New GT500 Clicks Off 12.70s @ 116 mph

"John C." > wrote in message
news:glflg.5826$XJ4.2294@trndny02...
>
> "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.
>

Please clarify this. Are you saying completely stock 4.6's with stock tires
are running mid 13's?? It's not April first is it?

Al

"Big Al" > wrote in message
...
>
> Please clarify this. Are you saying completely stock 4.6's with stock
tires
> are running mid 13's?? It's not April first is it?
>
The one I *know* is 100% stock ran 13.8s at 100 mph. This car came straight
from the dealership to the track.

The one I've driven has been "chipped", otherwise all stock. It's run 13.6
at just under 102 mph with my 200 lbs. aboard.

I only go when the conditions are favorable, so I'm probably seeing the best
of times. But it's rare to see one run 14.00. If I had to guess, I'd say the
majority of the cars I see are running a tuned chip. The chip can eliminate
the vague, mushy response in the throttle. It would be the first mod, if I
owned one.
--
John C.
'03 Cobra Convt.

John C. wrote:
> "Big Al" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Please clarify this. Are you saying completely stock 4.6's with stock
> tires
>> are running mid 13's?? It's not April first is it?
>>
> The one I *know* is 100% stock ran 13.8s at 100 mph. This car came straight
> from the dealership to the track.
>
> The one I've driven has been "chipped", otherwise all stock. It's run 13.6
> at just under 102 mph with my 200 lbs. aboard.
>
> I only go when the conditions are favorable, so I'm probably seeing the best
> of times. But it's rare to see one run 14.00. If I had to guess, I'd say the
> majority of the cars I see are running a tuned chip. The chip can eliminate
> the vague, mushy response in the throttle. It would be the first mod, if I
> owned one.

I find it pretty difficult to believe that a stock GT is running 13.8's
and even more difficult to believe that a stock GT with a "chip" is in
the mid-13's. If you were running slicks with some gears then maybe.

I love Mustangs as much as the next guy, but I just don't see those
times happening in the real world. Getting a 3500lb RWD car with
highway gears and stock all season radials into that time range implies
a bit more horsepower than that.

Cheers,

Near sea level, this is consistent with what I have seen people report,
driver skill being a factor, of course. The stock 3:55 gear helps, along
with a torque curve that is similar to the previous Mach 1. That car had
the advantage of about 20 more hp and 15 more ft-lb of torque.

Ritz wrote:

> John C. wrote:
>
>> "Big Al" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Please clarify this. Are you saying completely stock 4.6's with stock
>>
>> tires
>>
>>> are running mid 13's?? It's not April first is it?
>>>
>> The one I *know* is 100% stock ran 13.8s at 100 mph. This car came
>> straight
>> from the dealership to the track.
>>
>> The one I've driven has been "chipped", otherwise all stock. It's run
>> 13.6
>> at just under 102 mph with my 200 lbs. aboard.
>>
>> I only go when the conditions are favorable, so I'm probably seeing
>> the best
>> of times. But it's rare to see one run 14.00. If I had to guess, I'd
>> say the
>> majority of the cars I see are running a tuned chip. The chip can
>> eliminate
>> the vague, mushy response in the throttle. It would be the first mod,
>> if I
>> owned one.
>
>
> I find it pretty difficult to believe that a stock GT is running
> 13.8's and even more difficult to believe that a stock GT with a
> "chip" is in the mid-13's. If you were running slicks with some gears
> then maybe.
>
> I love Mustangs as much as the next guy, but I just don't see those
> times happening in the real world. Getting a 3500lb RWD car with
> highway gears and stock all season radials into that time range
> implies a bit more horsepower than that.
>
> Cheers,

Ritz wrote:

> >> Please clarify this. Are you saying completely stock 4.6's with stock
> > tires are running mid 13's?? It's not April first is it?

> > The one I *know* is 100% stock ran 13.8s at 100 mph. This car came straight
> > from the dealership to the track.

> > The one I've driven has been "chipped", otherwise all stock. It's run 13.6
> > at just under 102 mph with my 200 lbs. aboard.

> > I only go when the conditions are favorable, so I'm probably seeing the best
> > of times. But it's rare to see one run 14.00. If I had to guess, I'd say the
> > majority of the cars I see are running a tuned chip. The chip can eliminate
> > the vague, mushy response in the throttle. It would be the first mod, if I
> > owned one.

> I find it pretty difficult to believe that a stock GT is running 13.8's
> and even more difficult to believe that a stock GT with a "chip" is in
> the mid-13's. If you were running slicks with some gears then maybe.

> I love Mustangs as much as the next guy, but I just don't see those
> times happening in the real world. Getting a 3500lb RWD car with
> highway gears and stock all season radials into that time range implies
> a bit more horsepower than that.

Believe it. Hot Rod magazine last year took a stocker, added a chip
(gained a group of HP), and tossed out some weight (jack, spare, rear
seat/delete kit, a trick/light-weight set of front brakes) and ran like
106 mph trap speed. They seem to respond very well to little things,
much like the old 5-ohs. I want one, bad!

Patrick

In 1967 the W code was the 410 H.P. 427 FE engine. Medium riser heads,
sodium filled valves, solid lifters with around 12:1 compression ratio. Ford
offered the engines in the Fairlanes only. I bought one of seven produced in
1968. I had a ball with that car. It was considerably faster than any of the
super cars on the street at the time. Imagine getting dusted by a 1967
Fairlane 500XL? There were a whole lot of 440 Charger, 428 and 429 Cobra Jet
Mustang guys who were left wondering what happened. I took it to the drag
strip a couple of times, really didn't get a decent ET, 12.52 best launching
at a dead idle, but it ran that at 117 MPH.



> 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
>

Big Al wrote:
> "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

some thing is really off here... stock V6's are running mid-15s! They
trap around 90...

John S. 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

> some thing is really off here... stock V6's are running mid-15s! They
> trap around 90...

Al races at altitude. Not sure of his altitude though. I think he's
at 5,000+.

Using (http://gnttype.org/techarea/misc/altitude.html) and using 5,000
feet it equates to:

15.35 @ 87 mph.

Absolutely pitiful numbers! So this car must have either been a V6
model, or a 90-year old granny got lost on her drive to the grocery
store and ended up on the drag strip.

Patrick