Horus I think you are being a little unrealistic in your expectations. Our cars are drastically heavier that the originals also the 67 gt500 was running a big block engine. Take a look at the following site http://www.zeroto60times.com/Ferrari...mph-Times.html

The fastest car on there is the 2005 enzo at 2.8 0-60 and you know how much that costs and is carbon fiber. It takes more than HP to make a car go fast. Weight and aerodynamic drag plays a great part.

Here is a list of Mustang times

Ford Mustang 0 to 60 mph and Quarter Mile Times
1964 Ford Mustang (V8) 0-60 mph 7.3 Quarter mile 15.5
1966 Ford Mustang (V8, Auto) 0-60 mph 10.8 Quarter mile 17.7
1967 Ford Mustang (V8) 0-60 mph 7.3 Quarter mile 15.4
1969 Ford Mustang Mach 1 0-60 mph 5.6 Quarter mile 14.1
1969 Ford Mustang Mach 1 0-60 mph 5.6 Quarter mile 13.7
1970 Ford Mustang Boss 302 0-60 mph 6.4 Quarter mile 14.7
1971 Ford Mustang (V8) 0-60 mph 5.7 Quarter mile13.8
1971 Ford Mustang Boss 351 0-60 mph 5.7 Quarter mile 13.6
1973 Ford Mustang 0-60 mph 8.8 Quarter mile 16.1
1974 Ford Mustang II 0-60 mph 14.1 Quarter mile 18.6
1974 Ford Mustang II (Auto) 0-60 mph 15.5 Quarter mile 19.2
1975 Ford Mustang II (V8) 0-60 mph 9.5 Quarter mile 17.3
1977 Ford Mustang II (V8) 0-60 mph 11.2 Quarter mile 17.5
1980 Ford Mustang 0-60 mph 11.7 Quarter mile 18.3
1980 Ford Mustang Cobra 0-60 mph 11.2 Quarter mile 18.2
1981 Ford Mustang M81 McLaren (2.3L Turbo) 0-60 mph 9.6 Quarter mile 17.2
1982 Ford Mustang GT 0-60 mph 7.4 Quarter mile 15.9
1984 Ford Mustang SVO 0-60 mph 7.8 Quarter mile 15.6
1985 Ford Mustang GT 0-60 mph 6.3 Quarter mile 14.7
1987 Ford Mustang GT 0-60 mph 6.3 Quarter mile 14.2
1988 Ford Mustang GT 0-60 mph 6.3 15.0
1989 Ford Mustang GT 5.0L (Manual) 0-60 mph 6.1 Quarter mile 14.6
1990 Ford Mustang LX 5.0L 0-60 mph 6.3 Quarter mile 14.7
1991 Ford Mustang GT 0-60 mph 7.2 Quarter mile 15.6
1992 Ford Mustang LX 5.0L 0-60 mph 6.1 Quarter mile 14.6
1993 Ford Mustang Cobra 0-60 mph 5.9 Quarter mile 14.4
1993 Ford Mustang GT (Auto) 0-60 mph 7.9 Quarter mile 15.9
1994 Ford Mustang Cobra 0-60 mph 5.3 Quarter mile 13.8
1994 Ford Mustang GT 0-60 mph 6.6 Quarter mile 14.9
1994 Ford Saleen Mustang S-351 0-60 mph 5.8 Quarter mile 14.1
1995 Ford Mustang 3.8L 0-60 mph 9.8 Quarter mile 17.1
1995 Ford Mustang Cobra R 0-60 mph 5.1 Quarter mile 13.6
1996 Ford Mustang Cobra 0-60 mph 5.4 Quarter mile 13.8
1996 Ford Mustang GT 0-60 mph 6.7 Quarter mile 15.1
1996 Ford Mustang Saleen S351R Speedster 0-60 mph 5.1 Quarter mile 13.5
1998 Ford Mustang Cobra SVT 0-60 mph 5.3 Quarter mile 13.8
1999 Ford Mustang Cobra SVT 0-60 mph 5.3 Quarter mile 13.7
1999 Ford Mustang Convertible (V6) 0-60 mph 8.5 Quarter mile 16.3
