I am far from a mustang guy, but why the HELL would anyone (male) buy a V6 mustang? it goes against EVERYTHING it represents!!

btw, I know you guys HATE car mag times, but I was browsing last night and CAr and Driver has a 0-60 time of 6.3 and a 15.1 in the 1/4 on a 5 spd mustang. Like I said, mags aren't ALWAYS right, but I have NEVER seen a GT time in the mid 5s.

edit, I just found a MT that has a bunch of times

Bullitt 5.6 and 14.1
Mach 1 5.3 and 13.8
01 cobra (320 HP) 5.4 13.8
03 cobra 4.7 12.8
00 cobra R 4.8 13.0

looks like a Z could hang with anything that is NOT a 03 cobra or a $55k cobra R

 

I seriously don't know where you are getting this "stock 99+ GT 5-speeds trap from 99-102mph"

http://www.stangnet.com/forums/showt...hreadid=201999

Take a look at this thread on StangNet that has a BUNCH of E.T.s for all years, and under the 99-2003 4.6 GT section there is not ONE....and I repeat NOT ONE GT trapping over 99mph stock. The range is from 94-99mph stock on there. 99 being the BEST. A 99 trap in the Z is about the worst that people are running right now.

The 99+ GTs in stock form simply don't have **** for top end. I ran a bunch of them with my old maxima and beat every single one that I raced on the highway (never got to run one from dead stop), and I've now raced two new GT 5-speeds from a roll in the Z, and walked both of them easily over 70mph. The Stang GTs have a lot of low end which nets them good 1/8 mile times and traps, and that's why you see them running low 14s to high 13s (most high 13 GTs are on slicks or DRs BTW)

EDIT: I'm not saying that there aren't any GTs that have trapped over 100 stock...simply that it is very rare, and actually in all the times that I've been to the strip, I've never seen a stock GT run better than 14.1 or trap better than 99mph. Even in very good conditions.

 

If i were to believe those times. I'd be spanking Mach1's and N/A Cobra's all day long at the track. NOT! Just ain't gonna happen. Magazine times are for benchracing and people who granny shift at 4K.

 

Basically, you take every number there, knock it down by 3 or 4 tenths and you have some numbers that show you what the cars are capable of. If you want to see what a car can really do then you don't check Motortrend, Car and Driver, Road and Track etc. If you want to know what your grandmother who is 4ft tall and blind in one eye can do in a car then you check the above listed mags.

Chris

P.S. I have seen stock 99 GT's trap over 99mph. Most do trap in the 99 range, but some do see 100 or 101mph.

 

Well, I can see younger guys who can't afford the insurance or MPG, but like the looks of the Mustang getting a V6


next time your down in GA, we'll hook up and go down to Silver Dollar Raceway if you like....cause, uh...thats where I am getting those trap speeds.

Stangnet...Oh..yeah...the board I've been a member of for almost 5 years (same screen name as I have here)....Hmmm...somewhere if I was completely talking out of my *** would have run me off about...4.5 years ago.
And your talking about the post that has this info
1. Steve Drier (Houston Performance) - 11.95 @ 111.00 (1995 GT Auto - SVO)
to
131. Jeff - 14.80 @ 94.65 (2002 GT 5 SPD - Stock)
The problem with that post is that not everyone has mods listed...and not everyone has "stock" listed...so I don't know if I would actually call that info a reliable source for this debate since you don't really know who is running stock and who is not....and then you run in to opinions...do you call a drop in K&N a modified car....but good info anyways.

ok....for the record, the last guy I went down the 1/4 mile with a 99GT was not running DRs or slicks...breaking 13s...dunno how that happened....
Also, the 5.0 and the 4.6s are too different beast....
The 5.0 is the more low end torquier of the two, with the 4.6 being the higher revving (making more power in the upper RPM range)...I realize that the Z is more than likely better up top...but I don't know if I would say the Mustang "doesn't have **** up for top end"....70 mph, should be third gear for the GT. Should still have some pull. Now, I will admit that a gear change would REALLY wake the GT up....but walking easily, I question.


If your not saying their aren't any GTs trapping the speeds I listed above, (even though you started off your post with a statement that seems to contradict this).....why are we even having this discussion? just for the sake of arguing?

 

cool, SO we can also take an additional .3-.4 tenths off the 5.4-5.7 Z times???? so we really have 5.0-5.3 cars??? cool

lets be fair, you can't just KNOCK the mustang times down and NOT the Zs,

btw, if they are shifting at 4K and grandmas, that would make the Z even faster (relatively) since it needs to rev more to get up to speed than a Mustang.

 

Must have been tipping there...cause you know I'm just making this up....no way a GT trapps anythign over 99 mph

Yeah, I'm being sarcastic...sorry.
Chris

 

Go back and look at the post that I quoted ... do you see any Z times in there? I'll be more than happy to tell you what I think of some Z times in magazines ... post some up for me to have a look at. Most magazine times I see for 350Z's range between 14.0-14.3. I'll be the first person to tell you though that I think this car is capable of high 13's (maybe as low as a 13.7 even). Is that fair enough?

Chris

 

cool Chris, seems like you are pretty reasonable then

Most times are 0-60 in 5.4-5.7 and the 1/4 is about what you wrote 13.9 and 14.4 (the 14.4 was the VERY highest, seems more like they are constantly getting 13.9 to 14.2.

