05+ Mustang GT Vs. 98 T/A

**SHines-IT** · 08-07-2009, 10:22 PM

Yea, if you drive the car like a normal person, you get decent gas. But with our cars, its fun to get a little playful...

**Superluminal** · 08-08-2009, 04:35 AM

Lost to a stock convertible Mustang? Most of those run around a 14.0 from the factory.

I'm guessing having the A/C on killed you.

**7camaro7** · 08-08-2009, 08:12 AM

Originally Posted by fox1x

Ya know, it's unbelievable to try and talk to someone about sports cars gas mileage. It always turns into a bullshit arguement. I know several people with newer vettes and camaros getting good MPG's. Even my brothers stang would get 28+ MPG (2006 MGT)on the highway. The mindset is these V8's are gas guzzlers. I'm impressed how well they do. But when someone asks and you tell them you get the "yeah right" look .. or the , you must be figuring it wrong comment. Whatever... let them think what they want

exactly

Originally Posted by Superluminal

Lost to a stock convertible Mustang? Most of those run around a 14.0 from the factory.

I'm guessing having the A/C on killed you.

a trunk full of A/Cs and bricks and towing a dump truck at the same time maybe

**Firebirdjones** · 08-08-2009, 10:00 AM

Originally Posted by Superluminal

Lost to a stock convertible Mustang? Most of those run around a 14.0 from the factory.

I'm guessing having the A/C on killed you.

Na,,,,the A/C shuts down at anything over 4,000 rpm or more than 90% throttle angle.
That's how it is in the stock programming if memory serves, because I have since changed mine to shut down sooner.

**Superluminal** · 08-08-2009, 11:24 AM

Originally Posted by Firebirdjones

Na,,,,the A/C shuts down at anything over 4,000 rpm or more than 90% throttle angle.
That's how it is in the stock programming if memory serves, because I have since changed mine to shut down sooner.

Then, ouch.

**001CamaroSS** · 08-08-2009, 06:37 PM

well an 05 shouldnt be a problem, but be warned the '10's are quick, for the first time in my life I'm a bit impressed with Ford...still fairly low hp numbers, but quick. Attributed to light weight and gear ratios stock for stock theyve finally built a mustang that can beat the 02 camaro. Problem is the new camaro is the same price as that mustang with 425hp, and it's yet again a no brainer. Or I'd just buy a used vette and really beat the stang. Anyways, back on topic, 05 stang should lose to you all day, especially the heavier vert

**karpetcm** · 08-08-2009, 07:46 PM

05 Stangs consistantly pull about 260-265 rwhp, yes sometimes a bit higher but thats what ive mostly seen. I can see if they go up against a 98-00 A4 Z28 thats stock it might keep up for a bit and given if there is traffic it would look dead even or whoever hits the gas first might win in a short race. The 260-265 rwhp is still shy of the 98-00 models and i think they will usually pull about 280 rwhp atleast from a A4 tranny, ofcourse ive seen higher numbers as well. So going up against a manual tranny stang sure its somewhat close.

The newer stangs 2010 probably have about 10-15 more RWHP with the option to get the better gearing or comes with better gearing it makes a nice difference. As said above, its no comparison in power to the new camaro and even if we compare it to the 01-02 LS1's there still short on the RWHP and RWTQ and they've had several years already on the LS1's. The new stangs dont look too bad, i just cant get over that big plastic piece at the bottom of the rear bumper. It sticks out way too much, i mean i know our cars are mostly plastic but damn that thing is in your face ugly.

**mrr23** · 08-09-2009, 05:29 AM

Originally Posted by shady milkman

well that is probbally why..your damn near backwards on your mods...gotta get air in..before you get air out..but why a fast ? with the mods you have..the fast isn't needed..get your self a good lid, and a ls6 and a tune and watch how the car will wake up.

not really. if you can't get it out, how can you get it in?

**shady milkman** · 08-09-2009, 05:37 AM

Originally Posted by mrr23

not really. if you can't get it out, how can you get it in?

damn it rob!

**mrr23** · 08-09-2009, 05:39 AM

Originally Posted by shady milkman

damn it rob!

kinda like eating, if you can't take a crap, you can only eat so much.

**shady milkman** · 08-09-2009, 05:42 AM

Originally Posted by mrr23

kinda like eating, if you can't take a crap, you can only eat so much.

i would say our intake tract(airbox) is more of a restriction then our exhaust..but yes you're right

**Camarofan** · 08-27-2009, 04:07 AM

Originally Posted by SHines-IT

But not impressed it took all these years for Ford to catch up.

