Do you think the new GT will give us a good run?

[blazinsteed]

I don't know about you guys but my friend has a 96 cobra. I owned an 01 gt before i got the mach. stock I was turning 14.00 flatts and he was turning 14.1-14.3's so in my experience the gt's are fine in the quarter and really close or slightly edge out those cobras. Now if they changed anything for 97 and 98 I don't know but this has just been my experience

[ttown]

Originally posted by blazinsteed
I don't know about you guys but my friend has a 96 cobra. I owned an 01 gt before i got the mach. stock I was turning 14.00 flatts and he was turning 14.1-14.3's so in my experience the gt's are fine in the quarter and really close or slightly edge out those cobras. Now if they changed anything for 97 and 98 I don't know but this has just been my experience

A 96 cobra is a drivers race with my 02 GT they are way under geared. Ford addressed that problem with the mach by not only putting in 3:55 gears for a little more bite with out suffering any gas mileage but new cams out of the 5.4 engine. It's really improved low/mid range torqe in the 4 valve motor. A highway race the 96 would walk a late model GT........

[00GT]

test drives dont count, you need to stop correcting everyone, i'm sure theres a bmx forum that suites you

[Omegalock]

Originally posted by nrmustang
[B]First lets identify the title of the thread you started on stangnet: "Beating a soon to be dead horse. The 05 GT vs the current Mach 1 and there owners."

Now what conclusion should we- Mach 1 owners- gather from that title? Maybe we gather that the Mach is on its way out and the GT on its way in? HMMM.....

Hmmm you are reading things into it that aren't there.
Ever heard the term beating a dead horse i.e. a topic that has been discussed so much that it is dead. The 05/Mach topic has been brought up a ton of times already and thus the reason I said...beating a soon to be dead horse. I'm sorry if you took it the wrong way but I did not mean it that way. Now as for this if you had read my other posts I had already made this clear(I thought) that I did not mean it that way.

First let me try to reply to your eye bleeding return. If anyone were to read your comments on that thread, the air there is negative towards the Mach and we as there owners. Justify or have us read between the lines all you want, but thats the simple truth. The sarcasm in the comments are evident such as: "Anybody else think that should the 05 GT run with (or heaven forbid beat) the Mach...."

Did I say that? No. I said heaven forbid that it should beat the Mach we might have another nasty intercar rivalry. You selectively quoting part of a sentence and TRYING to make my posts say something they don't will not work.
BTW if you see someone use () in the middle of a sentence it's equivelent to someone using ,, to segment two thoughts in a single sentence. The ( is not a thought ending puncutation.
I just told you flat out what I meant by everything I said. Anybody can read it and tell I was NOT ragging you guys. If you have a chip on your shoulder and misconstrue it that way sorry.
The air was not negative to you as a whole but to the people that were misinformed or had confusingly biased opinions. Look at the last two lines of the post. I flat out say I think it would suck if a grudge between the groups developed.

The more I read your replies the more it makes me want to laugh. You back track, change thoughts, and clearly dont have any ownership experience of not one Mustang. If that seems car snob to you, sorry. However the first reply to your thread on stangnet said it all: "How would you like it if you paid $30,000 for something and in 1 1/2 years come out with something thats cheaper and faster than your car?"

Wait a minute now you are trying to railroad me with somebody else's comments? You can't be serious.
1)Point to me were I have "backtracked".
2)I freely admit to not having a Mustang yet I'm looking at buying a new car within a year,have been in love with Mustangs since I was young AND like driving them. You put two and two together and figure out if I have some kind of hatred against the car or not. If you can't figure it out I'll spell it out for you...I don't.
As far as being a car snob is concerned you are walking a fine line if you claim you aren't. The fact that you are toying with the notion of trying to discount my opinion because I currently don't own a Mustang is laughable. That's little ticky tack crap that people fall back on when they quickly realize they don't have a point.

