2005 Mustang GT numbers don't add up?
02-14-2005, 07:46 PM
#26
Senor Carnegrande
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 871
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some random possibilities:
1) Ford has learned it's lesson and is now underrating it's performance cars instead of overrating them.
2) Peak HP versus Average HP. A good broad average of say, 250 HP from 2k to 6k might very well beat another car which has 270 HP but only from 5k to 7k.
3) Weight distribution--more weight over the drive wheels in one car than another
4) Suspension geometry--solid axles are the best setup for drag racing, period
5) Tires size/compound?
6) Gearing?
7) Drivetrain efficiency?
Personally, I'm inclined to believe reasons #1, #2, and #4.
1) Ford has learned it's lesson and is now underrating it's performance cars instead of overrating them.
2) Peak HP versus Average HP. A good broad average of say, 250 HP from 2k to 6k might very well beat another car which has 270 HP but only from 5k to 7k.
3) Weight distribution--more weight over the drive wheels in one car than another
4) Suspension geometry--solid axles are the best setup for drag racing, period
5) Tires size/compound?
6) Gearing?
7) Drivetrain efficiency?
Personally, I'm inclined to believe reasons #1, #2, and #4.
02-15-2005, 06:39 AM
#28
the Doctor
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bryn Mawr, PA
Posts: 1,783
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by IkeWRX
2 guys have put at least 2 or 3k miles on their turboed 8s, of course they're reliable, there's no other way to explain it 
FYI, in case you haven't figured it out yet, you're one of the guys that has no idea. I'm certainly not going to be the one wasting my time trying to explain something to you, I've tried in the past and it's pointless.
FYI, in case you haven't figured it out yet, you're one of the guys that has no idea. I'm certainly not going to be the one wasting my time trying to explain something to you, I've tried in the past and it's pointless.
02-15-2005, 08:05 AM
#29
Still plays with cars
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have driven the Z and it does not feel like there are 287 hp in there. It doesnt feel any faster than my car.
I found this to be pretty funny. One of my freinds is a salesperson at a Nissan dealer. A guy (who bought a Z from my friend) was waiting for his car in service. He ran into my freind and asked if he knew of any easy ways to make his car faster. The Z was just smoked by a stock SRT-4. :p
I found this to be pretty funny. One of my freinds is a salesperson at a Nissan dealer. A guy (who bought a Z from my friend) was waiting for his car in service. He ran into my freind and asked if he knew of any easy ways to make his car faster. The Z was just smoked by a stock SRT-4. :p
02-15-2005, 10:31 AM
#30
Follower of CHRIST!!!!!!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 3,241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
for speed forget the rx8, 350z, sti. evo, or the mustang gt its all about the 05 GTO 0-60 4.6sec quartermile 13.0sec now thats some stock power!
I just wish that the next GTO come in at 3,400 pounds but NO MORE than that...such a sweet little piggy....lol
If the GTO weighed less, handled better, and looked better (like a RX8) I would have gotten one.
I agree with your #1,2, and 4 theory....something just aint right with a 3500 pound car with 300HP getting 13.5's in the 1.4 mile.
02-15-2005, 11:00 PM
#32
Senor Carnegrande
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 871
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I recall correctly, the current GTO is merely a placeholder until GM designs a new (read: less porky, better styled) RWD coupe platform. I think the new one's due in 2006, as an '07 model.(?)
02-16-2005, 05:39 AM
#33
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: sydney
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dont fret guys.....theres been alot of heated discussions on mustang boards about the slower than expected performance of mustangs. It seems that many mustngs are only achieving very high 13's to mid 14's.
IMHO Ford have been handing mags some under the table incentives.....................just look at the caranddriver article, where the mustang lost nearly all performance categories yet still won over the gto (because of the "gotta have it factor").
IMHO Ford have been handing mags some under the table incentives.....................just look at the caranddriver article, where the mustang lost nearly all performance categories yet still won over the gto (because of the "gotta have it factor").
02-16-2005, 05:54 AM
#34
yes, I bite
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 796
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mrhappy1983
for speed forget the rx8, 350z, sti. evo, or the mustang gt its all about the 05 GTO 0-60 4.6sec quartermile 13.0sec now thats some stock power!
02-16-2005, 07:50 AM
#35
Follower of CHRIST!!!!!!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 3,241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I recall correctly, the current GTO is merely a placeholder until GM designs a new (read: less porky, better styled) RWD coupe platform. I think the new one's due in 2006, as an '07 model.(?)
