ModernMuscleCars.net - Modern Muscle Cars Archive

Pages: 1

UPDATE for the '05 Mustang GT
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: Grape Ape

New update found on the Corral. Same car as before.

05 goes 13.605

dropped air pressure in tires to 25psi and cut a 1.90 sixty . shifted at 5900,5900, and 5500. 3750#'s with me(240). high humidity, about 65 degree's outside, decent cooldown. i made three runs , 13.60,13.63, and 13.67, all better than last week. i have one more week before the track closes to get that 13.50 that i'm after. all runs were over 100 mph

R/T ... .156
60' ... 1.907
330 ... 5.597
1/8 ... 8.695
MPH ... 79.43
1000 ... 11.350
1/4 ... 13.605
MPH ... 100.08

I don't mind this thread "taking off" at all, and encourage it. But this time, let's not ruin it with ridiculous rhetoric. This is about the 2005 Mustang GT... Not some other car. I know I sound like an ass, but... so.

Posted by: LS1JAY

That guy sure has a nice reaction time!

Or... was that a pro tree? I kinda doubt it!

I refuse to say anything else on that matter being that it's a Rust... er, I mean Mustang!

Not bad! :flip:

Posted by: Tang

They got about dead on with the HP rating huh ?

You Entered:
Vehicle Weight - 3750 (lbs)
Trap Speed - 100.08 (mph)
Drivetrain Loss - 15 (%)

Results:
Rear Wheel HP - 255.2
Crankshaft HP - 300.2

Posted by: EvilLS1

Thats a better ET but I still think the trap speed should be higher. For a 280 rwhp car that ET should be the average with the really good drivers running 13.1-13.3 instead of the average being low 14s and good drivers getting 13.6-13.8. Thats about what the 99-04 GTs were running. The 05 GT has more hp so it should be noticibly quicker.

I like the new body style so much that I was actually considering a new GT for my next car. But after seeing the 1/4 mile times that people are reporting I've pretty much changed my mind. I won't buy anything thats a step backwards (performance wise) from the car that I already have.

{edit}

Quote:


	Vehicle Weight - 3750 (lbs)

Do the new GTs weigh that much? If so, that would explain it.

Anyway, hopefully when the Cobra comes out it'll be atleast a mid 12 second car.

Posted by: Tang

Quote:

Originally Posted by EvilLS1


	Do the new GTs weigh that much? If so, that would explain it.

Quote:


	dropped air pressure in tires to 25psi and cut a 1.90 sixty . shifted at 5900,5900, and 5500. 3750#'s with me(240).

See above

But where did you hear 280rwhp ?

300HP x .85 = 255rwhp

Posted by: EvilLS1

I've seen dynos posted over at FvC and other boards showing 280 rwhp. For a minute I thought maybe Ford pulled one of GMs tricks and under-rated it.

Posted by: Tang

Quote:

Originally Posted by EvilLS1


	I've seen dynos posted over at FvC and other boards showing 280 rwhp. For a minute I thought maybe Ford pulled one of GMs tricks and under-rated it.

There may be a few ringers, but I think the car being tested that Grape keep's posting, is right on about 300 at the flywheel.

Posted by: Grape Ape

I think it's more powerful than you do Kennis. I think Evil's right in that many dyno reports are showing 270+rwhp. The car keeps getting HEAVIER!! I'm wondering about this one. That guys' supposedly big, but HOW big? I've read they weigh as little as 3385 and now, as much as 3750 w/ driver.

Whatever they weigh, it's clear to me that people across the country think they should be faster, particularly in mph. I bet that car won't be the quickest stock one we hear about in the end. After Jeremy M. took one to 13.7's his 1st night out, in near 80 degree weather, with humidity surely in the same area or higher, ON Moroso, I'll expect that car to run at least 13.50's before it's modified... On the other hand, the guys at UPR, especially Jeremy, tend to get "mod happy" and so... It won't shock me to see a supercharger on the darned thing next week. I truly HOPE NOT, but couldbe that it happens.