You see my friend, OWNERSHIP experience WOULD help you to see the other side of the coin more clearly. Many of us tirelessly get up in the morning to go out to work to pay for our expenses, save a little money, and splurge just a little to buy some happiness.

The other side of the coin being a blindness to cold hard numbers, trends, and the ability to apply that to a reasoned arguement? Sorry but that doesn't fly because that's what is going on here.

Maybe its a Mach 1, maybe it'll be an '05. But to have someone who clearly is in love with a car that isnt even out yet, come and try to hit us owners over the head with his unexperienced opinions as to why Ford does what they do is unfounded!

Unexperienced? Again hello I've been around these things since before I was old enough to drive. I'm hitting you over the head with cold hard FACT you don't like it. For whatever reason I'm not sure of but you admit to what I was saying to even be partially true and now you say I'm hitting you over the head with opinion.

If you bought your first stang BRAND NEW 05, and the 06 GT was to have better performance for the same price- then had some kid start smack talkin' your car in favor of the 06' you'd be pissed too!

I honestly wouldn't care to be truthful. But if the "kid" had a decent amount of knowledge,had been around the cars for a while,and spoke with fact and reason I wouldn't be pissed.
But let me understand your arguement.
You think I am a kid...(not true)
that is "smack talking your car"(not true I've said numerous times I LIKE Machs)
saying the 05 will have better performance(not true as I've already said if anything it'll likely run neck and neck in straight line acceleration).
I strongly suggest you take a step back and reasses here.

I'm not hating on the cars. I'm not hating on all the owners.
What I DID do is correct what I thought to be faulty thinking.
I DID ask others what they thought of the potential of an intercar rivalry(of which I said would suck flat out.)
I AM debating whether Ford keeps a premium on nameplates and restricts performance levels of next generation vehicles in order not to offend owners of the old model. And I still contend recent history bares this out. It bares it out even in the form of your own car.

Some of us may not like it, some of us see right through your childish remarks.

The two of you are blowing things out of proportion and are trying to make me into some cage rattling ogre that gets a kick on making people mad. Not the case.

However, its not the 05's fault were having this discussion, its the computer lurking geek on the other side that has to set everyone straight on a car he doesnt even have.

Set everybody straight on the logic of....
Ford won't let the 05 GT run with the Mach because the Mach is a speciality car.
And the faulty logic a car that has a similar power output to the Mach ,similar weight to the Mach better weight distribution than the Mach and likely a better suspension will not run a 14 second quarter mile.

How old are you?

I'm 25 how old are you?
How much do you make a year?
What do you do for a living?

I mean you havent even drivin the stang that started it all, the 87-93 Fox?

**SCRRREEEEEEEEEEEECCHHHHHHHHHHH**
Wait wait wait WAIT!
You are saying the 87 Fox started it all? Are you kidding me?
What the hell was the 64 1/2 Mustang chopped liver?

If I have offended you, I apologize- stop crying- do you need a glass of water?- everything will be alright.

No I just thought somebody who keeps calling me "kid" would have at least the maturity level to back up such a deriding comment and would be big enough to keep the insults to a minimum. Obviously I was wrong.

[Omegalock]

Originally posted by 00GT
test drives dont count, you need to stop correcting everyone, i'm sure theres a bmx forum that suites you

Yeah I've only test driven them...
I only correct what's wrong if you have a problem with it you can cease to read my posts or attempt to correct me on my own mistakes(of which I fully welcome). Other wise you can just continue to add a minimum of logical input into this thread and climb up into the peanut gallery and become the cyber equivelent of a heckler.

[Angus66]

Originally posted by Omegalock

And the faulty logic a car that has a similar power output to the Mach ,similar weight to the Mach better weight distribution than the Mach and likely a better suspension will not run a 14 second quarter mile.

Until the car is actually in real buyers hands,
the proposed specifications are nice to talk about, but they don't mean JACK at this point...

But - just for arguments sake - let's look at what's been released info-wise & compare the (possible) straight-line performance
:

The '05 GT engine will have around 300 crank hp & 315 crank tq.
(Could be higher or lower - only Ford & true psychics know for sure...)

