Volume 49 May 2004 edition:

Brad wrote: Youre estimated mnumbers for the 2005 mustang GT incluce a 14.1 second 1/4 mile time. The current 260 hp GT does better than that. how can ford justify a slower time for a car with more power. If all you can do with a 300 - hp car is 14.1, you should fire your driver.

Their response: Wrongo! The best we've gotten from the 260 hp mustang GT is 14.2 seconds at 98 mph. A mustang mach 1 with a 305 hp engine turned 14.0 in december 2002. So the new 300 hp car, with any luck should atleast equal that. But yeah, youve got a point.


Seems like they agree with you brad. To a certain extent about times for the 05 but disagree on the times for the current mustang gt. Anyway, if you havent looked at it already, its on page 21. enjoy

 

The guys at Car and Driver are idiots.

First off, Brad said "the current 260hp GT does better than that" not "you a-holes over at C & D got the GT to do better than that". God knows they could drive if their life depended on it.

Mustang Mach 1 at 14.0sec. That is rediculous especially when you have MM&FF achieving a 13.1 sec time. A full second in the quarter is HUGE!!!

Basically they've admitted that there estimate was probably 0.1sec off.

 

Do these guys do the grandma times with Ford's only or with all of the tested cars. It's either the drivers or something againt mustangs. I dont read the magazine regularly so i dont know.

 

As long as those numbers are taken in context -- that is, you can only compare them to other cars also tested by the same driver at the same track on the same day, then it's fine. The vast majority of Mach 1's I've seen raced at the track by amateur racers put down ET's in the mid-14's or higher. And yet ol' Bob Cosby could probably knock two seconds off that. Which is why comparing ET's from disparate tracks & drivers is entirely pointless. Take the numbers for what they're worth... nothing.

Dave

 

I have seen where a 90 degree day in high humidity will easily knock those times way off. My friends grand national is over 1 second in the 1\4 slower if it is hot and humid, so it depends where and when they test it. Also their drivers suck. They never get very good times on any car. I usually trust MM&FF on that. They have people who know how to get times out of a stang. Also, you can tell how much they try by who their biggest sponsors are. I see alot of gm ads in those rags.....

 

I've seen bone stock 1999+ GTs run 13.8 quarter-miles with the stock paper air filter and the dealer's sticker still in the window. C&D is wrong, and their drivers suck.

 

prob with C&D or any main stream car mag is they will only base there response on numbers they actually generated - which are never the ultimate numbers for any given car - we all know the 05 Mustang GT has more than 14.1 in it from the factory - 13.5 sounds more reasonable to me - remeber it has a nice healthy 315 lb-ft or tourqe - 3.55 gears - a much improved rear suspension - and a much better balance chassis than the current Mustang GT (Mach1 / Cobra) not withstanding

 

MT estimated the 1/4 mile at a little more believable 13.90 sec @ 104 mph.

Right here:
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupe/...ang/index5.html

 

stupid c&d with their
they only seem to drive good when they get on subaru or mitsubishi

 

Not that anyone probably cares ... but C&D corrects their acceleration times to a constant temperature and humidity. That means their actual best time might be faster or slower than the published time, depending on the weather conditions on the test day.

C&D also does not powershift manual tranmission cars. Their goal is not the set the fastest time, but to create a database of comparible, repeatable times for a whole host of different cars. The magazine itself doesn't claim that it's times are the best times anyone could get out of a car, but a representative time that can be compared to other cars.

 

I agree with Dave, it is best to look at various and sundry magazine tests relative to their own numbers. Each rag uses their own methodologies, techniques, venues and equipment, each of which can affect what numbers they get, never mind the potential cumulative effect. Thus, C&Ds estimates for the '05 are pretty reasonable as extrapolated from the numbers they've pulled from existing Stangs.

While C&Ds numbers may not represent the ultimate that is possible from any car, Mustang included, I do think they do well represent what the average enthusiast could reasonably expect in average conditions. Indeed, I think C&Ds street acceleration (5-60mph) can be more telling of a car's real world performance than a dead stop number, which introduces a greater variable of driver ability vs overall capability of the car. Ironically, for those C&D haters, the big, torquey Mustangs generally do quite well in this test, far better than most peakier, high-rpm sports cars.

Now, get a dyed-in-the-wool dragracer under optimal conditions on a perfect drag strip and you are likely to get significantly better numbers, but numbers the average Joe is unlikely to get pulling away from a stop light. Drag race oriented Mustang mags tend to get very good strip numbers, which really is no surprise given their exceedingly narrow focus on this one aspect of automotive performance and their presumptive expertise in eeking every last .01 second/mph out of a car.

 

Taken in context is all well and good but in this case it's misleading at best. It makes the upgrades look like they were worthless. .1 second faster makes ford look like a bunch of dopes if they can't make a 300 HP car go faster than the 260hp car.

