I have seen 0-60 times from a stock GT run anywhere from 3.3 to 3.7 seconds depending on the source.
Does anyone know the true times including 0-100 ?
Thanks.
Does anyone know the true times including 0-100 ?
Thanks.
Accurate Run Times
- Thread starter GTFUN
- Start date
PL510*Jeff
Well-known member
Interesting question: "true times" hinge on a infinite number of variables. The same car on the same day with the same driver can produce different numbers... wind, temperature, traction, skill, everything plays a factor in getting good times.
I did manage to hunt down the first official test from Road and Track way back in the December 2003 issue. They test hundreds of cars per year so I tend to trust the numbers they achieve. I believe they use the same driver for most of their testing as well.
They say:
0-60: 3.8
0-100: 8.8
1/4 mile: 12.2 @ 121.6 mph
Here is the link to the data sheet:
http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/download/11132003105848.pdf
cheers,
Jeff
I did manage to hunt down the first official test from Road and Track way back in the December 2003 issue. They test hundreds of cars per year so I tend to trust the numbers they achieve. I believe they use the same driver for most of their testing as well.
They say:
0-60: 3.8
0-100: 8.8
1/4 mile: 12.2 @ 121.6 mph
Here is the link to the data sheet:
http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/download/11132003105848.pdf
cheers,
Jeff
ViperJoe
GT Owner
Car & Driver has a reputation for extracting the best performance.
2004 Ferrari Challenge Stradale vs. Ford GT, Porsche 911 GT3 - Comparison Tests
The Megastars: At last, we find out if the highly touted Ford GT can go toe to toe with a fabled Ferrari and a killer Porsche.
BY LARRY WEBSTER, PHOTOGRAPHY BY AARON KILEY
January 2004
2005 Ford GT - Comparison Tests
• Third: 2004 Porsche 911 GT3
• Second: 2004 Ferrari Challenge Stradale
• First: 2005 Ford GT
Highs, Lows, and Verdict
Highs: Fantastic performance; updated vintage skin is Jack Nicholson cool.
Lows: Somehow, could use more mechanical soul.
The Verdict: A worthy successor to the original.
It wasn't even a contest. The Ford GT so completely dusted off its two highly recognized competitors that if we had wanted to make this a real challenge, we would have had to go way up the "supercar" price ladder. The $401,000 Saleen S7 is about as quick as the Ford GT, and we know of only one car that would surely outrun the Ford—the $659,000 Ferrari Enzo.
Rocketing the GT to 60 mph in 3.3 seconds and to 150 in 16.9 (that's an incredible seven seconds quicker than the Porsche and the Ferrari) was a cinch. Unlike some other supercars that have hair-trigger clutches with monstrously heavy pedal efforts, the GT's clutch was as easy to operate as a Honda Accord's.
It'll do burnouts until the tires disintegrate, but we found that gently spinning the tires at the launch with careful throttle modulation produced jack-rabbit starts. The Ferrari and the Porsche both require an upshift before 60 mph, but the Ford does not, which accounts for some of the huge sprint-time advantage.
But Ford can use a tall first gear because the engine has an enormously wide power band. In this comparo, it had the crispest throttle response. In the rolling-start test to 60 mph, where the gas pedal is floored at 5 mph, the GT hooked up and simply bolted, reaching 60 in 3.7 seconds, a full second quicker than the GT3 and 0.7 second faster than the Ferrari.
Here's the link to the full article ..... http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews..._vs._ford_gt_porsche_911_gt3-comparison_tests
2004 Ferrari Challenge Stradale vs. Ford GT, Porsche 911 GT3 - Comparison Tests
The Megastars: At last, we find out if the highly touted Ford GT can go toe to toe with a fabled Ferrari and a killer Porsche.
BY LARRY WEBSTER, PHOTOGRAPHY BY AARON KILEY
January 2004
2005 Ford GT - Comparison Tests
• Third: 2004 Porsche 911 GT3
• Second: 2004 Ferrari Challenge Stradale
• First: 2005 Ford GT
Highs, Lows, and Verdict
Highs: Fantastic performance; updated vintage skin is Jack Nicholson cool.