The Mach 1 has ~ 320 - 335+ crank hp & 345 - 360 crank tq.
(As reported by numerous dyno-tests.)

The '05 GT will weigh around 100 lbs more than the current Mach 1 - 3550 lbs vs 3450 lbs for the sake of argument.
(Again, could be higher or lower - only Ford & the psychics know for sure...)

The rear gears of the '05 will be 3.55.
(Again, could be higher or lower...We'll say the 3.55 is correct)

The Mach 1 has 3.55 gears.

Both cars use/will use the Tremec T3650 5-spd.
(Gear ratios will probably remain the same)

The '05 GT will use 235/55R17 or P255/45R18 tires.
(Probably a hard compound for good wear.)

The Mach 1 uses 245/45ZR17 tires.

So, exactly how can a car that is:

Heavier
Has less hp & tq
Has the same rear gear ratio
Rides on skinnier or lower profile tires
Has the same transmission gear ratios

be faster in a straight line?

Let's be honest here - unless the VVT of the new 3V engine works really friggin' well - the '05 GT sounds like a high 13-second car to me.

Of course that doesn't take a **** thing away from the stiffer chassis, better ride quality & awesome styling.

It just makes it slower than the current '03/'04 Mach's...

...but not "Slow"

[Omegalock]

Originally posted by Angus66
[B]Until the car is actually in real buyers hands,
the proposed specifications are nice to talk about, but they don't mean JACK at this point...

But - just for arguments sake - let's look at what's been released info-wise & compare the (possible) straight-line performance
:

The '05 GT engine will have around 300 crank hp & 315 crank tq.
(Could be higher or lower - only Ford & true psychics know for sure...)

The Mach 1 has ~ 320 - 335+ crank hp & 345 - 360 crank tq.
(As reported by numerous dyno-tests.)

Advantage Mach. Maybe.

The '05 GT will weigh around 100 lbs more than the current Mach 1 - 3550 lbs vs 3450 lbs for the sake of argument.
(Again, could be higher or lower - only Ford & the psychics know for sure...)

Actually no. The 05 GT will be within a hundred lbs of the current GT not the Mach. All the specs released have said they will keep it within 1% of the current GT and will likely be under 3450.
Source Motor Trend,Hot Rod and MM&FF. They even go into a good bit on this in the MM&FF article about how they made a concerted effort to keep it relatively light.
Advantage 05

The rear gears of the '05 will be 3.55.
(Again, could be higher or lower...We'll say the 3.55 is correct)

The Mach 1 has 3.55 gears.

Both cars use/will use the Tremec T3650 5-spd.
(Gear ratios will probably remain the same)

Ok they are equal there.

The '05 GT will use 235/55R17 or P255/45R18 tires.
(Probably a hard compound for good wear.)

The Mach 1 uses 245/45ZR17 tires.

So, exactly how can a car that is:

Heavier
Has less hp & tq
Has the same rear gear ratio
Rides on skinnier or lower profile tires
Has the same transmission gear ratios

be faster in a straight line?

See this is where I think I have been misunderstood. I don't think it will be faster. I've said it will be likely neck and neck if anything. I'm asking how can a car that is:
Lighter
Has less hp & tq(but likely could be close)
has the same rear gear ration
same tranny
better weight distribution
a stiffer frame
and likely a better suspension.
How can that car be a 14 second car or be beaten out by a half a second by the Mach? Just doesn't add up.

Let's be honest here - unless the VVT of the new 3V engine works really friggin' well - the '05 GT sounds like a high 13-second car to me.

Of course that doesn't take a **** thing away from the stiffer chassis, better ride quality & awesome styling.

It just makes it slower than the current '03/'04 Mach's...

...but not "Slow"

By no means slow. To me personally it looks like the car will be just a tenth or two behind the Mach all things given and ultimately this will all be hashed out in ohh....about 6 months when production rams up and people are able to really do some testing on the things.