1999 Ford Mustang GT 0-60 mph 5.4 Quarter mile 13.9
1999 Ford Mustang GT Convertible 0-60 mph 6.1 Quarter mile 14.4
2000 Ford Mustang SVT Cobra R 0-60 mph 4.3 Quarter mile 12.7
2000 Ford Saleen Mustang S-281 0-60 mph 4.7 Quarter mile 13.2
2000 Ford Mustang Saleen S281 Supercharged 0-60 mph 5.0 Quarter mile 13.6
2000 Ford Mustang Roush Stage 3 0-60 mph 5.0 Quarter Mile 13.3
2001 Ford Mustang Bullitt GT 0-60 mph 5.5 Quarter mile 13.9
2001 Ford Mustang Cobra SVT 0-60 mph 4.7 Quarter mile 13.3
2001 Ford Mustang Roush Stage 3 0-60 mph 4.2 Quarter mile 12.9
2003 Ford Mustang Roush 380R 0-60 mph 5.2 Quarter Mile 13.7
2003 Ford Mustang Cobra SVT 0-60 mph 4.4 Quarter mile 12.2
2003 Ford Mustang Mach 1 (Auto) 0-60 mph 5.5 Quarter mile 13.7
2003 Ford Mustang Mach 1 (Manual) 0-60 mph 4.6 Quarter mile 13.0
2004 Ford Mustang Cobra SVT 0-60 mph 4.4 Quarter mile 12.6
2005 Ford Mustang 0-60 mph 6.8 Quarter mile 15.1
2005 Ford Mustang GT (4.6L V8) 0-60 mph 5.0 Quarter mile 13.3
2005 Ford Mustang GT Convertible 0-60 mph 5.1 Quarter mile 13.6
2007 Ford Mustang Shelby GT 0-60 mph 4.9 Quarter mile 13.4
2007 Ford Mustang Shelby GT500 0-60 mph 4.4 Quarter mile 12.7
2007 Ford Mustang Shelby GT500 Convertible 0-60 mph 4.4 Quarter mile 12.7
2007 Ford Mustang Shelby GT-H 0-60 mph 5.2 Quarter mile 13.7
2007 Ford Mustang Roush Stage 3 0-60 mph 5.0 Quarter Mile 13.4
2008 Ford Mustang Bullitt 0-60 mph 4.9 Quarter mile 13.4
2008 Ford Mustang Convertible 0-60 mph 7.2 Quarter mile 15.5
2009 Ford Mustang GT (Glass Roof Option) 0-60 mph 5.2 Quarter Mile 13.6
2010 Ford Mustang Shelby GT500 0-60 mph 4.5 Quarter mile 12.8
2010 Ford Mustang GT 0-60 mph 4.9 Quarter mile 13.5
2010 Ford Mustang (Manual) 0-60 mph 6.5 Quarter Mile 15.1
2010 Ford Mustang Shelby GT500 Convertible 0-60 mph 4.6 Quarter Mile 12.8
2011 Ford Mustang Shelby GT500 0-60 mph 4.0 Quarter Mile 12.2
2011 Ford Mustang GT 5.0 Convertible 0-60 mph 4.6 Quarter Mile 13.0
2011 Ford Mustang 0-60 mph 5.3 Quarter Mile 13.8
2011 Ford Mustang GT 5.0 0-60 mph 4.5 Quarter Mile 13.0 ★ Editor's Choice ★
2012 Ford Mustang Boss 302 0-60 mph 4.0 Quarter Mile 12.1
2013 Ford Mustang Shelby GT500 0-60 mph 3.6 Quarter Mile 11.5
2013 Ford Mustang V-6 Premium 0-60 mph 5.1 Quarter Mile 13.7
2013 Ford Mustang GT 5.0 Convertible (Manual) 0-60 mph 4.5 Quarter Mile 12.9
2013 Ford Mustang GT 5.0 Convertible (Auto) 0-60 mph 4.7 Quarter Mile 13.1
2013 Ford Mustang Boss 302 Laguna Seca Edition 0-60 mph 4.1 Quarter Mile 12.5
2013 Ford Mustang Shelby GT500 Convertible 0-60 mph 3.6 Quarter Mile 11.9

As you can see there is has been a steady improvement in times except for the Bleak 70's.

