1994-2004 V-8 GT, GTS, Bullitt, Mach 1, and Cobra

Quarter-Mile Times from Mustang & Fords Magazine

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Mar 14, 2004 | 09:21 PM
  #1  
TMSBrad's Avatar
Thread Starter
The Mustang Source FOUNDER
 
Joined: January 29, 2004
Posts: 9,890
Likes: 11
From: Vestavia Hills, Ala.
1994-1995
302 SEFI: 15.1
Cobra 302 SEFI: 15.3
1995 Cobra R 351 SEFI: 13.55 @ 103.7

1996-1998
GT: 14 @ 100
Cobra: 13.95 @ 102

1999-2004
GT: 14 @ 100
Bullitt: 14.07 @ 97.9
2000 Cobra R 5.4L: 12.51 @ 111.94
1999-'01 Cobra: 13.66 @ 104.97
Mach 1: 13.54 @ 103.14
2003 Cobra: 12.74 @ 109

Brad: The 1999-2004 numbers are off. The 1999 GT has 35 more horsepower than the 98, yet the numbers are identical. Then the 2001 Bullitt had more power than the GT, but they list a slower time but a higher trap speed.
Reply
Old Mar 15, 2004 | 09:58 AM
  #2  
Scothew's Avatar
Stubborn Bear
TMS Staff Retired
 
Joined: January 30, 2004
Posts: 22,692
Likes: 48
the 96-98 cobra is about right. The 96-98 GT is WAY LOW for that year.
Reply
Old Mar 15, 2004 | 09:59 AM
  #3  
JeffreyDJ's Avatar
Tasca Super Boss 429 Member
 
Joined: February 2, 2004
Posts: 3,621
Likes: 5
From: Dallas, TX
Yup. methinks somebody got mixed up in editing.
Reply
Old Mar 17, 2004 | 09:24 AM
  #4  
Mustang Fever's Avatar
Member
 
Joined: March 15, 2004
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Stock 96-98 GT"s run in the 15's...Like 15.7 for auto and 15.4 for manual...or at least thats what my auto ran when it was bone stock...we'll see how it fairs this year.
Reply
Old Mar 17, 2004 | 02:56 PM
  #5  
1 COBRA's Avatar
AKA 1 BULLITT------------ Legacy TMS Member
 
Joined: January 29, 2004
Posts: 7,738
Likes: 361
From: U S A


Those are Car & Driver's #s.

Reply
Old Mar 17, 2004 | 09:19 PM
  #6  
DanS.02GT's Avatar
Mach 1 Member
 
Joined: February 12, 2004
Posts: 534
Likes: 0
Magazine test #s tend to vary a little bit due to stuff like weather, track condition, different drivers, etc. Also, not all supposedly identical cars are equal. Two identical engines could vary by as much as 20 hp. That's why they downgraded the hp rating on the later Fox 5.0s from 225 to 205.
Reply
Old Mar 17, 2004 | 10:16 PM
  #7  
AFBLUE's Avatar
Dethroned Nascar Guru
 
Joined: January 30, 2004
Posts: 10,059
Likes: 2
That's why they downgraded the hp rating on the later Fox 5.0s from 225 to 205.
Is this opinion or fact? I always thought it was either because of an modification (more restrictive pollution controls) or for insurance purposes.
Reply
Old Mar 21, 2004 | 05:31 PM
  #8  
ford1's Avatar
GT Member
 
Joined: January 30, 2004
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
From: Birmingham, AL
Originally posted by DanS.02GT@Mar. 17th, 2004, 10:22 PM
That's why they downgraded the hp rating on the later Fox 5.0s from 225 to 205.
No they changed the cam and the pistons thats why it went down.
Reply
Old Mar 22, 2004 | 08:03 AM
  #9  
GT_JOE's Avatar
Member
 
Joined: March 13, 2004
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
What does a stock 2004 GT run in the quarter? Automatic.
Reply
Old Mar 22, 2004 | 08:18 AM
  #10  
TMSBrad's Avatar
Thread Starter
The Mustang Source FOUNDER
 
Joined: January 29, 2004
Posts: 9,890
Likes: 11
From: Vestavia Hills, Ala.
Originally posted by GT_JOE@Mar. 22nd, 2004, 9:06 AM
What does a stock 2004 GT run in the quarter? Automatic.
I've seen them run anywhere from 13.7 to 14.5, depending on driver and weather.
Reply
Old Mar 22, 2004 | 03:14 PM
  #11  
GT_JOE's Avatar
Member
 