BTW: Thank you for a civil debate.

[Cobra3958]

Originally posted by blazinsteed
I don't know about you guys but my friend has a 96 cobra. I owned an 01 gt before i got the mach. stock I was turning 14.00 flatts and he was turning 14.1-14.3's so in my experience the gt's are fine in the quarter and really close or slightly edge out those cobras. Now if they changed anything for 97 and 98 I don't know but this has just been my experience

Your friend must not know how to drive. 305hp > 260hp

[nrmustang]

Not to waste anyone else's precious time on this, but one question to all is what mustang, 64 1/2 to current production has spawned a new era in mustang performance as we know it today? What mustang has even created a name for a popular magazine?

Omegalock, you get the gold belt for internet forum debator. I have yet to see anyone post with as much passion as you have.

One thing to keep in mind is watch what you say, and how you type it! (That goes for all of us) A persons opinions are like *, everyone has one. As much as some stink, they are their own. So rather than "correct" misinformed individuals. Respect their opinions. At 25, the majority of who you correct could be old enough to be your Daddy! These are people that bought original Machs right off the lot. They know better then anyone the history of the Mustang.

Once again what a priviledge it has been to be a part of Mustang history! Anyone that has driven the 2003/04 Mach 1 can attest that these have been some of the baddest Mustangs to roll out of Dearborn. Lets hope the future brings us the perfomance we are used too and then some, so that when the time is right, we can park our LE Mach in the garage, while we terrorize the streets in whats next.

Have fun with your cars Mach owners, you deserve it!

Oh yeah and for the record Omegalock, I am in your age bracket, own two succesful businesses, married (no kids), and personally owned 5 mustangs, three of which I still have. No, I cant call you kid and get away with it. But the next guy might be able to.

[Omegalock]

Originally posted by nrmustang
Not to waste anyone else's precious time on this, but one question to all is what mustang, 64 1/2 to current production has spawned a new era in mustang performance as we know it today? What mustang has even created a name for a popular magazine?

Omegalock, you get the gold belt for internet forum debator. I have yet to see anyone post with as much passion as you have.

One thing to keep in mind is watch what you say, and how you type it! (That goes for all of us) A persons opinions are like *, everyone has one. As much as some stink, they are their own. So rather than "correct" misinformed individuals. Respect their opinions. At 25, the majority of who you correct could be old enough to be your Daddy! These are people that bought original Machs right off the lot. They know better then anyone the history of the Mustang.

Once again what a priviledge it has been to be a part of Mustang history! Anyone that has driven the 2003/04 Mach 1 can attest that these have been some of the baddest Mustangs to roll out of Dearborn. Lets hope the future brings us the perfomance we are used too and then some, so that when the time is right, we can park our LE Mach in the garage, while we terrorize the streets in whats next.

Have fun with your cars Mach owners, you deserve it!

Oh yeah and for the record Omegalock, I am in your age bracket, own two succesful businesses, married (no kids), and personally owned 5 mustangs, three of which I still have. No, I cant call you kid and get away with it. But the next guy might be able to.

Fair enough...no hard feelings?

[nrmustang]

Originally posted by Omegalock
Fair enough...no hard feelings?

Its like water under the bridge my friend.

[blazinsteed]

its a heavier car and only makes peak hp in the upper power band 3k+ gt makes it alot lower. Top end i was fine until 110 and we shut em off. The gt was built for straight line action and gets its power a lot lower. It wasn't drivers ability. It was the fact that all i have seen out of these cobras stock has been 13.9-14.3. I stress stock and I was running those number consistantly. As far as 97-98 i don't know. But these cars averaged 240-255 rwh all made in the upper rpms resulting in slower track times. Thats all I have seen so thats all I can attest to.

