(0-60) 4.9 sec (0-1/4 mile) 13.5 sec
3/4/05, 01:45 PM
#1
Team Mustang Source
Thread Starter
Join Date: June 26, 2004
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hard to believe...
Road & Track (April) did it in a stock GT, 5-speed manual.
They also tested a V-6 Convertible:
(0-60) 6.8 sec (0-1/4 mile) 15.1 sec.
Road & Track (April) did it in a stock GT, 5-speed manual.
They also tested a V-6 Convertible:
(0-60) 6.8 sec (0-1/4 mile) 15.1 sec.
3/4/05, 01:48 PM
#2
Bullitt Member
Join Date: December 31, 2004
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by GTJeff@March 4, 2005, 2:48 PM
Hard to believe...
Road & Track (April) did it in a stock GT, 5-speed manual.
They also tested a V-6 Convertible:
(0-60) 6.8 sec (0-1/4 mile) 15.1 sec.
Hard to believe...
Road & Track (April) did it in a stock GT, 5-speed manual.
They also tested a V-6 Convertible:
(0-60) 6.8 sec (0-1/4 mile) 15.1 sec.
Chris
3/4/05, 01:50 PM
#3
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: October 7, 2004
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was that run downhill 
Wow, I hope others are able to repeat that performance. I know that there are a lot of factors that go into these times, but there really seems to be a wide variance on the times from the mags. Maybe a ringer
Wow, the V6 time is comparable to my old 3.2 CL S, that's impressive as well!
Wow, I hope others are able to repeat that performance. I know that there are a lot of factors that go into these times, but there really seems to be a wide variance on the times from the mags. Maybe a ringer
Wow, the V6 time is comparable to my old 3.2 CL S, that's impressive as well!
3/4/05, 01:55 PM
#4
Team Mustang Source
Thread Starter
Join Date: June 26, 2004
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They said:
0.4 sec quicker than our original road test car. Chalk it up to more break-in miles or slightly cooler test temperatures, but these are extraordinary times for a $26,000 car...
0.4 sec quicker than our original road test car. Chalk it up to more break-in miles or slightly cooler test temperatures, but these are extraordinary times for a $26,000 car...
3/4/05, 02:18 PM
#10
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: November 4, 2004
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Loch@March 4, 2005, 4:08 PM
I think the 4.9 to 60 number is great, but I’m not really impressed with the 13.5 ¼ mile number.
I think the 4.9 to 60 number is great, but I’m not really impressed with the 13.5 ¼ mile number.
3/4/05, 02:18 PM
#11
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: November 4, 2004
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by GTJeff@March 4, 2005, 4:19 PM
Our GTO buddies aren't going to like this ...
Our GTO buddies aren't going to like this ...
3/4/05, 07:20 PM
#15
3rd Times A Charm
Join Date: February 17, 2005
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by PeterPienaar@March 4, 2005, 6:38 PM
13.5 is okay, but 4.9 is sweet!
13.5 is okay, but 4.9 is sweet!
3/4/05, 08:49 PM
#17
Bullitt Member
Join Date: May 25, 2004
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by GTJeff@March 4, 2005, 3:19 PM
Our GTO buddies aren't going to like this ...
Our GTO buddies aren't going to like this ...
Just kidding. Then again, with those numbers, even the LS1 f-bodies better start sweating. That's M3 territory.
