Stock vs 2009 Mustang GT

[mk6medic]

It's all point of reference. I called the 4.6 GT a dog because it is. Let's call a spade a spade. The new Coyote motor 5.0 GT makes the 4.6 look like a joke. Even the new V6 equals the old 4.6 V8 in output.

I don't think the GTI is fast in the least, but it's not marketed as fast muscle car like the GT is.

My reference over the last ten years (before my commuter GTI) were 11 second four cylinders (Evos) with fantastic handling, traction, and braking stock. The power was cheap to address in the aftermarket. The pre-Coyote GTs had none of those three things stock, and have solid axle. Dogs. Junk. The new Mustangs still are solid axle, but are freaking awesome on track. Not dogs. Not junk.

AWD and RWD are 2 different monsters. And you could easily make a "dog" 4.6 Mustang run 11's with fantastic handling, traction and braking. The power and everything else was cheap for Mustangs. don't talk modified vs unmodified.

Evo's are badass, no matter what generation. You can't really compare anything to them, even an STI. It's just not fair.

And again, in 2005, no matter how the Mustang was marketed, it was fast brand new vs most brand new cars of that year. There were tests conducted that had them running 4.9 0-60, repeatedly. There weren't a ton doing that, save for ones that were $$$.

 

[Noize]

AWD and RWD are 2 different monsters. And you could easily make a "dog" 4.6 Mustang run 11's with fantastic handling, traction and braking. The power and everything else was cheap for Mustangs. don't talk modified vs unmodified.

Evo's are badass, no matter what generation. You can't really compare anything to them, even an STI. It's just not fair.

And again, in 2005, no matter how the Mustang was marketed, it was fast brand new vs most brand new cars of that year. There were tests conducted that had them running 4.9 0-60, repeatedly. There weren't a ton doing that, save for ones that were $$$.

I call shenagins on your technology assertion. 2005 STI, Evo, S2000, even the Mazda RX-8 handled infinitely better than the 05 Mustang GT. The STI and Evo were faster in a straight line, the S2000 was right there, the RX-8 was slower. The GTO of that age was better too: Full IRS and a better engine.


Older cars like the four year old at that time '01 LS1 powered Fbodies were also better performance cars than the 05 4.6 Mustang. Ford had to up the ante with the new 5.0. The 05+ cars flew off dealership lots due to the extreme popularity of their nostalgic styling, certainly not their boring, lackluster performance.

 

[Djmikeyd]

Damn! Alot of people seem to like rustangs here, did you guys buy the wrong car?

 

[mk6medic]

Forget it. You can't just pick a few cars meant for uber performance to compare a common V8 Mustang to. I bet Mustang outsold ALL those cars listed, because that was the intention. Ford could've easily made it more potent, but opted for less performance for the masses.

I'll try one more time, but obviously you don't get it. IN 2005, THE MUSTANG GT WAS COMPETENT AND PERFORMED WELL. Not the best, not even close. But it was good FOR THE TIME. That is the point.

Oh, and it probably had a better interior than a GTI! :laugh:

I'm done with this nonsense. If you post after me, it will fall on deaf ears cause I won't be in this thread again. So ridicule me, call me stupid, whatever. I don't care. :w00t:

 

[EvoX1]

a stage 1 mk6 (revo and Uni) will keep up with a 2009 gt until 100 mph. and by keep up i mean it will be door to door.

Stage 2 would eadge it out.

 

[McQueen77]

Damn! Alot of people seem to like rustangs here, did you guys buy the wrong car?

this forum has a long standing history of dudes vigorously whacking it to mustangs.

 

[project92raddoslc]

this forum has a long standing history of dudes vigorously whacking it to mustangs.

thanks for the vision.

 

[fast2ghl]

this forum has a long standing history of dudes vigorously whacking it to mustangs.

LOL!

Only mustang I whack it to vigorously is the 2013 Shelby. All other simply get one stroke. No more. A single stroke.