[Cobra3958]

Originally posted by blazinsteed
its a heavier car and only makes peak hp in the upper power band 3k+ gt makes it alot lower. Top end i was fine until 110 and we shut em off. The gt was built for straight line action and gets its power a lot lower. It wasn't drivers ability. It was the fact that all i have seen out of these cobras stock has been 13.9-14.3. I stress stock and I was running those number consistantly. As far as 97-98 i don't know. But these cars averaged 240-255 rwh all made in the upper rpms resulting in slower track times. Thats all I have seen so thats all I can attest to.

Having owned a 93 Cobra & 96 Mystic Cobra, I can tell you that these cars are faster than 99&up GTs. My girlfriend used to own a 99 GT. I've driven that car several times. The 93 was underated in hp from Ford (235). It really put out at least as much as the 99 GT. I never dynoed that car though, but it ran consistent 13.9 @ 100 mph. My 96 did dyno at 263 hp with just a K&N. It ran 13.6 @ 103 mph. I never raced the 99 GT at the track, but I don't think it would better these times, especially the mph. The 93 was lighter and the 96 had that awesome top end (305 hp worth). This is just my experience in having driven both. I guess it would probably come down to a drivers race.

[00GT]

Originally posted by Cobra3958
Having owned a 93 Cobra & 96 Mystic Cobra, I can tell you that these cars are faster than 99&up GTs. My girlfriend used to own a 99 GT. I've driven that car several times. The 93 was underated in hp from Ford (235). It really put out at least as much as the 99 GT. I never dynoed that car though, but it ran consistent 13.9 @ 100 mph. My 96 did dyno at 263 hp with just a K&N. It ran 13.6 @ 103 mph. I never raced the 99 GT at the track, but I don't think it would better these times, especially the mph. The 93 was lighter and the 96 had that awesome top end (305 hp worth). This is just my experience in having driven both. I guess it would probably come down to a drivers race.

93 cobra is the slowest of the bunch, i owned a 95 cobra and when i went to buy my gt, i test drove my gt and a laser red 97 cobra back to back...the gt has way more tq..my gt would rape my 95cobra

[starscream]

Originally posted by Cobra3958
Your friend must not know how to drive. 305hp > 260hp

300 ft. lbs. torque in the 96 Cobra vs 302 ft. lbs. torque in the 99+ GT. Torque is what gets you moving.

[blazinsteed]

like i said they are pretty close. definately a drivers race.

[agentorange]

I personally feel that the 05 Mustang GT is Ugly. I don't really care if it can drive circles around me. It reminds me of my old 77 Mustang II. The MACH I has everything I want in a car. Let's face it every year cars get faster, except in the 70's with the gas crunch and seeing I just filled my MACH I up at $1.78 a gallon, who knows.

[frozenphil]

Sorry for jumping into an old thread (I didn't dig it up though ).....buuuuut:

Originally posted by B-mach1
I think The mach will be faster. Because it is a specialty car. It would not be in their best interest to make it faster. Kind of like Dodge put the Viper motor in a truck. the truck is cheaper so if it was just as fast sales on the viper would drop because you could have the same performance for less money. Horsepower sells to the average person on realistic performance. Just My opinion.

Do you honestly think the same people who are looking at a viper are going to look over at the SRT10 and say, "Hey! Same engine and it costs less too! GIMME!"?

People looking at vipers and the new Ford GT are NOT looking at trucks or mustang Cobras respectively.

I heard someone use this arguement in their reasoning that the new 06 Cobra won't have the rumored nearly 500HP mill in it because it's too close to what the Ford GT is making. BS!

It's pretty much like saying, "Why did you get that filet mignon when this flank steak will fill you up for half the price?"

Also, Omega has brought up many good points.

Something else that seems to be missing from the straight line debate is the fact that the new mustangs will have a MUCH better suspension setup.

I presonally think it will be a driver's race. We'll know in a few months.

[BurlyStang]

I have the Silver '05 Concept on my desktop. I have to be honest, when they revealed the '05GT, it's not the same body I had my hopes up for. Enter the Mach1; a beautiful car that hauls. I think they will be even, but I expect bugs with the 3V motor.

We have FOUR valves and a cool Shaker Scoop