Joined: March 13, 2004
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
cool! That's pretty fast.
Reply
Old Mar 22, 2004 | 05:57 PM
  #12  
Mustang_Marty's Avatar
Member
 
Joined: January 30, 2004
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Originally posted by ford1+Mar. 21st, 2004, 6:34 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ford1 @ Mar. 21st, 2004, 6:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-DanS.02GT@Mar. 17th, 2004, 10:22 PM
That's why they downgraded the hp rating on the later Fox 5.0s from 225 to 205.
No they changed the cam and the pistons thats why it went down. [/b][/quote]
Prior to the 1993 model year, the published HP of the 1993 GT was and the Cobra was 245. Ford revised these just before the 93s hit the street. Ford does not re-rate the engines every year; only when major changes are made. Running changes made over the years (mass air, emission changes, etc) since 1987 were the main reasons that the HP went down in 1993. Although Ford did change the way they rated HP in 1993 as well, it only amounted to a 1-2% deviation in the ratings. The same basic engines in 1994 rated at 215 and 245 respectively, so one could say that Ford lowered the ratings to make the all new 1994 Mustang more attractive.
Reply
Old Apr 15, 2004 | 05:42 AM
  #13  
DarkStallion2K's Avatar
V6 Member
 
Joined: April 12, 2004
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
The 1999-2004 GT can run anywhere from a low 14 to a 13.6ish with all aspects (weather/hookup etc.) being ideal, and that's the manual. The Bullitt can at best do a tenth faster than that. The autos are a bit slower like a 13.7 to a mid 14. The Mach 1's can run as fast as a low 13 with some freaks running high 12's. The Cobra can run anywhere from a low 13 with crappy driver to a low 12 at best. I think those numbers sound about right, yes?
Reply
Old Jun 6, 2004 | 11:08 PM
  #14  
Mestizo's Avatar
Mach 1 Member
 
Joined: May 23, 2004
Posts: 688
Likes: 0
I know this topic is WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! old, but does anyone know the 0-60 time for a 99-04 GT and Mach 1????
Reply
Old Jun 7, 2004 | 10:56 AM
  #15  
DarkStallion2K's Avatar
V6 Member
 
Joined: April 12, 2004
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Um...if memory serves me correctly (yeah right), I think the 2V GT can do anywhere from a 5.3-5.6 and the Mach 1 can do a 5.2. Yeah........something like that............um....yeah.
Reply
Old Jun 7, 2004 | 11:15 AM
  #16  
conv_stang's Avatar
Shelby GT500 Member
 
Joined: March 3, 2004
Posts: 2,634
Likes: 0
From: Richmond VA
man their drivers stink...how can a 95 cobra be slower than a 95 gt????
Reply
Old Jun 16, 2004 | 12:29 AM
  #17  
novamatt06's Avatar
Member
 
Joined: June 16, 2004
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
i thought mustangs were faster, specially the 03 cobras. then again, the times are based on the driver such as their timing off the line, shifting points, and how well they keep it straight. but 15's thats so slow. i thought running a 12.10 @ 120 mph in the 1/4 was slow. i guess not. maybe i should think about keeping my nova heh, but i need something for year round so im going with the 99 GT and tricking out the engine.

Stallion after reading many reviews and things about the mustangs, i would say that your times sound right.
Reply
Old Jun 16, 2004 | 12:21 PM
  #18  
DarkStallion2K's Avatar
V6 Member
 
Joined: April 12, 2004
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Ewww...Novas....LoL (j/k) My g/f had a '69 when I met her...came with a 307 that ran like a 4-banger. I had fun waxing her in my '65. As for the Stangs of today...because of Ford's stingyness, we simply won't have anything bigger than a 5.4, which I think sux. If you want a fast newer Stang without doing some serious work then get a blower, that's the ultimate answer unfortunately. 281 cubes just doesn't cut it by todays standards, not on the motor at least. I'd say keep the Nova and if you want a daily driver Stang then run with the sixer.
Reply
Old Jun 18, 2004 | 03:27 PM
  #19  
2K3 Mach's Avatar
Bullitt Member
 
Joined: January 31, 2004
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
From: Avon, OH
Someone dropped a decimal place.
Reply
Old Jun 21, 2004 | 11:24 AM
  #20  
Arboc's Avatar
Bullitt Member
 
Joined: January 30, 2004
Posts: 304
Likes: 0
Originally posted by GT_JOE@March 22, 2004, 10:06 AM
What does a stock 2004 GT run in the quarter? Automatic.
i got an 02 GT Vert - auto - to go 14.7 in the quarter mile - bone stock - had a good time doing it - it was a rental
Reply



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:46 PM.