 

[Noize]

Forget it. You can't just pick a few cars meant for uber performance to compare a common V8 Mustang to. I bet Mustang outsold ALL those cars listed, because that was the intention. Ford could've easily made it more potent, but opted for less performance for the masses.

I'll try one more time, but obviously you don't get it. IN 2005, THE MUSTANG GT WAS COMPETENT AND PERFORMED WELL. Not the best, not even close. But it was good FOR THE TIME. That is the point.

Oh, and it probably had a better interior than a GTI! :laugh:

I'm done with this nonsense. If you post after me, it will fall on deaf ears cause I won't be in this thread again. So ridicule me, call me stupid, whatever. I don't care. :w00t:

Camrys and Accords outsold all those cars too. It doesn't make them great. I own a GTI because its a nice blend of practicality and fun.

I don't like 05-10 Mustang GTs, think they hsve nice interiors, or count them as exciting performance cars. Sorry man.

I don't think you're stupid in the least. We just like different things.

 

[biggee72]

Forget it. You can't just pick a few cars meant for uber performance to compare a common V8 Mustang to. I bet Mustang outsold ALL those cars listed, because that was the intention. Ford could've easily made it more potent, but opted for less performance for the masses.

I'll try one more time, but obviously you don't get it. IN 2005, THE MUSTANG GT WAS COMPETENT AND PERFORMED WELL. Not the best, not even close. But it was good FOR THE TIME. That is the point.

Oh, and it probably had a better interior than a GTI! :laugh:

I'm done with this nonsense. If you post after me, it will fall on deaf ears cause I won't be in this thread again. So ridicule me, call me stupid, whatever. I don't care. :w00t:

Bullshit. Yes, you will.

 

[KOA789]

^ you forgot to add we beat them. Those v8s suck balls. 300 hp. I shit on one stock but it was like a 2005ish model. Oh and 0-60 time in a stock gti = 6 seconds not 7

They are still stock mid 13 second cars. That engine was pretty torquey and build a lot of it down low.

Dude a 300 hp v8 is a joke nowadays. The v6 mustangs now are faster

Actually, the new V6s are still slower then the 4.6 V8s.

a stage 1 mk6 (revo and Uni) will keep up with a 2009 gt until 100 mph. and by keep up i mean it will be door to door.

Stage 2 would eadge it out.

I don't think so. I see more stock 4.6 GTs trapping 103+ then I have seen S2s.

 

[biggee72]

2011 Ford Mustang 3.7L V6 0-60 mph 5.1 – Quarter mile 13.7 @ 102 mph (Motor Trend)


2005 Ford Mustang GT 4.6L V8 0-60 mph 5.1 Quarter mile 13.5 (Motor Trend Jan 05)

Hardly.

 

[GTmyI]

Damn! Alot of people seem to like rustangs here, did you guys buy the wrong car?

I know hey...

0-60 isn't everything... tracking time also isn't everything if you don't "track" it
Speed no doubt Mustang will beat the GTI and if you want speed, all we need is to get a Neno SRt-4 and stage 3 it, it will beat the shit out of a lot of the car in the market!

Like many said, GTI is not fast but faster then a lot of car in the market. Its fun and I am pretty sure GTI can corner a lot better then a lot of cars out there either. Sure the Accord V6 and Carmy V6 is as fast as the GTI now-a-day... but why did we buy the GTI instead?

Lets play a game here, name cars that GTI can beat vs Cars that can beat GTI (Stock vs Stock), I am pretty sure GTI can beat a lot of more

 

[reillyse]

Lets play a game here, name cars that GTI can beat vs Cars that can beat GTI (Stock vs Stock), I am pretty sure GTI can beat a lot of more

A list of stock cars that can beat stock GTIs would be long and depressing...

 

[vwgti2.0t]

A list of stock cars that can beat stock GTIs would be long and depressing...

I'll start... V6 rav-4 :mad0259: