05 Mustang in the low 12s for under $1000 in mods.

[Yooformula]

These guys took a brand new GT and added their performer package and on stock tires and suspension ran a 12.4 @ 107mph. Not bad at all. http://www.jmschip.com/bullet.php

[Prince Valiant]

Very nice...I think if I were to get one, I'd limit the mods to just the CAI, ECU tunning, UD pulleys, full exhaust, and maybe only 3.90-4.10 gears...that'd be a fun, reliable daily driver.

I don't know why anyone would stated this:
After reading numberous posts on several message forums regarding the 2005 Mustang GT's NOT being able to run 12 seconds in the quarter mile without suspension modifications and a huge increase in power Why would someone think it would need suspension mods? Idiots.

An increase in power is given, but huge increases isn't needed...especially if you are gearing it as such.

[animal]

Wow!

I wonder what that'd do on slicks?

I'm assuming it's the regular 8.8 so it should be stout enough to withstand it too. I can't speak for the tremec 3650 though :)

[lotsals1]

These guys took a brand new GT and added their performer package and on stock tires and suspension ran a 12.4 @ 107mph. Not bad at all. http://www.jmschip.com/bullet.phpFor 250$ ls1's are in the mid 12's --They had a write up in hotrod - I just think the cars are oooogly --i like the 04's --I hope this whole retro fad will go away and the other companies dont follow.

[Rocket Power]

Too late, once again GM makes a poor decision.
2006 Chevy HHR (http://www.hhrclub.org/galleries/hhr-la-auto-show/resized_hhr-la-auto-show_7.jpg)


But that's OK according to them they have nothing to worry about from the new Mustang because the Monte Carlo has that segment covered :rolleyes:

Dumbasses. :loser

[Al]

But that's OK according to them they have nothing to worry about from the new Mustang because the Monte Carlo has that segment covered :rolleyes:

And how? Oh wait... that was sarcasm...

Do they understand that people understand the difference between econo-FWD and performance RWD?

[Syclone0044]

Do they understand that people understand the difference between econo-FWD and performance RWD?
One look at today's cars and the answer is..... Nope! Although GM is willing to meet us halfway with the 2006 (?) Monte Carlo with the 303HP 5.3L LS1-series V8 albeit in a FWD car. At least it is a real, got-some-guts pushrod V8 and not a wimpy, soft bottom OHC engine..

[animal]

What's wrong with ohc?

[Syclone0044]

What's wrong with ohc?
I think OHC engines tend to be wimpy, high RPM, overly expensive and underdelivering. For some reason they are always set up to (relatively) make a lot of high RPM power at the cost of low RPM power where 90% of drivers will spend 100% of their time. My guess is that the heads tend to flow so good that the factories can't help taking advantage of it by putting in larger cams to inflate their HP ratings -- at the significant cost of their TQ production AND torque curves. I think that pushrod low RPM motors just FEEL faster and that's all that really matters (to me) when it comes down to owning the vehicle. Plus OHC stuff is harder to work on, larger physically (cramping the engine bay) and more expensive.

My comments are more biased to DOHC engines but can also apply to SOHC engines in most cases. I would enjoy discussing alternate viewpoints with anyone who disagrees, though.