Ford Mustang: Expected performance of stock `03 GT Vert ? Road tests? Dyno charts?

dm,

0-60 in 6 seconds is pretty fast.. I don't know if the GT will be able to do
that. Either way (and this applies to the quarter mile, etc) it's not only
the car that determines the speed. It's the person behind the wheel that
matters also. It's hard to give an actual figure of what YOU'D be able to
push since I dont' have a damn clue how you drive =). I have a 98 Mustang GT
& she pulls her weight around nicely... even nicer when I put 3.73 gears put
in. Anyway... maybe someone will be able to provide you with dyno charts
though if they've had their cars dyno'd. I haven't... and I don't have an
'03 GT, but they are damn nice cars. I've test driven a couple.

-Mike

GT-Vert-03 <net> wrote in message
news:HsK4b.96536$srv.hcvlny.cv.net... 
I 
between 
band? 
GT 
and 
a 
it 
the 
at 

Hi Mike,

Thanks. Surely things like driver skill, tires, road and weather conditions
etc will effect actual performance times. I'm not really too concerned with
the exact times that I personally will be able to yield with the car, but
more interested in what the average performance results are for these cars
to use as a basis for comparison.

You mentioned that 0-60 in 6 seconds is pretty fast. I'd agree. But I read
some articles recently stating how guys have been yielding low 5 second 0-60
times in new Mach 1's and mid to low 13 second 1/4 mile times. I realize
that the Mach 1 coupe is quite different than a GT Vert in terms of
performance capability. I guess reading about the Mach 1 got my hopes up.
I wanted to buy a Mach 1 very badly, but they don't make Mach 1 verts... and
I had to have a vert... so, the GT vert is the next best thing. A Cobra is
just too much $$$ for me right now, plus I am not really a supercharger
kinda guy. I've run normally aspirated engines since day 1, and I think
I'll keep on this path (not that there's anything wrong with superchargers.)
I've always been a believer in cubic inches... my last car had a bored 455
(462)... that's about 7.5 liters (compared to a Stang 281 / 4.6 liter). For
this reason I am wondering how happy (or not) I will be with my new GT vert
once I get it. Well, the Stang will yield at least TWICE the mpg of my old
462, so that's a pretty big factor, especially at $2.00 per gallon now.

My friend's old G.T.O. vert was always fun to drive, felt plenty "fast", at
least for street use... I think he averaged about a mid to high 14 in the
quarter on street tires (car was very heavy). So... I guess if the Stang GT
vert can yield similar times in the quarter, I'll probably be happy (maybe
not thrilled to death, but at least happy). I never actually timed my 462,
but I did blow away the above mentioned G.T.O. plenty of times on the
street... I was probably running a low 14 or high 13 (in a heavy car with
street tires). The best thing about that car was the torque on tap... at
almost any rpm in almost any gear at any time, you could stab the pedal and
damn near snap your neck... that is if and when you could keep from spinning
the tires which was a task... the thing was TOO torquey. Was a beast
really. I expect a more refined vehicle overall from the Mustang even if it
isn't a brute from hell. These days I've been getting more into "quality
verses quantity" anyhow. Just wondering how much "quantity" (of power) the
Stang really has. Thanks

-dm