rhumb

I think 300hp is a fine number for the GT. And remember, there will be the Cobra coming along a some time with numbers probably approaching 500hp and very likely some models in between with hp numbers in between.

I am as much or more interested in what Ford's doing, or not doing, with the other 359 degrees of its performance compass beyond dead-ahead speed, which has always been good at worst. In contrast has been its suspension and chassis dynamics which have been good at best. It is the chassis dynamics, not acceleration, that has tended to be the Stang's Achilles heel and most in need of improvement. And the nose doing a convincing imitation of a coon hound on a hot scent when one throws out the anchor isn't a peak experience either.

It does sound like Ford has gone far to address the chassis and suspension, though in light of the archaic live axle, I'm not sure they've will have gone far enough. But I'll withhold final judgement till actual seat time. In any case, using the BMW M3 as their benchmark bodes well.

My expectation would be two models between the GT and the Cobra: a Boss'esque model emphasizing all around performance, perhaps with a 4V version of the 4.6 (or a new 5.0 version?) with the Cobra's brakes and IRS, and then a Mach I quarter miler focused on straight line speed with a 5.4 and that tractor axle out back.

Must_stang

300 is more than enough for the 90+% that will use the GT as a daily driver, including the winter. It is more than I have driven, more than I need, and more than I will use (90+% of the time). Now, all that power is coming with an improved and superb package making it more fun to drive. And, it is affordable.

Will there be faster, more powerful cars available? Yes, always. As affordable? Not likely, not even close. As captivating or inspiring? Not likely, not even close. (But then, each to his/her own.) :stubborn:

So, do I think that this will be the best car for me? heck, yes!
Am I dying to get my hands on one? heck, yeah! :headbang:

SickofMyVWAlready

I had a wonderful/awful dream last night that I bought the car, but I found it stripped to the rear bumper the next morning. :angry:

svtdriver

While it might have been nice to think about getting 350hp. The increase we got was about 40hp. How many other times have they done that in a regular gt (Not counting the 60's where you could order any engine size).

TomServo92

You're absolutely right. There are some people that just don't appreciate that 1) we're getting a 40HP increase in the GT, 2) the price is basically the same as last years model, and 3) that the Mustang is actually still being produced (unlike the Camarobird aficionados who are doing without).

Nathan_H

Alright guys, I pulled out one of the many "Car and Driver" magazines, December 2002 to be exact, with a comparo between an Audi TT, S2000, 350Z, and best of all an '02 Mach 1.

Here are the specs given by them, for the Mach 1 and the 350Z, but remember, this was '02.

Nissan 350Z Touring

base price/as tested 33719/33788

DOHC 24-valve V-6, 213 cid

287 bhp@6200 rpm
274 lb-ft@4800 rpm
11.7 pounds per bhp

Ford Mustang Mach 1

base price/as tested 28995/2920

DOHC 32-valve V-8, 281 cid

305 bhp@5800 rpm
320 lb-ft@4200 rpm
11.4 pounds per bhp.

Nathan_H

Oh, and best of all, they got the Mach 1 through the 1/4 mile in 14.0@103 mph, 0-60 in 5.2.

The 350Z took 14.32100 mph, 5.7 to 60. Now I know that this Mustang is not in any way shape or form identical to the '05 Mustang, I would hope that it could pull close to those numbers of the Mach 1. And while flipping the pages of that very magazine, I came across a Neon SRT-4,

price as tested-19995, BASE Neon SRT-4

turbocharged, intercooled inline 4, 148 cid

215 bhp@5200 rpm
245 lb-ft@3200 rpm

14.2@102 mph
0-60- 5.6 seconds

bar

I currently own a 2002 WRX wagon that I've upgraded to (essentially) 340FWHP, and it has over 96K miles on it now w/no engine work needed. Most of that upgraded HP has been installed since (approx) 30Kmiles, and this is my daily driver... Only issue so far has been the syncros, but that was my fault...

Those who say 300HP ain't enough for a STOCK GT are deluded...
Gimme!

(I'm TORQUE-deprived! )

Badandy

Yeah,but, the Z is still a "french" product (Nissan controlling interest owned by Peuguot), disguised as a Japanese product!

