Nov. Motor Trend 05 Data
9/28/04, 10:48 PM
#185
Cobra R Member
Join Date: March 18, 2004
Posts: 1,502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by CatmanJJ@September 28, 2004, 11:47 AM
35 thou and only 300 hp, that seems weak to me.
All hail the '05!!
35 thou and only 300 hp, that seems weak to me.
All hail the '05!!
Just like everybody else on this forum, however, I like where they put the focus on the mustang. vroom!
9/29/04, 12:15 AM
#186
Cobra Member
Join Date: January 31, 2004
Posts: 1,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, the 350Z does have some nice features, but after sitting in one, I am willing to bet that the Mustang has a nicer, roomier interior.
The 350Z still probably has it beat in the handling department, though. As far as looks are concerned, the Mustang has it beat hands down, IMO.
And we all now know that in a drag race, the 'stang will own the 350Z.
The 350Z still probably has it beat in the handling department, though. As far as looks are concerned, the Mustang has it beat hands down, IMO.
And we all now know that in a drag race, the 'stang will own the 350Z.
9/29/04, 07:11 AM
#187
Do You Remember Me?
Join Date: January 29, 2004
Posts: 6,000
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Dr Iven@September 29, 2004, 2:18 AM
Yeah, the 350Z does have some nice features, but after sitting in one, I am willing to bet that the Mustang has a nicer, roomier interior.
The 350Z still probably has it beat in the handling department, though. As far as looks are concerned, the Mustang has it beat hands down, IMO.
And we all now know that in a drag race, the 'stang will own the 350Z.
Yeah, the 350Z does have some nice features, but after sitting in one, I am willing to bet that the Mustang has a nicer, roomier interior.
The 350Z still probably has it beat in the handling department, though. As far as looks are concerned, the Mustang has it beat hands down, IMO.
And we all now know that in a drag race, the 'stang will own the 350Z.
The Z was okay in the power department....as fast as a current GT. Handling was very good but you pay for it in terms of ride which is harsh.
And looks is quite subjective but I'm not a huge fan.
I know I'm biased, but when you add it up, the 05 comes ahead by a fair margin IMO.
9/29/04, 07:38 AM
#188
Bullitt Member
Join Date: May 16, 2004
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by PeterPienaar@September 28, 2004, 6:16 PM
For my part, I think it's a tragedy the great muscle names of the past are being dragged through the mud to sell so-so to downright poor cars. I'd love it if the GTO was recognisably a GTO (not necessarily retro), and the engineers put as much thought into it as Ford does with the Stang. Same with the Charger.
For my part, I think it's a tragedy the great muscle names of the past are being dragged through the mud to sell so-so to downright poor cars. I'd love it if the GTO was recognisably a GTO (not necessarily retro), and the engineers put as much thought into it as Ford does with the Stang. Same with the Charger.
I wasn't that sold on the styling until I drove one. Then I really didn't care about the styling anymore because it gets up and moves and the interior is very comfortable. I did look at the Mach I, but the interior was a little too cramped for me. I'm 6'2" and about 280 and it wasn't comfortable. Thats why I'm excited about the 05 Mustang. Good looks, better interior, more room. I did drive a Z as well and it was very small on interior room.
9/29/04, 11:40 AM
#189
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: March 28, 2004
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Got the German car zine today btw, but didn't get the chance to scan it yet as I don't have a scanner myself. Will post it w/ scans and translation this weekend. They liked the car, though they didn't post any performance data - I believe they weren't allowed to measure performance because MT has the exclusive rights.
9/30/04, 07:03 AM
#190
I haven't seen anyone else mention it, so I'm going to unveil my "green enviro geekiness" by mentioning that these performance numbers are coming from an engine, according to the latest order guide, has an MPG rating into the 20+ MPG range. That to me is very good news. I'm not an encyclopedia on the classics, but I used to drive an old '70's muscle car that was slightly "slower" per second in the 60 and the 1/4 than these numbers, and I was lucky to get 13 mpg out of it! Now this is what I call environmental responsibility - all the power of the old musclecars with respectable mpg. Way to go Ford!
9/30/04, 08:01 AM
#191
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: September 21, 2004
Posts: 681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by V10@September 26, 2004, 8:06 PM
... I wonder if it had to shift into 4th in the 1/4. This might explain the low trap speed, if it was shifting right near the finish line.
...
... I wonder if it had to shift into 4th in the 1/4. This might explain the low trap speed, if it was shifting right near the finish line.
...
