LS1GTO Forums banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
DAAAT'S RIGHT
Joined
·
1,650 Posts
I have to side with the stang guys on this one. I will have to see it to believe. I'm sure we will find out soon
 

·
Doc, Just Doc
Joined
·
8,767 Posts
One more reason for heads/cam or S/C!!!

Doc

That way it just dosen't matter. . .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
113 Posts
Doc GTO said:
One more reason for heads/cam or S/C!!!

Doc

That way it just dosen't matter. . .
Until you run up against a heads/camS or power adder Stang...... :cool:
 

·
Doc, Just Doc
Joined
·
8,767 Posts
WhiteTXMach said:
Until you run up against a heads/camS or power adder Stang...... :cool:
No worries. Win or lose it's all in the name of fun!

Doc

Of course, winning is better . . . :sneaky:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,214 Posts
Hold up on this one. We've got a bunch of different stuff going around here. Mustang dyno of M5 shows ~250s which would put it right on a Mach1 and still under a LS1. Then we got claims a A5 runs 13.60 (which i also am skeptical). We all know, or should know what a Mach1 can run and i find it hard to believe that a 05 GT just walks away. Same power and a little more weight = ? Not to mention a 4.10 equiped NA cobra is no slouch either, especially from a roll in the right gear.

Info on the drivers would be nice. I don't buy the fact that the 05 GT walks mach1s now stock, but we'll see.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
113 Posts
Blitzu said:
Hold on here... I am the only one that realizes the new 05 mustang has the same 4.6 liter motor it has always had just tweaked to 300 HP???? And what great act of god could cause it to be faster than a 390 HP cobra?? LMAO... these Ford nuts are too much.
Its not the same 4.6L, its now a 3V instead of a 2V
 

·
Can't have enough V8s
Joined
·
1,932 Posts
New Motor trend ran an 05 GT Auto to [email protected]+mph I think 0-60 was 5.1 seconds. They said the auto tranny was geared for accelleration in 1-2 and fuel economy for the top gears. They also said they plan on a head=head with the 05 GTO when they get one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
113 Posts
There is a LOT of hype about the new GT......................................I just hope it turns out to be true. The poor GT's have been lacking in power for a while now.
 

·
IXLR8
Joined
·
476 Posts
Blitzu said:
Hold on here... I am the only one that realizes the new 05 mustang has the same 4.6 liter motor it has always had just tweaked to 300 HP???? And what great act of god could cause it to be faster than a 390 HP cobra?? LMAO... these Ford nuts are too much.

The test was against an 01 cobra. Last time I checked they werent 390hp
 

·
NFC Champs
Joined
·
883 Posts
Blitzu said:
The 01 cobra wasn't anything special... especially if it didn't get fixed. Who cares about it pulling from a 01 cobra.
The 99 Cobra was the one that needed the fix. That's why there wasn't a 2000 model, other than the Cobra R.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
38 Posts
Adam4356 said:
Hold up on this one. We've got a bunch of different stuff going around here. Mustang dyno of M5 shows ~250s which would put it right on a Mach1 and still under a LS1.
The 254rwhp/278rwtq figure came from Livernois Motorsports. A Mustang Dyno was used for testing.
Stock ‘03/’04 Cobras usually dyno in the 330rwhp range on a Mustang Dyno, and 360+rwhp on a Dynojet.
This link explains the difference between a Mustang Dyno and a Dynojet. Pretty simple…the Mustang Dyno uses an eddy current motor that simulates load as the car is accelerated.
Chevy High Performance did a Mustang Dyno and Dynojet comparison, which clearly illustrated the differences.
This is an interesting link. It shows a Mustang Dyno sheet for a Mach I and compares the same car on a Dynojet. Interesting data.
An LS1 owner in this thread made 274rwhp on a Mustang Dyno.
While 254rwhp on a Mustang dyno is lower than what an LS1 will make...the delta isn't nearly as great as some may think. The general concensus is that a Mustang Dyno gives figures around 8-10% below those achieved on a Dynojet 248c. That would put this '05 GT in the 270-280rwhp SAE range on a Dynojet. Seems pretty high, and I'm surprised at those numbers, but time will tell.
Adam4356 said:
Then we got claims a A5 runs 13.60 (which i also am skeptical). We all know, or should know what a Mach1 can run and i find it hard to believe that a 05 GT just walks away.
The claim was a Motor Trend road test. The same mag that went [email protected] in an M6 '04 GTO, a "claim" that has been referenced with regularity for over a year.

