New GT500 Clicks Off 12.70s @ 116 mph

Big Al wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...

> > Being able to build a car that's faster/quicker than the factory, and
> > do it for cheaper, has _always_ been the case. However, there has
> > never been a factory-stock Mustang that performs anywhere near as well
> > as the new GT500.

> Don't blame me.

Blame you for what?

> Ford should have built the W code

And that's... what?

Patrick

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Big Al wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
>
> > > Being able to build a car that's faster/quicker than the factory, and
> > > do it for cheaper, has _always_ been the case. However, there has
> > > never been a factory-stock Mustang that performs anywhere near as well
> > > as the new GT500.
>
> > Don't blame me.
>
> Blame you for what?
>
> > Ford should have built the W code
>
> And that's... what?
>
> Patrick
>

I thought that was supposed to be the 68 427 FE 425 HP dual quad Mustang??
That's from long ago memories and may be 100% wrong.

Al

Big Al wrote:

> > > > Being able to build a car that's faster/quicker than the factory, and
> > > > do it for cheaper, has _always_ been the case. However, there has
> > > > never been a factory-stock Mustang that performs anywhere near as well
> > > > as the new GT500.

> > > Don't blame me.

> > Blame you for what?

> > > Ford should have built the W code

> > And that's... what?

> I thought that was supposed to be the 68 427 FE 425 HP dual quad Mustang??
> That's from long ago memories and may be 100% wrong.

Could be, I don't know.

As for using a early/mid 60's designed engine, I say forget that.
Technology marches on. Put a Ford version of what's under the hood of
the new Corvette Z06 -- 427 cubes, all aluminum block/heads, and fuel
injection -- 505 horses/125 mph trap speeds.

Patrick

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Big Al wrote:
>
> > > > > Being able to build a car that's faster/quicker than the factory,
and
> > > > > do it for cheaper, has _always_ been the case. However, there
has
> > > > > never been a factory-stock Mustang that performs anywhere near as
well
> > > > > as the new GT500.
>
> > > > Don't blame me.
>
> > > Blame you for what?
>
> > > > Ford should have built the W code
>
> > > And that's... what?
>
> > I thought that was supposed to be the 68 427 FE 425 HP dual quad
Mustang??
> > That's from long ago memories and may be 100% wrong.
>
> Could be, I don't know.
>
> As for using a early/mid 60's designed engine, I say forget that.
> Technology marches on. Put a Ford version of what's under the hood of
> the new Corvette Z06 -- 427 cubes, all aluminum block/heads, and fuel
> injection -- 505 horses/125 mph trap speeds.
>
> Patrick
>

I would think, except for displacement, the Ford dual overhead cam 4.6L
"should" be a better design. But in the real world they suck. Last night at
the drags I watched the newer GT's in action. I know, they are not DOHC's,
but they are sad cars when compared to the old school 5.0's. We have touched
on this subject before Patrick. By all rights and the magazine tests, this
shouldn't be true. At the drags it is true. Somewhere in my car is time slip
with a new GT I ran in time trials. A whopping 16.9 second ET. About the
same as a new Caliber. Last night was test-n-tune. Some kid in a SRT-4 Neon
bested a Cobra twice. Since I can't tell them apart I don't know if it was
supercharged or not, but still the Neon ran 14.4 the second time. And, a
Dodge crew cab pickup beat a newer GT. How embarrassing.

Some guy with more money than sense ran a brand new Mercedes E55. 12.74
first pass. Came back and ran a 12.81. At 3000 feet with bad air. Not bad
for real world performance. With 4 doors and an automatic to boot.

Al

Big Al wrote:

> > > I thought that was supposed to be the 68 427 FE 425 HP dual quad
> > > Mustang?? That's from long ago memories and may be 100% wrong.

> > Could be, I don't know.

> > As for using a early/mid 60's designed engine, I say forget that.
> > Technology marches on. Put a Ford version of what's under the hood of
> > the new Corvette Z06 -- 427 cubes, all aluminum block/heads, and fuel
> > injection -- 505 horses/125 mph trap speeds.

> I would think, except for displacement, the Ford dual overhead cam 4.6L
> "should" be a better design. But in the real world they suck. Last night at
> the drags I watched the newer GT's in action. I know, they are not DOHC's,
> but they are sad cars when compared to the old school 5.0's. We have touched
> on this subject before Patrick. By all rights and the magazine tests, this
> shouldn't be true. At the drags it is true. Somewhere in my car is time slip
> with a new GT I ran in time trials. A whopping 16.9 second ET.

Al,

I'd like to believe my old 5.0 is quicker/faster, but the truth is the
new 3-valve GTs can run me into the ground. Stick versions are at
least as quick as the previous generation Mach 1s -- about 13.60s @
103. Slip in a custom chip and toss out some weight and they've posted
very high 12s at 106-107.

It was the same story that was happening when the fuelie 5-oh debuted.
Some folks could get them to run low 14s/high 13's at 97-99 mph, while
others could only get lower/mid 90s at 93-95. People argued about the
numbers but it was just driver ability, elevation, track conditions
and/or weather.

