New GT500 Clicks Off 12.70s @ 116 mph

After seeing disappointing track numbers for the GT500 in Car & Driver it was nice to see Motor Trend getting some respectable numbers for the

500 HP beast.

M&T got:

0-60 - 4.4 0-100 - 9.8 1/4 - 12.7 @ 116 mph 60-0 - 110 feet Slalom - 69.7 mph (Standing mile -- 33.2 @ 150.2 mph) Price - $41.9K

These kinds of numbers coming from not just one GT500, but two.

For comparison:

GTO

0-60 - 4.5 0-100 - 11.7 1/4 - 13.3 @ 105.9 60-0 - 138 feet Slalom - 62.4 mph Price - $32.6K

Charger SRT-8

0-60 - 5.0 0-100 - 11.9 1/4 - 13.5 @ 106.3 60-0 - 124 feet Slalom - 65.2 mph Price - 35..9K

Patrick

snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote: >

That's more along the lines of the LS1 time. The LS2s should be capable of seeing the 12s.

Some SRT8s have been known to see high 12s.

13.5 must be while sipping on a Starbuck's!

I don't have any doubts we'll see even better times as these hit consumers at local tracks.

Thanks, Scott

Nearly 70 mph in the slalom,.. not too shabby for a 2 ton ride.

If that car was screwed to the ground, it would be in the 11's.

Compare this:

81 Camaro, Ford 460 powered, with 60 year old me driving last Friday night:

60' 1.320

330 3.843 1/8 5.950 @ 112.07 1000' 7.773 1/4 9.317 @ 147.84

Al> I can sell you a faster car for $17,000 9.12 @ 153.8 MPH at 3000 feet. But it's OT here:)

You're only comparing motors. The GTO is about 500 pounds heavier than the old LS1 F-bodies.

I agree 106 could get you a 12, but more thna likely a lower 13 especially in a heavy car like the Charger.

Me neither. And when the boost goes up and slicks come on the ETs will tumble. Patrick

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.

Patrick

Don't blame me. Ford should have built the W code:)

Al

I see them on eBay for over 70K now? What's the word on the street regarding prices a year from now when the production increases. Will gas prices pring down the sticker prices?????

Ron

Ron,

Ford has pledged to build 7,500-10,000 per year for the next three years. Prices should fall after the initial buzz wears off.

Patrick

Blame you for what?

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

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

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.

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.

** 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.

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

Patrick

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

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,

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.

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

Patrick