BOYCOTT FRANCE!!!........BUY AMERICAN [/b][/quote]
Really?

Treadhead

MY truck will not go that fast,even down a cliff. So i'm thinkin 300hp is gonna be plenty. Not to mention cheaper. High HP doesn't always mean fast either. The tank I drove in the Army had 1500hp and I could only get it up to 40mph. Felt like 300mph though.

Piston NV

40 years old & 300 HP?
What are these (originally) secretary's cars coming too...(sarcasm)

Shea

I don't understand why anyone would have a problem with 300 HP. No GT has EVER had this much horsepower stock.

Sure your SEs do, but we are talking about a regular old GT here.

If you need more HP, put a SC on it like I am, or buy a more expensive car!

Honda Hater

gimme a 5.0 cammer or a 5.4 with a blower for under 40k and id eat my own
that means 400 hp or better

Honda Hater

the 390 gt had 300+hp

Piston NV

be happy it is still RW drive -- remember when FORD wanted to make it FW? (became the Probe)

Horsepower can be had by anyone...but a driver who knows how to use it is still a rare thing...I've smoked Vettes to Motorcycles, both should have won, but were dusted.

Nathan_H

390cid 4V V-8 320 hp S Code

Right off of Brad's site, this was in 1967, and it wasn't a SE

Shea

My apologies. Then I guess whoever needs more than 300 HP should buy a GT 390.

mustangfun101

or............they could just buy something else and let us know what it is when they buy it. Then we can compare on the quarter mile and then compare the price.

Tone

Compare apples to apples ... cars prior to 1971 were measured using SAE gross hp standards. It tested the engine without any power-robbing accessories and allowed considerable tuning in terms of timing to optimize power. It is best thought of as a benchmark figure that demonstrates what the engine is capable of, not what it made installed in the car.

After 1971, the industry standardized on the SAE net standard, which tests hp on an engine in "as installed" condition -- with all accessories and factory ignition and tuning.

The difference between the two measures can be as high as 20%, meaning a 320 hp 390 likely made substantially LESS horsepower than the '05 GT.

kevinb120

A. The neon makes 0 RWHP. And B. Hp is nothing without low rpm torque. The only time it is fast if it is under CONTROLLED, PLANNED launches under ideal conditions, you can not just be fiddling with the radio in gear and decide its 'go time'. Its just not there. Not to mention those controlled, planned acceleration runs torture the vehicle, there is no long-term with the neon platform, they are generally lousy cars overall. For a few kicks on a tight budget, it IS a fast little car, but it will never be a brute. You quickly grow tired of a car you have to work so hard to go fast in. I have had several small hyper cars, and they get boring unless they are designed top to bottom to be a sports car, i.e. a modded miata is thoroughly fun, a fast rental compact is not. The neon was never engineered for more then 150hp. In all fairness, the Fox platform really wasn't either.

Not to be just a compact/import hater, this is the same reason I did not take delivery on my 04 cobra either. The car is definately FAST, but it did so at the expense of being too nervous, the power is too much for the chassis design to be FUN to drive, the ergos stink, and it grows tiring quick. Its all about balance, thats why I profess the 01 cobra and 03-04 Machs as the best Fox bodies ever made, and not the Terminator. Same thing that makes the SVT focus fun overall to drive, you KNOW its not a drag-strip terror, but its balance and control in turns without mental strain at the limits makes it a worthy purchase. I havent bothered with anything other then a few breathing mods, I think the car would loose its luster if you were to turbo it, I dont have an inadequacy complex that forces me to have to make my cars out to be more then what they really are. Its all about you being able to drive the car and put it where you want it, and not hanging on and hoping it works out OR getting beat up over it.

As far as f-bodies go, ive driven SS's with a 150 shot and other mods on them, its complete and utter lack of any sense of quality whatsoever belies any enjoyment. It just feels like fast moving junk. It was my constant experience with those that actually made mustangs feel like high-quality vehcicles. What god-awful cars, they feel like an unrestored 67 coupe with a brand new crate Nascar motor in it. Balance is key, and fast is a relative term. And as for GM's future with the Camaro, they are so directionless right now, I will believe it when I see it.