Sounds like the '05 GT's are going to run pretty well.
S.
 

·
Ludicrous Speed!
Joined
·
1,041 Posts
Only issue I wonder about is how tweaked the car was from Ford that was supplied for the testing. As mentioned, it is a heavier car than the SN95 Mustangs, and the power is equivalent to the Mach 1. So how can it run faster? Idunno.

Though one of our customers has an '04 Competition Orange auto Mach 1 that ran 13.6 with just a K&N drop in filter, no other mods. I was with him at Orlando Speedworld, so it is no urban myth. There are always factory freak cars, no matter what make, that run much better than other identical year/models.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
113 Posts
2Cool said:
Only issue I wonder about is how tweaked the car was from Ford that was supplied for the testing. As mentioned, it is a heavier car than the SN95 Mustangs, and the power is equivalent to the Mach 1. So how can it run faster? Idunno.

Though one of our customers has an '04 Competition Orange auto Mach 1 that ran 13.6 with just a K&N drop in filter, no other mods. I was with him at Orlando Speedworld, so it is no urban myth. There are always factory freak cars, no matter what make, that run much better than other identical year/models.
13.6 for a stock Mach 1 is not a factory freak.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
38 Posts
2Cool said:
Only issue I wonder about is how tweaked the car was from Ford that was supplied for the testing. As mentioned, it is a heavier car than the SN95 Mustangs, and the power is equivalent to the Mach 1. So how can it run faster? Idunno.

Though one of our customers has an '04 Competition Orange auto Mach 1 that ran 13.6 with just a K&N drop in filter, no other mods. I was with him at Orlando Speedworld, so it is no urban myth. There are always factory freak cars, no matter what make, that run much better than other identical year/models.
Why would you say the car was "tweaked"? A sidebar in the article stated the car put down, through a 5-speed automatic, 267rwhp.
Steeda dyno'd a 5-speed and it made over 270rwhp.
Livernois Motorsport dyno'd a 5-speed and it made 254rwhp...on a Mustang Dyno..
Also, the '05's weigh marginally more than a the '99-'04 cars...as in less than 50lbs., which is negligible.

Well driven stock Mach 1's go low-13's. Over and over again it's been done.
S.
 

·
NFC Champs
Joined
·
883 Posts
Actually there is a Magnaflow rep on Stangnet that witnessed the Magnaflow test car (for development purposes ;)) put about 2 lengths on a Mach 1 from a roll. As I recall, both cars were manual trannys.

It seems that there are too many factory freaks running around for claiming flukes now. As soon as SN is up and running again, I'll do a search for that thread in the 2005+ Mustang section.

Found the link: http://forums.stangnet.net/showthread.php?t=505652
 

·
Ludicrous Speed!
Joined
·
1,041 Posts
13.6 at Orlando Spinworld... err... Speedworld, is indeed a "factory freak" Mach 1. The track and the operators are cheap and minimal prep is the norm. Proven fact that a time at Spinworld is .2 to .5 slower than at Moroso or Bradenton.

Let me add in that I am a long time Ford owner, and still own a KB equipped '90 GT, so don't assume I am bashing here.
 

·
10 sec club
Joined
·
471 Posts
2Cool said:
13.6 at Orlando Spinworld... err... Speedworld, is indeed a "factory freak" Mach 1. The track and the operators are cheap and minimal prep is the norm. Proven fact that a time at Spinworld is .2 to .5 slower than at Moroso or Bradenton.

Let me add in that I am a long time Ford owner, and still own a KB equipped '90 GT, so don't assume I am bashing here.
Poor track prep can be overcome by pure driving skill alone - a stronger-than-average car isn't required.

Now, if that 13.6 had a 109 mph trap speed to go with it,
then I'd agree that particular Mach might be a "freak".

Personally, I don't consider a Mach 1 to be a "factory freak" until it runs 13.00 or quicker.
Way too many stock Mach 1's have run 13.1X - 13.3X to call a 13.6X pass out of the ordinary or special...
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top