Nov. Motor Trend 05 Data
9/26/04 | 06:44 PM
#41
Bullitt Member
Joined: January 29, 2004
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Some misc. News stand.
More from the side boxes
'60s Style '60s Rear Axle
Has Ford taken this retro thing too far?
The last largely new car introduced in this country with a live rear axle was the 1993 Camaro. Has Ford taken this retro thing too far? Forget all that guff about drag-racing customers demanding a live axle, this setup's a cost-cuter. Ford chose to invest more heavily in powertrain upgrades, and only the live axle can be built cheaply enough to sell in a $20,000 V6 car and yet strongly enough to withstand 300 horsepower in a $30,000 one.
All that siad, the ngeometry of the new axle is far more efficent, which allowed weight to be pulled out of the links and springs and reapplied to reinforcing the axle and differentials so it can better withstand aftermarket tunning (the engineers willa dmit to 20-percent overdesign, so betware of torque claims above 378 lbs). The front and rear suspensions are designed to control lateral (cornering) forces with one set of bushing and longitudinal (ride_ inputs with a different se tof more complaint bushings, improving both ride and handling. The new L-shaped front control arm even allows a sharper steering angle so U-turns require less real estate.-F.M.
More from the side boxes
'60s Style '60s Rear Axle
Has Ford taken this retro thing too far?
The last largely new car introduced in this country with a live rear axle was the 1993 Camaro. Has Ford taken this retro thing too far? Forget all that guff about drag-racing customers demanding a live axle, this setup's a cost-cuter. Ford chose to invest more heavily in powertrain upgrades, and only the live axle can be built cheaply enough to sell in a $20,000 V6 car and yet strongly enough to withstand 300 horsepower in a $30,000 one.
All that siad, the ngeometry of the new axle is far more efficent, which allowed weight to be pulled out of the links and springs and reapplied to reinforcing the axle and differentials so it can better withstand aftermarket tunning (the engineers willa dmit to 20-percent overdesign, so betware of torque claims above 378 lbs). The front and rear suspensions are designed to control lateral (cornering) forces with one set of bushing and longitudinal (ride_ inputs with a different se tof more complaint bushings, improving both ride and handling. The new L-shaped front control arm even allows a sharper steering angle so U-turns require less real estate.-F.M.
9/26/04 | 07:00 PM
#44
Bullitt Member
Joined: January 29, 2004
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Here's an insteresting note. The mustang has 267 bhp @ 5275 and 283 lbs-ft @ 4350 at the wheels. (NOT CRANK - EDIT)
Another side box, THE IMPORTANT ONE!
Exclusive First Track Test
We've got the numbers...and they're good
Don't ask us how, but we had our way with a 2005 Mustang GT five-speed automtaic just long enough to gather real test numbers and send this pony back to the barn wet. To say we're please with the results would be like saying it'd be cool to have Jay Leno's garage keys for a day.
Here's the deal from our man behind the wheel: From a stop, the 2005 GT launches with unexpected ferocity at under two seconds to 30 mph. Normaly, this king of urgent getaway is reserved for cars with clutch pedals and DIY gear boxes. Using a brake-torquing technique at over 2000rpm, the new Pirelli tires favor a liberal amount of wheelspin, easily modulated with the throttle. The P Zero Neros hook up more readily than the Goodyear Eagles on previous Mustangs, which tend to alternately spin in vain or bog-'n'-go depending on launch rpm. The new engine revs quickly pas the indicated 6000 rpm readline and shifts just shy of the "real" 6200 limit. First, second, and third gearsl are tightly spaced and snap off upshifts nearly as rapidly as a Mercedes AMG SpeedShift automtaic. Forth and fifth gears, however, are performance-stinking black holes slowing hte otherwise energetic acceleration curve.
