on the ultra-cheap??? Ease the entry of air, dial up the boost, plug in a prom, and woo-hoo you're picking up almost a second in the 1/4. It's easy. But your post illustrates the fact that there's one hell of alot more to a car than just how quick it goes from zero to whatever. If speed were the only factor, then we'd all ride motorcycles, or drive old gutted out Mavericks with big blocks.
  8. Check here... Idiot!
    S2000... [email protected]/4mile
    SRT-4... [email protected]/4mile
    "03 GT... [email protected]/4mile

    All this figure with the same magazine... Car and Driver!
    This one Mach 1 vs S2000...

    Don't play with the little guy S2000 on race track even if the name is Mach 1...

    Mustang GT 260hp... [email protected]/4mile with this time you better mod's the car!
  9. SVTDRIVER... How much cost a Mach 1 2004? Almost same as a S2000, on a race track it's a rocket... For sure!

    GinoGT... You are the idiot.
  10. Let's race! What magazine do you want? :rolleyes: Those magazine times are crap, I believe Motor Trend couldn't even get an 03 Cobra out of the 13's. Then let's compare the best possible printed time of the competition to the worst possible time of a Mustang.

    Seriously, this is the most :bs: I've ever heard. If you run a 15.1 with a 99+ GT you're a retard, plain and simple.

    I guess my 13.95 with a catted x-pipe is a figment of my imagination. Or you're demented enough to be one of those sheep that think I gained 40HP from it.

    I pray for the day that all of the idiots depart from this world. :notnice:

    Know what you're talking about when you open your mouth, or else you'll get embarassed by someone who does. :owned:
  11. I show you the fact... without mod's!

    And the race track is probably bull ****t too...

    GinoGT... You're a big talker's with no ball's! Poor guy...
  12. yea im calling :bs: on that gt 1/4 mile time, those drivers must blow, i know my stang can get in the mid 14's and it can just keep up with a new gt, as far as the wrx goes i do believe that, those things are fast, neons are freakin gay, nothing but a cheaply made economy car with a few mods, oh and if your grammer is as good as the way you type your probably foreign anyway so your probably biased towards imports in the first place....

    :flame: imports
  13. Yeah, Atco's timing lights are all :bs:


    So say I ran my car bone stock, I would run a 15.1 according to you. But my midpipe took over a full second off my ET? Damn, I didn't know one bolt-on was such a heavy mod. :rolleyes:

    Now take a step back for a second and let all this :bs: you're constantly spreading around sink in. You make no sense, and not a single person here agrees with you. Just stop posting before you humiliate yourself any more.
  14. Magazine racing again?? When will you ever learn? (Dumb question....a more appropriate question would be when will I ever learn debating with lumber). That 15.1 on the '03 GT was a convertible with an automatic transmission. The slowest possible iteration of the GT. I remember the test, a convertible comparo... BRILLIANT of you to use that as your benchmark for GT performance, true genius. As is commonly known, 5-speed 99-04 GT's are 13.9-14.2 machines, varying on driver and conditions. Hell, go to the LS1 forum and they'll confirm that for you. Of course the S2000 is a better handler than a Mach. It should be, it's a purpose-built 2-seat lightweight sportscar!!! We all know that already here, was it some sort of revelation to you? Duh. Did you think you actually found some sort of "slam-dunk" article? Did you notice that the Mach 1 finished AHEAD of the S2000 in the overall test, despite being a 4-seat car with a solid axle and being the cheapest car in the test? And did you also notice that the magazine CONFIRMS ALL OF THE THINGS I SAID in my previous post regarding the S2000? No low-end torque, no mid-range torque, a small power band way up high that only gives you thrust when you're screaming at redline? A better question is, is there anybody home up there? Why don't we start comparing the Mustang to a go-cart or a superbike, it's about as valid a comparo... And did you miss totally the fact that the Mach beat the S2000 in 0-60 acceleration by 1.1 seconds?? That's an absolute stomping by a car that costs less than the S2000, seats 4, and still only got barely nipped on the road course by the much more purpose-built-for-handling S2000 that weighs 500 pounds less.
    And you're still throwing that SRT-4 out there. A $20+ grand Neon, that stock, can't outrun a stock Mustang 5-speed GT in any category, AND IT'S A NEON. I can't wait for Kia to come out with a low 14-second version of their Rio, you'll be the first one in their showroom..

    It's gone from humerous, to irritating, to painful, watching you time and time again chew on your own foot. When you get a driver's license and your face clears up from acne, go test drive these cars you read about in magazines. You'll learn alot....Oh..I forgot, you've got a 2004 100th anniversary Shelby Cobra, modded.... you must be old enough to drive :rolleyes: My bad.
  15. That...from a guy who's sig says
    Substitute "eat" for "eating", dinner for "diner", and "supper" for "souper", and you've at least got a dumba$$ big-talker statement that is spelled correctly...
  16. I'm french Canadian... My english writing is bad! Sorry... But I try to getting better!

    RICKS, thank's for the good spelling... I notice it!
  17. Please, leave us be and just go jerk-off to your magazines.... I pulled this quote from the article you just posted:
    So, you've got an automatic GT with the extremely heavy Mach 1000 soundsystem, a trunk full of amps and subwoofers, and a car with buttloads of extra soundproofing. You truly are an absolute troll, with about as much car knowledge as my mousepad....
  18. lol i told you he was foreign, and he must be rich being able to afford that shelby cobra, so what we have is a french canadian who is probably well off who knows everything about cars, more then all of us obviously, come on french people know everything were just stupid americans! :scratch:

    that was sarcastic by the way :bang:
  19. Exactly! I am very happy with my WRX. It's more than fast enought for me, handles extremely well, solidly built, and has a solid reputation in the racing world.

    Yet the day I saw the picture of the '05 Mustang, it stirred me on the inside! I knew that was the car for me.

    I'm hoping that a grand or two of mods will get me into the low 13's and give great handling. :nice:
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.