Chevy really punked out on the Camaro & Firebird...shame on them...
02-16-2005, 10:37 PM
#36
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Kalamazoo, MI
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rx8wannahave
Could it be the next Camaro? Firebird? I like the name GTO and it's history so they should just stick to that while reduceing it's PORK factor by 300 pounds...oh yeah, and making it handle like a proper sports car. Then we are talking....
Chevy really punked out on the Camaro & Firebird...shame on them...
Chevy really punked out on the Camaro & Firebird...shame on them...
02-17-2005, 07:32 AM
#37
Follower of CHRIST!!!!!!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 3,241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What was that? LOL
Yeah, I think they should keep the GTO name....BUT, to compete with Mustang you have to bring back the Camaro because the GTO cost more.
Listen up Chevy, do this:
3350 pounds
2+2 (a la RX8 & GTO "usable" rear seats)
5.7L LS2 V8 325HP (easy to make into 400HP...lol, wink wink)
Price range: $18,000 - 24,000 (to undercut the Mustang by a $1,000)
But, Chevy punked out...and that wont happen...
Meanwhile, the Mustang's numbers still don't add up completely. It's probably making more power than is listed???
Yeah, I think they should keep the GTO name....BUT, to compete with Mustang you have to bring back the Camaro because the GTO cost more.
Listen up Chevy, do this:
3350 pounds
2+2 (a la RX8 & GTO "usable" rear seats)
5.7L LS2 V8 325HP (easy to make into 400HP...lol, wink wink)
Price range: $18,000 - 24,000 (to undercut the Mustang by a $1,000)
But, Chevy punked out...and that wont happen...
Meanwhile, the Mustang's numbers still don't add up completely. It's probably making more power than is listed???
02-17-2005, 10:21 AM
#38
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Kalamazoo, MI
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rx8wannahave
What was that? LOL
Yeah, I think they should keep the GTO name....BUT, to compete with Mustang you have to bring back the Camaro because the GTO cost more.
Listen up Chevy, do this:
3350 pounds
2+2 (a la RX8 & GTO "usable" rear seats)
5.7L LS2 V8 325HP (easy to make into 400HP...lol, wink wink)
Price range: $18,000 - 24,000 (to undercut the Mustang by a $1,000)
But, Chevy punked out...and that wont happen...
Meanwhile, the Mustang's numbers still don't add up completely. It's probably making more power than is listed???
Yeah, I think they should keep the GTO name....BUT, to compete with Mustang you have to bring back the Camaro because the GTO cost more.
Listen up Chevy, do this:
3350 pounds
2+2 (a la RX8 & GTO "usable" rear seats)
5.7L LS2 V8 325HP (easy to make into 400HP...lol, wink wink)
Price range: $18,000 - 24,000 (to undercut the Mustang by a $1,000)
But, Chevy punked out...and that wont happen...
Meanwhile, the Mustang's numbers still don't add up completely. It's probably making more power than is listed???
No one can seem to explain the Mustang numbers.
I think the gearing is really aggressive but I'm not sure. Most of the mag's seem to suggest it'll hang with the GTO, but I've seen stories to suggest that those numbers aren't correct. Who knows.....
02-17-2005, 10:25 AM
#39
Blue By You
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 8,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rx8wannahave
Meanwhile, the Mustang's numbers still don't add up completely. It's probably making more power than is listed???
02-18-2005, 09:45 AM
#40
Normality is Obscene
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: AL/GA...you pick
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DreRX8
uhhmm--don't think so--per nissans website--I didn't see where the Track models are also 300HP, that would makes perfect sense though as the Z really lacks the upper end for the track--BTW its not 300FWHP--its 300 HP at the crank--the Zs pull between 230 and 241 or so RWHP.
FWHP = FLYWHEEL HORSEPOWER<>not FRONT WHEEL..or as you say.."at the crank...everyone knows the Z is RWD, i owned a freaking SMZ....no manufacturer posts hp on the rear wheels...
so YOUR WRONG..smarty pants...i rest my case...next time you put up an arguement...RESEARCH...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Jesus Martinez
Series I Aftermarket Performance Modifications
72
07-26-2023 11:29 PM
akagc
RX-8's For Sale/Wanted
7
08-11-2015 07:07 PM