I wouldn't put it that way necessarily. They just never had a need to catch up in power due to sales. The 5.0 coming out with 400hp/400tq shows they could've anytime they wanted to, actually.

**Camarofan** · 08-27-2009, 04:09 AM

Interesting, trust me. Times @ 5880ft above sea level

**NoscamaroSS** · 08-27-2009, 08:45 AM

Originally Posted by Camarofan

The 5.0 coming out with 400hp/400tq shows they could've anytime they wanted to, actually.

No, not really, there have been many developments in technology and engines since the first 4.6's rolled off of the line. Thats like saying that since GM released a 638 hp LS9 that they couldve released it 10 years ago.

**shady milkman** · 08-27-2009, 08:59 AM

especially in head development and valve train

**Camarofan** · 08-27-2009, 08:54 PM

Originally Posted by NoscamaroSS

No, not really, there have been many developments in technology and engines since the first 4.6's rolled off of the line. Thats like saying that since GM released a 638 hp LS9 that they couldve released it 10 years ago.

Well, take the 4.6 pre s197's for example. Ford put a 4valve in there, and it was nice. The Mach's give you guys a very good run. LS1 displacement is going to win out, but it's a good match for you. What do alot of us do when we want more Power? We find a way to get more air and fuel in the engine. Raising displacement is one way of doing that. Ford bumps up the 4.6's to 5.7's, and we've got a debate. They still don't have the displacement as the new Camaro, yet 400hp and 400tq. If anything, the LS2's should be more with today's technology. Having said all that, any car manufacturer can do what they want with displacement, etc.... Ford tries to give you a muscle car AND a fuel effiecient car. GM gives you displacement and power, they don't give a shit.

**c5z28** · 08-27-2009, 11:42 PM

Originally Posted by Camarofan

Well, take the 4.6 pre s197's for example. Ford put a 4valve in there, and it was nice. The Mach's give you guys a very good run. LS1 displacement is going to win out, but it's a good match for you. What do alot of us do when we want more Power? We find a way to get more air and fuel in the engine. Raising displacement is one way of doing that. Ford bumps up the 4.6's to 5.7's, and we've got a debate. They still don't have the displacement as the new Camaro, yet 400hp and 400tq. If anything, the LS2's should be more with today's technology. Having said all that, any car manufacturer can do what they want with displacement, etc.... Ford tries to give you a muscle car AND a fuel effiecient car. GM gives you displacement and power, they don't give a shit.

Wait fords get good mpg's

I kid I kid I know they don't.

**Camarofan** · 08-28-2009, 12:04 AM

Originally Posted by c5z28

Wait fords get good mpg's

I kid I kid I know they don't.

A 4.6 will get alot better MPG's than a 6.2. You didn't know that????

Ford is looking at different things when they build their Mustang, that's all I'm saying. They do well enough with the 4.6. If they put a 6 liter in their GT's, you'd be silly to think you would have the same advantage as you always have had.

**big hammer** · 08-28-2009, 04:59 AM

Originally Posted by Camarofan

Well, take the 4.6 pre s197's for example. Ford put a 4valve in there, and it was nice. The Mach's give you guys a very good run. LS1 displacement is going to win out, but it's a good match for you. What do alot of us do when we want more Power? We find a way to get more air and fuel in the engine. Raising displacement is one way of doing that. Ford bumps up the 4.6's to 5.7's, and we've got a debate. They still don't have the displacement as the new Camaro, yet 400hp and 400tq. If anything, the LS2's should be more with today's technology. Having said all that, any car manufacturer can do what they want with displacement, etc.... Ford tries to give you a muscle car AND a fuel effiecient car. GM gives you displacement and power, they don't give a shit.

i'd say fords new 5.0 is going to suffer from bad drivetrain loss, and have 325 RWHP

if ford was trying to give you a muscle car and be fuel efficient they should have just put an Lsx in the mustang--- the 4.6's are really no better on fuel anyway.

**Zinergy** · 08-28-2009, 05:54 AM

Originally Posted by Camarofan

A 4.6 will get alot better MPG's than a 6.2. You didn't know that????

Ford is looking at different things when they build their Mustang, that's all I'm saying. They do well enough with the 4.6. If they put a 6 liter in their GT's, you'd be silly to think you would have the same advantage as you always have had.

Will it? 06 mustang GT MPG rating 17/25 with a 4.6 liter. 2010 camaro 6.2 liter 17/26mpg. The Camaro weighs 400lbs more and makes 125more hp. I really would like to see what ford new 5.0 can do. Since the last gen of 5.0s were limited in making power N/A and with boost because of the thin lifter galley.