I don't take mags for 100% accuracy b/c there is always a human factor there, but when that is ALL we have to go by (sometimes), that is the only reference we have. I understand what some say about the tests, ANYONE can drive a car slower (I bet some people could get a 360 modena to go to 60 in 10 seconds, BUT that doesn't make it a 10 second car, that is why I usually like the refer to the 2 fastest times for any given car.

thanx for being reasonable, this Z car is NOT a Ferarri, BUt it isn't a Honda Civic either, we need to be fair on both sides, I don't believe we will see a lot of people in a Z beating a 03 cobra, a SS or a Z06 (unless the other driver doesn't know it is a race OR grandma is driving), but mustang GTs, Bullits, S2000s, BoxsterS, and Z28s are more reasonable

 

I think the Z is a great car (I've said it in other posts too).
I just see some of the additued that some (not all) of the LS1 drivers got when that motor first was placed in the F-body....

 

These times make sense to me... whether you consider someone else's comment of knocking .3-.4 off the times or not. Stacking up the magazine tests on the Z here, you'd see it coming in about 5.6 or so on 0-60 and high 13s in the 1/4 mile.

That completely backs up my experiences. I've beaten several regular Mustang GTs (which are slower than the Bullitt). Test numbers reflect this.

The Bullitts are a pretty close race... I've beaten 2 of those now... close race at launch, then pulled 2 or so by the end (makes sense when comparing the 0-60 and 1/4 mile times of the 2 cars). And the MachI had me by about two car lengths by the time we let up (again, seems to correlate to the magazine test times)

On any given day you can have a more experience/less experienced driver match up. In such cases either car could win, but given equal drivers and light to no mods, my experiences still show the Z faster than GTs, slighty quicker than Bullitts and slightly slower than Mach Is

Seems most can appreciate each car mentioned for what they are... so what is still being debated here?

 

They don't look about right to me. I know for a fact the Mach 1 will run about .6 faster all day long with an average driver at the wheel, on stock tires.

 

The fact is none of the guys who posted "stock" over there are anywhere near a 102trap...would the average trap of the guys who "forgot" to type stock after their names really be any better than the guys who actually typed it?..and it seems to me that most "bolt-on" GTs (from what people have actually posted over there not just entered in the registery) typically only trap 102-104, and these guys have about 40whp over stock...so how the heck is a car with 40 LESS whp going to trap anywhere NEAR 102mph with out a really cool, dry, perfect day with a 40mph tailwind?

As for walking them on the highway, from a 70-130mph I put 6-7 carlenghts on a stock GT....now if this isn't walking...what is???

 

LS1 Z28's I give the nod to the Z28 the others you mention are in Z territory. I was beat by 2 stock Z28's both autos and swithced drivers with my brother and same results an I consider myself a good manual driver.

 

No problem. I try to look at everything with an unbiased eye (even though I obviously have a domestic preference). I hate magazines though. They drive me nuts.

I look at the 350Z and I see it pulling 102mph traps give or take and I see some magazines saying it's pulling e.t.'s in the 14.3 area. With a trap speed like that I know damn well that it can hit 13's without too much trouble. These useless magazine drivers just don't get the full potential out of the car.

Chris

P.S. there's almost no difference in power between a Z28 and an SS. Sometimes the Z28's even end up being faster because they're a little lighter Other than that, I agree with you.

 

times and traps depends on the track too. I frequently visit e-town and do see some gts run 100~101 trap speed. You also need to realize that an auto gt dyno about 15-17 rwhp than a z and 5-speed about 10 rwhp or even less. Also both cars have similar torque curve each dwindling down around 5k with gt on the steeper side. However z has better gearing, aerodynamics which combined with 10 rwhp+ gives it an advantage over the gt. gt on other hand has ample of low and midend torque. Now with all this mentioned, I still wonder when people say that z is out gt's reach.

 

The Z has more top end...just compare dyno plots and see what the rev range that each car uses for each gear is. The Z is making more power 90% of the time IN each gear above first (assuming redline shifts). The only time the GTs low and midrange torque comes into play is in first gear...hence the GTs can get off the line a little better on average than a Z.

 

I know, the vette would of took me

 

And again, I say....you don't know WHO really is stock and WHO really is NOT stock...Therefore, that is not a reliable source for this debate...good info, but not 100% reliable....period. You and I both know this....

I don't intend on arguing this point with you any longer because it is apparent, even after you said:
You're still trying to argue the fact.... Why?
And are we to assume that just cause YOU have not seen it, traps over 99 mph have not happen? Because that is what you seem to be implying to me. Man, others in this post have said they have seen traps over 99 mph....you're the only one arguing this point....

And yes...6-7 car lengths would be "walking" someone.....
Now....just for argument sake....those few guys on Stangnet that DO have "stock" written out by their cars...there ETs and MPH are real close to what you have posted in your sig.... Well, your claiming to put roughly about the same amount of cars I put on a Z/G35 when I raced one.... Are you putting out 360-380 to the rear wheels? I'm guessing no. If you are, I deeply apologize for questioning you....

Do I think a Z can beat a stock GT...yes....Do I think a stock GT can beat a Z...yes.... It is just going to be dependent on conditions (obviously)..... Do I believe a stock Z can put 6-7 car lengths on a stock GT....well, lets just say, I have a hard time with that for the reasons I stated above.

Now....It is obvious, I have problems with some of your claims....and you have problems with mine... That's fine, I can live with that....however if you wish to continue to argue, I am more then willing to do so.

 

You mean you consider yourself an average driver??? I thought all Mustang drivers are street racing pros!

Seriously, tho... I won't argue with about the Mach I's. I've only encountered one and the guy said he hadn't had it long so it probably had not had time to be broken in properly yet. I know they're quicker than the Z.

I was more trying to illustrate that the Z is far from outclassed when racing with other Mustang models.

BTW, very impressive power numbers on your Mach I... figures Ford would start producing some really strong Mustangs just in time to start over again with a new body style...