The Boss Hog
9/30/04, 05:55 PM
#196
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: September 21, 2004
Posts: 681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Badandy@September 30, 2004, 5:14 PM
so bosshog-
You are saying that the manual will be a lot faster quarter mile, not just because it is a manual, but it doesn't need that extra shift the auto's do?
so bosshog-
You are saying that the manual will be a lot faster quarter mile, not just because it is a manual, but it doesn't need that extra shift the auto's do?
The manual gear ratios, on the other hand, seam to have been selected to maximize the high speed performance. The splits actually get smaller as you go up in the gears (just the opposite of what the auto does).
For the record I predict that with stock street tires the manual will beat the auto in the 1/4 but it will do so by catching it from behind.
The Boss Hog
(Sorry for the long winded post and as always, just my opinion . . .
)
10/1/04, 05:31 PM
#198
Cobra Member
Join Date: March 14, 2004
Posts: 1,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Robert+September 27, 2004, 3:59 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Robert @ September 27, 2004, 3:59 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-StevenJ@September 26, 2004, 11:13 PM
"No 2004 V-6 Mustang was available for direct comparison, but our sense is that the team managed to perserve much of the old 90-degree 3.8l engine's coarseness and thrash. Probably, it's a big improvement, but no blindfolded passenger will ever mistake this for a Japanese six-unless perhaps the car is traversing a concrete freeway at 70mph and tire noise is drowning out the engine."
"No 2004 V-6 Mustang was available for direct comparison, but our sense is that the team managed to perserve much of the old 90-degree 3.8l engine's coarseness and thrash. Probably, it's a big improvement, but no blindfolded passenger will ever mistake this for a Japanese six-unless perhaps the car is traversing a concrete freeway at 70mph and tire noise is drowning out the engine."
"Our sense is..." Our SENSE is...? Yeah, that's good, let's just start GUESSING. :scratch:
That's a nasty remark, given that they haven't driven it yet. Show's just how far the Big Three let things slide over the past 30 years.
[/b][/quote]Yes. I am. I went to first grade in Japan in 1953-1954 and high school there in 62-65. My dad was in the navy. Japan was still rebuilding the economy after the war the first time I was there, and everything we bought (toys for me back then) broke very quickly.
What a dramatic change the second time around!
Isn't it ironic that while the Big 3 was sitting on its collective rears congratulating themselves on their market share, the Japanese listened to an American named Charles Deming (you guys have heard of the Deming Award, right) who taought them how to improve overall quality and look at what happened.
They raised the bar for automakers the world over, and that's been a good thing for all of us.
10/2/04, 12:40 PM
#199
Bullitt Member
Join Date: January 31, 2004
Location: Avon, OH
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Got this in the mail today.
13.6 for the quarter ... IN AN AUTOMATIC!
at 99.9 mph.
This may be a well broken in mule, but the numbers are good.
They're guessing 4.8-4.9 0-60 for the manual. Which might bring the quarter to 13.4 or lower.
13.6 for the quarter ... IN AN AUTOMATIC!
at 99.9 mph.This may be a well broken in mule, but the numbers are good.
They're guessing 4.8-4.9 0-60 for the manual. Which might bring the quarter to 13.4 or lower.
10/2/04, 08:51 PM
#200
Originally posted by StevenJ@September 27, 2004, 12:13 AM
Thoose extras were all from the same article. They were special off topic sections that were broken up into seperate boxes. What I didn't show you was that they have pictures of the 05's suspension and the forces it undergoes when compared to that of the SN95's. There was also an extra section about the V6 Mustangs Hertz will be receiving. There was a very 'anti-domestic' line in there too.
"No 2004 V-6 Mustang was available for direct comparison, but our sense is that the team managed to perserve much of the old 90-degree 3.8l engine's coarseness and thrash. Probably, it's a big improvement, but no blindfolded passenger will ever mistake this for a Japanese six-unless perhaps the car is traversing a concrete freeway at 70mph and tire noise is drowning out the engine."
Thoose extras were all from the same article. They were special off topic sections that were broken up into seperate boxes. What I didn't show you was that they have pictures of the 05's suspension and the forces it undergoes when compared to that of the SN95's. There was also an extra section about the V6 Mustangs Hertz will be receiving. There was a very 'anti-domestic' line in there too.
"No 2004 V-6 Mustang was available for direct comparison, but our sense is that the team managed to perserve much of the old 90-degree 3.8l engine's coarseness and thrash. Probably, it's a big improvement, but no blindfolded passenger will ever mistake this for a Japanese six-unless perhaps the car is traversing a concrete freeway at 70mph and tire noise is drowning out the engine."
