wtf is car and driver smoking

Discussion in '2005 - 2014 S-197 Mustang -General/Talk-' started by Stangman_X, Jun 20, 2004.

  1. car and driver specs for mustang(they are idiots)

    Mustang Standing 1/4-mile 14.1–15.5 sec ....... had to be a grandpa driving the car or some retarded kid


    Vehicle type: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 4-passenger, 2-door coupe

    Estimated base price: $18,000

    Major standard accessories: power windows and locks; remote locking; A/C; cruise control; tilting steering wheel; rear defroster

    Base sound system: Ford AM/FM radio/CD player, 4 speakers

    Type V-6, iron block and aluminum heads
    Bore x stroke 3.95 x 3.32 in, 100.4 x 84.4mm
    Displacement 245 cu in, 4009cc
    Compression ratio 9.7:1
    Fuel-delivery system port injection
    Valve gear chain-driven single overhead cams, 2 valves per cylinder, hydraulic lifters
    Power (SAE net) 202 bhp @ 5250 rpm
    Torque (SAE net) 235 lb-ft @ 3500 rpm
    Redline 5750 rpm

    Type V-8, aluminum block and heads
    Bore x stroke 3.55 x 3.54 in, 90.2 x 90.0mm
    Displacement 281 cu in, 4601cc
    Compression ratio 9.8:1
    Fuel-delivery system port injection
    Valve gear chain-driven single overhead cams, 3 valves per cylinder, hydraulic lifters, variable intake- and exhaust-valve timing
    Power (SAE net) 300 bhp @ 6000 rpm
    Torque (SAE net) 315 lb-ft @ 4500 rpm
    Redline 6000 rpm

    Transmissions 5-speed manual, 5-speed automatic
    Final-drive ratio 3.31:1

    Wheelbase 107.1 in
    Track, front/rear 62.3–62.8/62.5–63.0 in
    Length/width/height 187.6/72.1/54.5 in
    Ground clearance 5.7–5.8 in
    Curb weight 3300–3500 lb
    Weight distribution, F/R 53.0/47.0%
    Curb weight per horsepower 11.7–16.3 lb
    Fuel capacity 16.0 gal

    Type unit construction
    Body material welded steel stampings

    SAE volume, front seat 53 cu ft
    rear seat 33 cu ft
    luggage 12 cu ft
    Front-seat adjustments fore-and-aft, seatback angle, height (optional); driver only: lumbar support
    Restraint systems, front manual 3-point belts, driver and passenger front and side airbags
    rear manual 3-point belts

    Front ind, strut located by a control arm, coil springs, anti-roll bar
    Rear rigid axle located by 3 trailing links and a Panhard rod, coil springs, anti-roll bar

    Type rack-and-pinion with hydraulic power assist
    Steering ratio 15.8:1
    Turns lock-to-lock 2.8–3.1
    Turning circle curb-to-curb 34.4–34.7 ft

    Type hydraulic with vacuum power assist and anti-lock control
    Front 11.5–12.4 x 1.2-in vented disc
    Rear 11.8 x 0.7-in vented disc

    Wheel size base, 7.0 x 16 in; GT, 8.0 x 17; opt GT, 9.0 x 18 in
    Wheel type cast aluminum
    Tires base, BFGoodrich Traction T/A, P215/65TR-16; GT, Pirelli, P235/55WR-17; opt GT, BFGoodrich g-Force T/A KDW2, P255/45ZR-18

    Zero to 60 mph 5.3–7.5 sec
    Standing 1/4-mile 14.1–15.5 sec
    Top speed (governor limited) 118–150 mph

    EPA city driving 18–20 mpg
    EPA highway driving 24–29 mpg
  2. crack and lots of it unless those are auto numbers and then they are still very high
  3. VERY VERY conservative estimates. THe current 260HP GT runs 13.9-14.1 I expect the extra 40HP should put the new GT in the 13.6-13.7 range.
  4. the 05 mustang weighs more so it wont be THAT fast. id expect it to be around the same time.
  5. 14.1 is probably an accurate estimate for a typical amateur driver in street trim. Say what you want about the current GT running 13.9 to 14.1, but that simply isn't TYPICAL. I have seen a Mach1 break into the 13's ONCE, more typical is mid-14's. And I've seen so many 99+ GT's running in the low 15's it's laughable. It's all about the driver, and 95% of all amateur drag racers will be lucky to see 13's in any stock non-Cobra Mustang. Even '03 Cobras typically only see low-mid 13's for most folks until drag radials come into play.