The 2005 GT is quicker than all but the current supercharged SVT Cobra, and, even so, only by a 0.2 to 0.3 second margin. With a 5.1 second run to 60 mph, the new Mustang outruns a compareable 1999-2004 GT four-speed automatic by nearly a full second. A same-gen five-speed manual GT managed only a 5.4 0-60 , and an automatic Mach 1 mustered a 5.6 second best. Similar story in the quter mile: THe new car's 13.6 second time is about half to a full second better. It's 99.9 mph trap speed is just shjy where most current-gen Mustangs run. We suspect the new car's deep, high-fuel-milage fourth and fifth gears are to blame.
What would a manual trans GT be good for? Estimates on automatic-to-stick-shift conversion factors vary, but this auto's close 1-2-3 gearing keeps the engien boiling, so the difference may not be as much as you think. It's safe tos ay a self-shifting GT is a sub five second runner, likely in the 4.8-4.9 second range.
In the salom, the new Mustang feels altogether more precise, predictable, and stable than the car it replaces. The firmer platform is better suited to allowing hte suspensions and tires to do thier jobs more effectively. Where the old car slides as a whole past each cone (unpredictably at that), the 2005 bites hard on intial turn-in, transfers weight in the blink of an eye, and manages rear roll-steer better. Just a hint of opposite-direction wheel input brings the rear end back in line with an authoritative snap ready for the next cone. The best run was over 66 mph, better than any previous Mustang except the race-ready Cobra R of 2000. In typical Mustang fashion, the new car lapses into terminal understeer in the slower-speed skidpad test, but still managed a Cobra like 0.84g orbit.
In case you're wondering how the new Mustang stacks up agaisnt the GTO: The American pony is faster and nimbler than the Australian-bred goat-automatic or manual-but a retest will be in order as soon as we can get our hands on the upcoming 400-horse Pontiac-Chris Walton
Another side box, THE IMPORTANT ONE!
Exclusive First Track Test
We've got the numbers...and they're good
Don't ask us how, but we had our way with a 2005 Mustang GT five-speed automtaic just long enough to gather real test numbers and send this pony back to the barn wet. To say we're please with the results would be like saying it'd be cool to have Jay Leno's garage keys for a day.
Here's the deal from our man behind the wheel: From a stop, the 2005 GT launches with unexpected ferocity at under two seconds to 30 mph. Normaly, this king of urgent getaway is reserved for cars with clutch pedals and DIY gear boxes. Using a brake-torquing technique at over 2000rpm, the new Pirelli tires favor a liberal amount of wheelspin, easily modulated with the throttle. The P Zero Neros hook up more readily than the Goodyear Eagles on previous Mustangs, which tend to alternately spin in vain or bog-'n'-go depending on launch rpm. The new engine revs quickly pas the indicated 6000 rpm readline and shifts just shy of the "real" 6200 limit. First, second, and third gearsl are tightly spaced and snap off upshifts nearly as rapidly as a Mercedes AMG SpeedShift automtaic. Forth and fifth gears, however, are performance-stinking black holes slowing hte otherwise energetic acceleration curve.
The 2005 GT is quicker than all but the current supercharged SVT Cobra, and, even so, only by a 0.2 to 0.3 second margin. With a 5.1 second run to 60 mph, the new Mustang outruns a compareable 1999-2004 GT four-speed automatic by nearly a full second. A same-gen five-speed manual GT managed only a 5.4 0-60 , and an automatic Mach 1 mustered a 5.6 second best. Similar story in the quter mile: THe new car's 13.6 second time is about half to a full second better. It's 99.9 mph trap speed is just shjy where most current-gen Mustangs run. We suspect the new car's deep, high-fuel-milage fourth and fifth gears are to blame.
What would a manual trans GT be good for? Estimates on automatic-to-stick-shift conversion factors vary, but this auto's close 1-2-3 gearing keeps the engien boiling, so the difference may not be as much as you think. It's safe tos ay a self-shifting GT is a sub five second runner, likely in the 4.8-4.9 second range.
In the salom, the new Mustang feels altogether more precise, predictable, and stable than the car it replaces. The firmer platform is better suited to allowing hte suspensions and tires to do thier jobs more effectively. Where the old car slides as a whole past each cone (unpredictably at that), the 2005 bites hard on intial turn-in, transfers weight in the blink of an eye, and manages rear roll-steer better. Just a hint of opposite-direction wheel input brings the rear end back in line with an authoritative snap ready for the next cone. The best run was over 66 mph, better than any previous Mustang except the race-ready Cobra R of 2000. In typical Mustang fashion, the new car lapses into terminal understeer in the slower-speed skidpad test, but still managed a Cobra like 0.84g orbit.
In case you're wondering how the new Mustang stacks up agaisnt the GTO: The American pony is faster and nimbler than the Australian-bred goat-automatic or manual-but a retest will be in order as soon as we can get our hands on the upcoming 400-horse Pontiac-Chris Walton
9/26/04 | 07:00 PM
#45
V6 Member
Joined: September 1, 2004
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Only in America could an econobox in fancy dress named for a wild horse become the must-have machine of an entire generation. Where else could a musclecar's sales rise as its powertrain and chassis were emasculated (mid-1970's)? And in what other land could a manufacture lie about a car's engine size in bright chrome numerals for 14 years and even fudge power output a couple times along the way without sales tanking?
The way the article started, seen bias. We'll see what the other mags have to say about our new stang.
The way the article started, seen bias. We'll see what the other mags have to say about our new stang.
9/26/04 | 07:01 PM
#46
Bullitt Member
Joined: January 29, 2004
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
There is a huge picture of the Mustang on the front. It's a torch red, I think, the darker red! The same red we always see when Ford brings it to a show. Yeah, I picked it up from a newstand on 86th inbetween lexington and 3rd in the upper east side Manhattan. There's also a subsection about all the V6s being sold to Hertz but I'm not typing that, it's not releveant!
*edit, in the article, there is a picture of the white automatic doing a burn out.
*another edit, a HUGE burnout
*edit, in the article, there is a picture of the white automatic doing a burn out.
*another edit, a HUGE burnout
9/26/04 | 07:06 PM
#47
Bullitt Member
Joined: February 5, 2004
Posts: 393
Likes: 0
Originally posted by willy_sc5.0@September 26, 2004, 6:03 PM
Only in America could an econobox in fancy dress named for a wild horse become the must-have machine of an entire generation. Where else could a musclecar's sales rise as its powertrain and chassis were emasculated (mid-1970's)? And in what other land could a manufacture lie about a car's engine size in bright chrome numerals for 14 years and even fudge power output a couple times along the way without sales tanking?
The way the article started, seen bias. We'll see what the other mags have to say about our new stang.
Only in America could an econobox in fancy dress named for a wild horse become the must-have machine of an entire generation. Where else could a musclecar's sales rise as its powertrain and chassis were emasculated (mid-1970's)? And in what other land could a manufacture lie about a car's engine size in bright chrome numerals for 14 years and even fudge power output a couple times along the way without sales tanking?
The way the article started, seen bias. We'll see what the other mags have to say about our new stang.
The msutang has 267 bhp @ 5275 and 283 lbs-ft @ 4350 at the crank.
9/26/04 | 07:09 PM
#48
Team Mustang Source
Joined: February 1, 2004
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
From: Richmond, VA
Originally posted by StevenJ@September 26, 2004, 6:03 PM
The 2005 GT is quicker than all but the current supercharged SVT Cobra, and, even so, only by a 0.2 to 0.3 second margin. With a 5.1 second run to 60 mph, the new Mustang outruns a compareable 1999-2004 GT four-speed automatic by nearly a full second. A same-gen five-speed manual GT managed only a 5.4 0-60 , and an automatic Mach 1 mustered a 5.6 second best. Similar story in the quter mile: THe new car's 13.6 second time is about half to a full second better. It's 99.9 mph trap speed is just shjy where most current-gen Mustangs run. We suspect the new car's deep, high-fuel-milage fourth and fifth gears are to blame.