 

Those times are as random as it gets, 99-01 cobra gains .6 in the quarter with no changes?

03 cobra runs a 12.2? Please....

03 Mach1 auto vs manual is .7 second difference?

A 11' 5.0 is slower than a 13' convertible? There's those 8 ponys.

This is bench racing at its best. Google working overtime

 

I didn't say they were gospel. I was just trying to illustrate that there has been constant improvement in the mustang.

 

That would be my bad...was on car and driver and clicked on a link. Those weren't for a stock GT500. 0-60 is 6.2 sec and 1/4 is 14.5 @ 101. These are off motor trends classic road tests. Had a 67 427 Vette versus the 67 GT 500.

 

I enjoyed looking at the data bee bop posted. I did not see any data for the 1971 429 Super Cobra Jet Mustangs. The 429 could be ordered in a base Mustang but I never saw a magazine test of a base Mustang with a 429. I do remember reading about a test of a 1971 Mach 1 Super Cobra Jet with 3.91 rear gears but not a test of one with the optional 4.11 rear gears. The times for cars from that era are real good considering how narrow the rear tires were back then.

 

guys,.. You can estimate all you want but I lived thru it. The 60's GT500's were no where near as fast as todays cars. Period. My bud had a 68 GT500 KR in High school and another had a 69 Cobra 428 Torino. Neither could break 100 mph at Atco in the mid to lats 70's.

 

Someone asked what older cars you could get that would do 12s. Remember back in the old days you could order whatever you wanted from a lot of dealers and they would be backed up with a factory warranty. Look up names like Saleen, Baldwin-Motion, Callaway, Yenko, COPO, Ligenfelter, there were a bunch of dealer/speed shop collaborations, the big one I remember from back then (I'm on the east coast) was Baldwin-Motion, up in Long Island I believe, the Dealer could sell you a 10sec car if you had the funds, and it would carry the factory warranty. That was from a dealer off the showroom floor a 10sec car. Only prob was it had a Bowtie on it, but that's a good example of how things worked back then for enthusiasts.
All the magazine reports from back then don't use these high end models. Ford was heavily into drag racing and if you could get your hands on one of their factory "special" Mustangs, you would laugh at a GT500.
Pontiac had some big block monsters too, I remember riding in a Trans AM with the 455 (not sure what year, was a long time ago) and it would punch you back in the seat so hard you'd think you were in a jet.
Big Block American cars from 68-71 just had personality, that's what Ford need to do make every model unique, give them personality, attitude, that will build the following the company needs. Maybe a high end performer to compete with the Corvette rather than settle for a fight with its little brother.

 

I have to disagree because they already do. My $28,900 base GT smokes Base Vettes 10 out of 10 at the track.

 

How heavily modded is your GT? Just a quick search on 1/4 mile times shows if your car is unmodded you stand no chance against an base vette. Its ok to be a fanboy, but try to be realistic.

Post some youtube videos, or just search at youtube, you'll see some cool stuff.
I use to race a lot years ago, I've learned a few things. Newer Vettes are most of the time...UNmodded, unlike our rides, it hurts a vettes value when you start messing with it. Older vettes are the ones to race, they have the light weight, good suspensions, and tweaked engines. You beat a blown bigblock on slicks you'll know you have a serious car.

 

It depends on the Vette. I've run mine with a few Grand Sports. They were both autos and running right around 12.5-12.6 consistently. This was at VMP in Dinwiddie in the heat. I have a manual, and I would run anywhere from a 13.0-12.7 when I was stock. With a tune and a couple minor mods yes I can run the average base and grand sport Vette driver. But there are guys out there getting 11's out of manual Grand Sport Vettes.