  6. how about those V6 numbers in 1/4 mile? Are those Correct for a good driver?
  7. actually the new stangs are gonna be couple hundred pounds less because off the alluminum engine and new bodyframe look at the old curb weight for the older bodystyle Curb weight 3100–3700 lb new estimated curb weight goes through 3500 and 200 pounds makes a helluva difference

    with quarter mile eta calulater with 17% drivetrain loss lets average 3400 for the weight and 300 flywheel hrsp it came out at 13.8 not bad i guess
  8. if you guys are regular readers of C&D, you will notice that these are estimated numbers, which historically are conservitive. their test will get faster times. they may not be able to get the fastest times out of the car, but they are very consistent for comparisons sakes. stop freaking out guys. besides, I think this article was in print a couple of months ago, before the journalists were allowed to get driving time.
  9. Yup, the V6 should be a mid 15's car.

    The new Stangs are a bit bigger and heavier. The 2005 Mustang GT curb weight is 3475, the old mustang GT is just under 3400
  10. You have to remember that "Car and Driver" can only make a BMW go fast and they simply don't like American cars... They had nothing good to say about the Mach-1 when it was introduced. Their magazine is full of :bs: and that is why I ended my subscription LONG ago.
  11. Live by the magazine, then die by the magazine. Real racing is all that counts.
  12. Which is why the Focus has made their Top Ten list, right?

    They're estimated numbers. If they're going by the numbers only, and rumors have come out that the horsepower is under-rated, so that might be a problem. I was also reading a post on here about how the stock 235mm width tires are going to be a problem in terms of getting the power to the ground without breaking the tires loose. *shrug* Don't count your chickens before they hatch? :)
  13. You my friend are completely wrong. The Focus is arguably not an American car, other than names sake. As for the tires, 235's couldn't hold my stock '70 2 barrel from getting loose, and thats with over 50 less horsepower. It's ashame they're not getting the sickly 275 street trim such as WS6's and such, hopefully the Cobra's will have it.

    What is pathetic about C&D is the pathetic pansies writing in about how they won't consider the 'stang for it's lack of IRS. The whole reason they went back to solid is because of people wanting to have a real car. Sorry for those of you with IRS, I just won't ever like it.

  14. The '05 wont come close to my 13.1 STOCK Mach 1
  15. I think a pretty good driver will be running mid 13s in a new GT. There are a talented few who can get 13.7s out of basically stock 99+ cars! If that article talking about 290+ rwhp was true they should be good for low 13s. :shrug:
  16. Wait for a 5.0 or mm&ff test drive. They know how to drive them and will get the ral #'s. If anyone is an avid reader of mm&ff you will remember in 2002 they ran a bone stock 02 gt 13.71.
  17. Don't worry, your Mach will still be a nice car, even if the '05 GT is faster and better looking.

  18. lol someones confident, to bad you have no real proof to go on official #'s laff, cant wait too see real #'s other than C&D's crap
  19. C&D just had a cover feature in which they chose a Mazdaspeed Miata over a Factory Five AC Cobra kit car, by almost 2 to 1 (the one with the Lotus Elise... I can almost understand taking an Elise over a Cobra, they're both rare and the Elise is amazing, but a MIATA?!?!). They even said that the Miata had twice the "Gotta Have It" factor... we're comparaing a Miata to a freaking Shelby Cobra here. I lost faith in them pretty much instantly with that article.
  20. What gets me is when they test a car. Then despite it losing in most of the catagories. They give it the number 1 position in the "Challenge"