Tyson

I've read the threads on 2005 track times and I've read the mustang does 0-60mph in 5.1 seconds, and 0-100kmh in 6.2 seconds. Which more accurate? Has anyone actually tested in....hitting that 5 second barrier is awesome if that what it can actually do.

Giddyup

I haven't ran mine.....and I probably never will, but I can guarantee that it is faster than 6.2 secs 0-60. There have been plenty of time tests on this board.....and also road tests by the experts. Seems to me that 5.2 - 5.3 have been happening quite frequently.....

TomServo92

You misread what he wrote: he said 0-100kmh in 6.2 seconds, not 0-60MPH.

Evil_Capri

You misread what he wrote: he said 0-100kmh in 6.2 seconds, not 0-60MPH. [/b][/quote]
Well, isn't 100kmh=62mph? Maybe he is wondering why the drastic 1.1 sec difference from 60mph to 62 mph? If the same tester achieved both of those numbers on the same car than something is wrong with their equipment.

Either way different cars, different testers yield different results . . always have, always will. As you all know.

Giddyup

You misread what he wrote: he said 0-100kmh in 6.2 seconds, not 0-60MPH. [/b][/quote]
Oops.....MY BAD. :worship:

TomServo92

Well, isn't 100kmh=62mph? Maybe he is wondering why the drastic 1.1 sec difference from 60mph to 62 mph? If the same tester achieved both of those numbers on the same car than something is wrong with their equipment.

Either way different cars, different testers yield different results . . always have, always will. As you all know. [/b][/quote]
Yer right. I just did a conversion. To be precise it's 62.1371MPH. That is a big discrepency for just 2 MPH difference.

EDIT: Sorry...that should be a 2.1371MPH difference!

Galaxie

Well, that road test was done by a German magazine,

perhaps they tested someone's car and didn't want to/couldn't beat on it.

PonyGirl

When I first starting reading about the Mustang GT, I read that 0-60 mph in 4.9 , then I read 5.2, so I think there are some diffrrent readings out there depending on who is doing the testing. Either way, it is plenty of speed for me!!!
________
Avandia Lawsuit

rrobello

well i havent clocked it but have gotten on her pretty hard, and I would venture to say its closer to the 5.2 if not that. Shes pretty fast. Would be faster without the rev limiter.

2005RedGT

I got a 4.82 from 0-60 on my G-Timer. I also just butterflied the throttle. My second run as 4.75. I hope to get to 4.5 very soon :0

-Bryan

rrobello

wow thats impressiveis there a way you can post a pic of that to confirm that (not that I dont believe you just some might not and I would like to be able to back that up if I quote that to someone about the car) and do you have any mods or stock?

2005RedGT

As soon as my cable comes in , I will download the data.

I will also post those stats to my new website.

Kluski

And different drivers. Especially if it is a manual.

V10

If the car the German magazine tested was an automatic there could be a HUGE difference between 0-60 and 0-62.14 MPH (100 KMH).

The reason why is 60 MPH is made in 2nd gear, but it should shift to 3rd gear right around 62 MPH which could add a few tenths time, but 6.2 sec still sounds really slow. If 0-60 = 5.1 then 0-62 should be 5.3 + .3 for 2-3 shift is still only 5.6 sec.

Maybe it was a manual with a bad driver.

outdoorstom

Plenty of mods....check his signature! :P

SVTJayC

Yeah 4.10's in the rear probably being the most significant. I bet mileage takes a huge hit, with only a 5 spd.

Mongoose

Bryan what does it do if you just keep it on the floor? You did turn the torque management off right? I don't have the 4:10 yet and am wondering if it just lites up the tires and you loose time. Thanks