> About the same as a new Caliber. Last night was test-n-tune. Some kid in a SRT-4
> Neon bested a Cobra twice. Since I can't tell them apart I don't know if it was
> supercharged or not, but still the Neon ran 14.4 the second time.

The SRT-4 runs a turbo. They're good for high 13s at 101-103. Tuned a
little 105-106 is pretty easy. The Terminator ('03-'04) Cobras are
nasty beasts. You can tell them apart from the lesser 4-valve Cobras
from the way they're hunkered down over their much wider tires.
They'll run low 13s/high 12's between 108-112 mph.

> And, a Dodge crew cab pickup beat a newer GT. How embarrassing.

** The thing to look at when comparing the timeslips between all these
vehicles are not the ETs, but the trap speeds.** Sure they can vary
from driver to driver, but they're a better indicator of power than the
ETs.

> Some guy with more money than sense ran a brand new Mercedes E55. 12.74
> first pass. Came back and ran a 12.81. At 3000 feet with bad air. Not bad
> for real world performance. With 4 doors and an automatic to boot.

Hey, if you can afford to buy it, you should be able to afford to fix
it.

Patrick

"Big Al" > wrote in message
...
>
> Somewhere in my car is time slip
> with a new GT I ran in time trials. A whopping 16.9 second ET. About the
> same as a new Caliber.

Found the time slip. I lied

Here is the Mustang's time slip:

60' 2.674
330' 6.990
1/8 10.600 @ 66.92
1000' 13.684
1/4 16.369 @ 81.85

Al

"Big Al" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Big Al" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Somewhere in my car is time slip
>> with a new GT I ran in time trials. A whopping 16.9 second ET. About the
>> same as a new Caliber.
>
> Found the time slip. I lied
>
> Here is the Mustang's time slip:
>
> 60' 2.674
> 330' 6.990
> 1/8 10.600 @ 66.92
> 1000' 13.684
> 1/4 16.369 @ 81.85
>
> Al

FINALLY! Someone in a Mustang with a slower time than mine!

Seriously, though, he crossed the line at less than 82mph? Did he go
sideways on the launch or something?

dwight

dwight wrote:
> "Big Al" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Big Al" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Somewhere in my car is time slip
>>> with a new GT I ran in time trials. A whopping 16.9 second ET. About the
>>> same as a new Caliber.
>> Found the time slip. I lied
>>
>> Here is the Mustang's time slip:
>>
>> 60' 2.674
>> 330' 6.990
>> 1/8 10.600 @ 66.92
>> 1000' 13.684
>> 1/4 16.369 @ 81.85
>>
>> Al
>
> FINALLY! Someone in a Mustang with a slower time than mine!
>
> Seriously, though, he crossed the line at less than 82mph? Did he go
> sideways on the launch or something?

I finally got the urge to take my car to Englishtown and see what it
would do in the 1/4 (chipped 2.7L twin turbo A6). They paired me with a
guy in a (he said) stock 2005 GT convertible. I ran a 13.7 and he ran
somewhere in the mid-15's. He was a bit surprised, to say the least.
I'm not sure what was the bigger surprise...being in the mid-15's or
getting spanked by a 2 ton family sedan. :-)

I figure that had I launched more aggressively, not had a full tank of
gas, removed the spare...blah blah...I might have shaved another tenth
or three. I was pleasantly surprised. The Mustang guy sheepishly said
something about getting a blower. :-)

Cheers,

dwight wrote:

> >> Somewhere in my car is time slip
> >> with a new GT I ran in time trials. A whopping 16.9 second ET. About the
> >> same as a new Caliber.

> > Found the time slip. I lied

> > Here is the Mustang's time slip:

> > 60' 2.674
> > 330' 6.990
> > 1/8 10.600 @ 66.92
> > 1000' 13.684
> > 1/4 16.369 @ 81.85

Look at thge pitiful 60-foot time; that's telling you something. Al,
they're easy 13-second cars, they just need a decent driver.

Have you driven one? They pull hard.

> FINALLY! Someone in a Mustang with a slower time than mine!

> Seriously, though, he crossed the line at less than 82mph? Did he go
> sideways on the launch or something?

He was racing at altitude. How high up, Al...5,000 feet?

Patrick

"Big Al" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Big Al" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> Here is the Mustang's time slip:
>
> 60' 2.674
> 330' 6.990
> 1/8 10.600 @ 66.92
> 1000' 13.684
> 1/4 16.369 @ 81.85
>

My opinion; Inexperience, coupled with a fear of flooring the accelerator.

I've seen some pretty poor 60' times at the track from the new GTs, but
never seen a crappier ET or trap speed. Maybe there was a kitten jammed
under the gas pedal.

They are running fairly consistently in the mid-high 13s at New England,
with the only real crappy times I've seen coming from a poorly launched
automatic.
--
John C.
'03 Cobra Convt.