If they are gonna bother with the 1/4mil as a test. They need to rip the best possible consistant times out of any and all cars they test or the test is worthless. Just putzing down the track and saying "welp that's about as good as it can do" is garbage.

Run the car as hard as you can without breaking it, run about 6-8 passes...take an average and there ya go. Or at least run that many passes and post the results from all of them and let the readers make the judgement. There is no point of running that test if they aren't gonna try to get the best possible time out of it.


Just my opinion

 

I hope owners of 1999+ Mustang GTs see that C&D said the best they could do with their car was a 14.2.

 

If you aren't trying to achieve the fastest 1/4 mile time possible, then comparison using this stat between mags etc. is almost useless.

I guess the best way to prove how fast your car is, is to take it to the strip yourself. Those times will be the fastest you and your car can achieve and are obviously accurate.

 

Yep, dead on. A lot of mags got pretty good acceleration numbers from the Mazda RX-8, for example, but they had to wind up to 5000+ rpm and drop the clutch to do it. Not in my car -- that can get expensive!

 

I think this is pretty true for, as I mentioned, while each Mag will certainly be trying to get the fastest 1/4 mile (and other) times, they nevertheless will be doing so under slightly different methodologies and certianly conditions. For example, some magazines may powershift their cars while others may not. And differences in track surface, temperatures, humidity, altitude, etc. can themselves make huge differences.

The most accurate comparisons are multicar tests done by the same magazine, using the same drivers, venue and techniques that will give the best relative indication of how various cars might perform against each other.

But to take some number a certain magazine might have gotten by power shifting a car down a clean new sea-level track on a cool, dry, windless day by a pro drag racer ringer and then compare that to the best numbers another rag got at some dusty old track in Denver on a scorching hot, humid day with a 15mph headwind driven by a general automotive writer using full clutch shifts is just lunacy. You could easily get a full second or more difference in these scenarios even if they used the same exact car.

As for around 14 seconds in the 1/4 for the '05, that's probably a reasonable if rather conservative and safe estimate given the quoted hp and weight, which I think would be the proper approach for any mag making untested estimates. But I would not be at all surprised to see actual numbers significantly better than this, perhaps mid 13s, given the 3Vs broader and deeper power band, better weight distribution, better suspension and improved shifter -- all this on a good track, on a good day, with a good driver at the helm.

 

More reason to read Motor Trend. They tested a Mach 1 in 02 and ran a 13.8 at 102.5. The Bullitt they tested in 01 ran a 14.1 at 97.9. That had 265hp. So, to back Brad up a little more (I'm there for ya man), shouldn't a 300hp 2005 Mustang be faster than a 265hp 2001 Mustang Bullitt?

 

I've seen 99+GT run faster then that stock and i go to the drag strip every weekend just about. And If you guys remember correctly I think it was C&D that said the Subaru WRX out performed the Mustang COBRA. YEAH RIGHT!! (And dont know if thats true someone would have to look it up) But they dont know jack squat !! But brad there just hating on people that know what real american legends are dont sweat it !!

 

OK, I want this C&D bashing to end right here. They are STAUNCH supporters of Mustangs, and have been for as long as I've read the magazine, which is about eight years.

They annually tested the mustang against the f-bodies while they were still in production and they always gave the stang the benefit of the doubt, calling it the better car, nicer riding, looking, sounding etc, but ultimately gave the win to f-bodies due to the giant gaps in hp between the two. They newest test with the newest cobras finally showed what ford can do, but there are no competitors. You guys are getting very mad over something very lame. These guys have a lot more to do than just drag muscle cars, which is what MM&FF specializes in.

Have yo forgotten all about how they, C&D, have gotten the best times out of the Ford GT????? They love the car, just as they love the 05. They also love the SVTF and have given it the nod over all the other hot-compacts on ther market!!! You guys only see in black and white. All in all they like ford, they like the mustangs, but numbers are numbers. Yes, some magazine, drivers, and owners will find better times, worse times, or about the same. You need to stop jumping to conclusions over how they hate Ford, Mustangs, American brands....

Saying that MT is better is laughable. They can't make up their minds on anything. They alwasy do "comparisons" yet never state a clear winner. They are a bunch of idiots who post "spy-drawing" just to sell mags. How many of us have seen the next-gen camaro pics? We all know darn well there is no more camaro!!! They just like to sell magazines. Oh, and don't leave out the photshops they are notorious for. The light blue leather, the light blue 05, what the heck guys!!! The "Shelby" car!!!!

C&D is the best magazine around, with the best writing, and actually states their opinions on cars and draws clear winners. If all you want it for journalists to kiss the butt of the cars only you like, then never touch a magazine other than MM&FF ever again.

 

I love brads site but Some times Brad is wrong. Some times Im wrong, Some times Well regarded magizines with experences writers like Car & Driver are wrong. What does all this mean? Big deal. I do not :worship: any one. So you were wrong brad big deal... Eveny if your right. big deal. Yea I know Im an idiot!