Lows: Somehow, could use more mechanical soul.
The Verdict: A worthy successor to the original.
It wasn't even a contest. The Ford GT so completely dusted off its two highly recognized competitors that if we had wanted to make this a real challenge, we would have had to go way up the "supercar" price ladder. The $401,000 Saleen S7 is about as quick as the Ford GT, and we know of only one car that would surely outrun the Ford—the $659,000 Ferrari Enzo.
Rocketing the GT to 60 mph in 3.3 seconds and to 150 in 16.9 (that's an incredible seven seconds quicker than the Porsche and the Ferrari) was a cinch. Unlike some other supercars that have hair-trigger clutches with monstrously heavy pedal efforts, the GT's clutch was as easy to operate as a Honda Accord's.
It'll do burnouts until the tires disintegrate, but we found that gently spinning the tires at the launch with careful throttle modulation produced jack-rabbit starts. The Ferrari and the Porsche both require an upshift before 60 mph, but the Ford does not, which accounts for some of the huge sprint-time advantage.
But Ford can use a tall first gear because the engine has an enormously wide power band. In this comparo, it had the crispest throttle response. In the rolling-start test to 60 mph, where the gas pedal is floored at 5 mph, the GT hooked up and simply bolted, reaching 60 in 3.7 seconds, a full second quicker than the GT3 and 0.7 second faster than the Ferrari.
Here's the link to the full article ..... http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews..._vs._ford_gt_porsche_911_gt3-comparison_tests
ThatPhilBrettGuy
GT Owner
Car & Driver has a reputation for printing numbers that no one else can get near, that's true.
So either they've got better drivers than every other tester in the world...they haven't...
or they're doing all the tests on some super-grip surface...maybe
or it's on a big slope...maybe
The only hope is that the numbers are comparable between cars. That much might be true.
Fubar
Totally ****** Up
centerpunch
ex-GT owner x2
The reason Car and Driver always has the best numbers is that they include rollout in not only their 1/4 mile times, but also their times-to-speed (0-to-60, etc.).
Here's why they decided to do that.
Years ago, they had a test car that did the 1/4 mile in the 13's, with the trap speed exactly 100mph. For 1/4 mile times, the track timer doesn't start timing until the car goes about 12 inches (which believe it or not, takes about .3 seconds.)
So this test car did the 1/4 mile in 13.8 at 100MPH, but the actual 0-to-100 time was 14.1. (Since that timer started the instant the car began to move). They were concerned that this would be confusing to readers.
So years ago, they decided to include rollout in ALL their performance timing, which means their 0-to-60 times are about .3 seconds shorter than anyone elses (since their timer doesn't start until the car has travelled that initial foot).
I researched all this when I developed the G-Timer product for Escort several years ago. I did all the development and testing, and even wrote the manual- the pertinent page from the manual is shown below, you can see the entire manual here http://www.escortradar.com/pdf/gt2manual.pdf The last paragraph refers to Car and Driver.
(BTW, it was really a great product and fun project, but obviously not as accurate as a GPS based system).
Attachments
PL510*Jeff
Well-known member
CP - what an interesting project.
At the Texas Mile there was .690 mph difference between the track timing and my Garmin GPS.
178.371 vs 177.681.
Which must be the time difference from the Garmin to the satellite and back.
But heck I did it for fun, not bragging rights.
But as they say in the Advertising business - The First Liar Wins!
At the Texas Mile there was .690 mph difference between the track timing and my Garmin GPS.
178.371 vs 177.681.
Which must be the time difference from the Garmin to the satellite and back.
But heck I did it for fun, not bragging rights.
But as they say in the Advertising business - The First Liar Wins!
satx
Well-known member
this was a pre-production car with "only" 500HP (see the spec sheet). This is also the test that viper owners like to cite as the Viper beat the GTs time in the test.
In the mags tests of production cars the GT traps 125-128
ThatPhilBrettGuy
GT Owner
That's for that and it does clear the question up nicely. Shame their results are lumped in with everyone elses. Standards, there are never standards.....