 

Exactly what my complaint is about. Why should we have to buy the high end model of what we like to compete barely with the bottom basement Vette?
You do realize the Grand Sport is a touring centric model right? They don't concentrate on straight line performance with that model that's why it has the smallest weakest engine in the current Vette lineup. How do you do against the Z06? or ZR-1?
The problem is the price vs performance point that Ford just can't seem to match. I was pissed when that GT40 came out and matched vette performance straight line----but costed $40,000 more than the vette, and was left in the dust in cornering. Match vette performance overall and give it to me for the same price and I'll spend 110K, but I'm not going to spend an extra $40k for something that doesn't at least match all benchmarks.

Forget about Vetts though what does Ford need to do to get sales back and make the Mustang of today an iconic car again? Its simple. Remember at the height of its popularity it was a cheap car--not in quality-- in price. The average guy could buy one for the purpose of being a toy working on it and making it faster. He could make the payments and buy tons of aftermarket goodies to bolt on. With prices today I don't think people are buying them solely as toys, $30K-$50k is a decent amount of money for anyone, the avg guy making $60k a year isn't going to buy one to play with. Hey Ford--we need a cheap, stripped down weekend toy version with a screaming V-8, something where we can add exactly what we want.

 

Interesting Bee Bop's list in that today's base V6 Mustang can pretty much take any and all of the vaunted '60s and '70s big-block muscle cars in acceleration yet has none of the cantankerousness, thirst, stink, or clumsiness of those dreadnaughts.

Sure, maybe not all the character either, but that “character” was a two-edged sword and not all of it really desirable in actual day to day driving and living with those beasts.

The current GT500 will utterly obliterate any and all of those storied muscle cars yet is perfectly content to amble down to the supermarket for a case of suds or trek across the country without stopping three times to clean the plugs, replace the points, reset the timing and replace a few other befouled or broken bits and pieces.

 

A GT500 costs as much as a vette. The vette is faster in a straight line and obliterates/humiliates the GT500 on any course with a curve.
When a GT500 hits 10's straight off the showroom floor you can make the claims you tried to make, do a little searching on those names I dropped earlier in the thread, 10 sec off the showroom floor, yea it was real.
Is it too much for us to ask for a Mustang that can stop all debates, something the GM guys will say ... dam that's fast?
I beat a Vette track what does the Vette owner say? "At the end of the day your still parking a Ford, I get to park a Corvette" and everyone around laughs; is that what the Mustang has devolved into? A joke? We need some serious engineers at Ford.

 

Which is why I've always thought the S197 GT500 was always a touch overpriced for what you got. But hey, they still sold and sell them all, so who's to say they're "overpriced," if perhaps less of a value than was the SVT in its day.

The Vette lords a few basic but considerable performance advantages over the GT500, mainly in being some 3/4 of a ton lighter with a much lower CG and also a lot less aerodynamic drag to slow its pace. I don't think any truly showroom stock muscle car of the '60's ever really got under 13 seconds in the quarter. A few of them didn't take too many tweaks to get deep into the twelves or even the 11 second realm, but 10 seconds? I don't even think the hottest 427 Cobras could do that.

As for the 2015 Stang, particularly the GT500 version/successor? Their might be some real potential there. Figure on it being smaller, sleeker and perhaps 200-300lbs lighter than the outgoing version -- all huge plusses for performance. Add in a TT5.0, perhaps with DI, for perhaps and even broader powerband than the current SC5.7 and you have the potential for some really eye-watering accelleration. I wouldn't think a 10 second car, but certainly and easily into the 11s.

As for the rest of the performance envelope, a revamped suspension, particularly an IRS at long last, and I would imagine huge improvements in handling and braking too.

I don't think the Mustang, but dint of its larger 2+2 coupe architecture and need to sell at a far lower base price point, will ever fully match or exceed the full on sports car Vette, but I do think it will come much closer and will likely exceed its more direct competitors, the Camaro and Challenger, and probably give the upcoming BMW 4 Series and M3/4 some real headaches for far less coin.

In sum, I have every hope the 2015 will be a very capable and fully 21st-century engineered sports coupe that will be fully competitive, globally.

 

Ford GT wasn't competing against the Vette. It's a whole class above a Vette. Sure the Vette might have been faster in some metrics for cheaper. But what Vette from 2005-2006 has close to doubled its asking price? The Ford GT is right up there with Ferrari and Lamborghini. The Vette might be performance wise but that's it.

Z06-ZR1? Toast me stock or modified. And yes you could buy a 10 second showroom car. But how many total were sold? A few 1000 over all the manufacturers over the muscle car era? If that's all you care about then go buy one of them. And enjoy your 2-3 MPG on $12 a gallon race gas. The days of buying street legal race cars are long gone. Even if they offered one the price would be far north of Cobra Jet pricing

 

If the GT was a class above why does EVERY reputable source that tested the GT at $140K and the ZR1 at $110k say the straight line performance was identical and the vette out handled the GT hands down? That "class" above you talk about ...those foreign cars you mentioned, ever notice that magazines testing those foreign jobs always include the top Vette in their comparisons? Its because the top o the line Vetts are built on that level of performance..ie they are in that "class".
The Calloway Sledgehammer didn't need race gas, and hit 254mph in the late 80's if I remember right, it also idled like a mild cam car.
Really I think all the American car manufacturers are doing just what they have to to sell cars and none of them are going out of the way for customers.
40 years ago a car that ran 12's was fast, today a car that runs 12's is fast. Its a fact and it shows how little in advancement we are getting. Before you guy respond with you duurr..my car is faster than that... just think about that statement. 40 years agoo....

 

Hardly any cars, back in the day, ran 12's off the showroom. All that power with freakin 185 tires, I don't think so. We get man, you love GM and their vette's, move along now.

The ford GT was a low production exotic car, not a base corvette with a blower on it. Zo6>Zr1 imo anyways.

 

I like all American sports cars. Not a fanboy of any 1 more than the other, but when someone says something that's not correct I'll say something. I have a Mustang, like my mustang a lot. Just not satisfied with what ANY car maker is offering at the moment. Trying to disqualify my statements with a "you love gm" doesn't disprove anything. Rather than live in a denial of reality I'm calling it as I see it. Sure I like my Mustang but I'm not delusional enough to assume it was built to compete with World Level cars.

The New Vette looks so euro trash they have totally lost any resemblance to any American car. The Camaros have the worst designed cabin in the history of the car, and if you go for any upgrades for the track its a total teeth rattling piece o crap. The Mustang as seen by everyone that doesn't own one...is a joke car. The Charger is considered a slow, fat land yacht.

Really GM, Ford, and Dodge need to reinvent the image of these cars, most people (not pony fanboys), consider these cars not as "One day will be a classic"...but rather they see them as "One day will sit rusting in a trailer park."
When I was in HS all I and all my buddies wanted were Mustangs or Camaros, my kids ... didn't want either. Its sad but this is what American muscle has seemingly devolved too.

I didn't say EVERY car form back when could run 12's, I said there were some, you admit it by you statement "Hardly any" doesn't that mean that some did? Thanks for saying I was right.

 

The Corvette Grand Sport, in addition to its weight and CG advantage (as mention by rhumb above), is powered by a 430-horse LS3 engine. That isn't exactly weak. It starts at $56,000, too. No matter how you want to spin it, I think it's pretty impressive that a heavier, presumably-less-powerful "joke" of a Mustang GT can hang with a Corvette, regardless of the latter's area of concentration.

Both the $75,000 Z06 and $115,000 ZR-1 Corvettes you menton could obliterate my lowly $35,000 Mustang GT. Your point is...? What is it that you're expecting out of the Mustang? When compared to its natural GM competitor, the Camaro, the parity gap closes quite considerably. Does that mean that GM needs engineers as badly as Ford does, or is GM exonerated in your mind because they produce the slayer-of-all Corvette? I'm really just trying to understand where you're coming from.

 

When I said "hardly any" it was just a way of saying I'm not 100% certain. Don't wanna seem like a know-it-all