Posted by: Tang

His weight is stated right there, 240lb

Also Rob, if it was lighter than that, and was making 270+rwhp, the trap speeds would be a hell of a lot higher than 100.

Posted by: Grape Ape

But Kennis, trap speeds are based on more than weight and hp alone. 3.55 gears don't help much with these engines because they still need high rpm to reach their peak hp and tq. In turn, they can cover alotta ground enroute high mph. Plus, if the ECM is controlling things as we know it can, there may be a specific input to limit acceleration capabilities after a given mph, say 75. I don't know if I want that to be the case or not, because it will end up being a cost effective "fix" while at the same time requiring a modification from stock to do the fix.

I fully expect to see sub 13.5 second ET's regularly when racing conditions overall are "prime" instead of what we've been seeing.

Many people are still saying the automatic is quicker than the Tremec version, but I'll wait for more conclusive results. We simply haven't seen enough of these cars on the track to conclude their ET's IMO.

Posted by: Tang

There was a guy at Stangnet claiming 13.2 @ 105 on a 2.0 , in a stock Auto version. It got called for BS pretty quick tho.

Maybe the auto in these things will be as effective as the auto in the last F-Body's. A high stall converter may equal another 1/2 second for them if that is the case.

Posted by: EvilLS1

We should see some good ETs posted from lots of people after this weekend. High pressure and cool temps have covered most of the US all weekend. Prime weather for drag racing. The barometric pressure is 30.63 at Steele right now.

Too bad the track is closed.

Posted by: Grape Ape

Might be, but like you said, that claim was considered bogus by most of us. If the guy kept in touch and/or posted the timeslip or a video(particularly of his next time out), it would surely be more believable. At this point, I think only a video will be conclusive enough. They might even need to tape it from the staging lanes till it returns, showing as much of the engine as possible so that others believe it's not modified!!

With that, it could still drop 1/2 second or so with a converter, but I don't think there's one available yet and it WON'T be cheap if/when it is.

Posted by: LS1JAY

Is Ford still using the same old AOD?

Posted by: Grape Ape

No Jay. I've read they now use the S555E or S555S or something... Anyway, it's basically the same transmission used in the Ranger and Explorer with the 4.0L engine, now in both models of the Mustang. The AOD is probably bigger, but weight is likely similar, because the new one uses "split-gear" technology, which has been around for several years, but the Big Three just started using it, or at least Chrysler and Ford now do. I'm not sure about GM. This automatic is a 5spd though. Cofused yet?

Posted by: LS1JAY

I just hope it's a better automatic than the AOD's were!

Posted by: Grape Ape

Supposedly these have been tested under seriously stressful conditions and hold much better. OF course, it's been in use for years now, so they SHOULD have any bugs worked out long ago.

Posted by: crazy02horse

ok guys i have an 02 GT and ive never lost to an 05 i was going to buy one but the performance was very dissapointing. 30,000 plus damn go get a used vette. Ford needs to go back to the drawing boards

Posted by: VETTKLR

shit, that 3-valve motor is gonna fly, you just watch.

I remember the days when all the 302 guys would cuss the 4.6 liter engine just like in your 02 GT. These days, the mod motors are putting down some pretty respectable numbers.

Give the aftermarket some time to play around with this new setup and it's on like Donkey Kong.

Welcome to the site, by the way.

Posted by: Tang

Thats Killa, always optimistic about the 4.6 fuck ups...lol

Posted by: Grape Ape

I'm not crazy about the Ford 4.6 myself, preferring the 5.4 a whole bunch more. However, with any woes it has, it's far and away a superior engine to the old A50 blocked 302, particularly in DOHC form and clearly in 2003/4 Cobra form. While it really needs DOHC heads to outpower the 302HO's abilities and currently costs more to build in racing fashion, the block itself is leaps and bounds ahead. Once it can breathe properly, the 302 is all washed up. The same can be said of nearly all, if not all non big block OHV engines made. Those with a possibility of "besting" it all cost far more to replicate the output and all happen to be quite a bit larger.

Back to the Forums