In case you're wondering how the new Mustang stacks up agaisnt the GTO: The American pony is faster and nimbler than the Australian-bred goat-automatic or manual-but a retest will be in order as soon as we can get our hands on the upcoming 400-horse Pontiac-Chris Walton
The 2005 GT is quicker than all but the current supercharged SVT Cobra, and, even so, only by a 0.2 to 0.3 second margin. With a 5.1 second run to 60 mph, the new Mustang outruns a compareable 1999-2004 GT four-speed automatic by nearly a full second. A same-gen five-speed manual GT managed only a 5.4 0-60 , and an automatic Mach 1 mustered a 5.6 second best. Similar story in the quter mile: THe new car's 13.6 second time is about half to a full second better. It's 99.9 mph trap speed is just shjy where most current-gen Mustangs run. We suspect the new car's deep, high-fuel-milage fourth and fifth gears are to blame.
In case you're wondering how the new Mustang stacks up agaisnt the GTO: The American pony is faster and nimbler than the Australian-bred goat-automatic or manual-but a retest will be in order as soon as we can get our hands on the upcoming 400-horse Pontiac-Chris Walton
Naners!!!
9/26/04 | 07:11 PM
#51
Cobra Member
Joined: January 31, 2004
Posts: 1,261
Likes: 0
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing about the horsepower numbers! 267 at the rear, though? That seems a little low for the performance numbers they put up. Sounds more like it has 280hp at the wheels. Hmm, who knows? We'll find out soon enough.
BTW... what exactly is a donkey doughnut, Adam? :scratch:
66+ in the slalom and .84g on the skidpad are pretty respectable numbers! Definitely sounds like this is the best production Mustang ever.
BTW... what exactly is a donkey doughnut, Adam? :scratch:
66+ in the slalom and .84g on the skidpad are pretty respectable numbers! Definitely sounds like this is the best production Mustang ever.
9/26/04 | 07:12 PM
#52
Thread Starter
I Have No Life
Joined: January 30, 2004
Posts: 10,446
Likes: 12
From: Canada
Wow thanks Steveman....those were great articles...
I think even the bashers are having a tough time coming up with things to trounce on....
I cannot wait for this car!!!!
Sub 14 sec 1/4s and sub 5 second 0-60s
Boooyaka!
I think even the bashers are having a tough time coming up with things to trounce on....
I cannot wait for this car!!!!
Sub 14 sec 1/4s and sub 5 second 0-60s
Boooyaka!
9/26/04 | 07:16 PM
#54
Bullitt Member
Joined: February 5, 2004
Posts: 393
Likes: 0
Originally posted by Dr Iven@September 26, 2004, 6:14 PM
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing about the horsepower numbers! 267 at the rear, though? That seems a little low for the performance numbers they put up. Sounds more like it has 280hp at the wheels. Hmm, who knows? We'll find out soon enough.
BTW... what exactly is a donkey doughnut, Adam? :scratch:
66+ in the slalom and .84g on the skidpad are pretty respectable numbers! Definitely sounds like this is the best production Mustang ever.
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing about the horsepower numbers! 267 at the rear, though? That seems a little low for the performance numbers they put up. Sounds more like it has 280hp at the wheels. Hmm, who knows? We'll find out soon enough.
BTW... what exactly is a donkey doughnut, Adam? :scratch:
66+ in the slalom and .84g on the skidpad are pretty respectable numbers! Definitely sounds like this is the best production Mustang ever.
BTW... what exactly is a donkey doughnut, Adam? :scratch:
9/26/04 | 07:20 PM
#56
Bullitt Member
Joined: January 29, 2004
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
I am a very fast typist. It was not a problem. I have little better to do on a sunday night afterall. Now if only the girl I was trying to call was home, then I'd have something to do! lol! Israeli chicks are wierd, don't ask.
