"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
JimH wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 23:08:26 -0700, "RG" wrote:

While you're doing that, and if you take Road and Track, see if you
can
find which
issue had the test of the 2005 Mustang GT. Please?

Road & Track tested the Mustang GT in the December 2004 issue.


Thanks! Now all I have to do is find a copy, since Eisboch won't tell me
what it did in the quarter mile.

--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary
to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

13.5 @ 103.6


Really? That's all? I thought high 11's.

The Corvette Z06 runs mid to high 11's...which is about the same as the Ford
GT. There is no way that Ford would make a Mustang that would run with
their $150,000 supercar.

On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 15:48:57 -0500, " JimH" jimh_osudadATyahooDOT com
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 23:08:26 -0700, "RG" wrote:


While you're doing that, and if you take Road and Track, see if you can
find which
issue had the test of the 2005 Mustang GT. Please?


Road & Track tested the Mustang GT in the December 2004 issue.



Thanks! Now all I have to do is find a copy, since Eisboch won't tell me
what it did in the quarter mile.

--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to
resolve it."
Rene Descartes

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...112_0501_bang/

You can buy back issues he http://usedmagazines.com/titles/RoadAndTrack



I was able to find the story on the web, but they didn't do any speed
tests.

--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 15:50:24 -0500, " JimH" jimh_osudadATyahooDOT com
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 23:08:26 -0700, "RG" wrote:


While you're doing that, and if you take Road and Track, see if you can
find which
issue had the test of the 2005 Mustang GT. Please?


Road & Track tested the Mustang GT in the December 2004 issue.



Thanks! Now all I have to do is find a copy, since Eisboch won't tell me
what it did in the quarter mile.

--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to
resolve it."
Rene Descartes

13.5 @ 103.6


Where'd you find that?

--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 22:03:42 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
JimH wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 23:08:26 -0700, "RG" wrote:

While you're doing that, and if you take Road and Track, see if you
can
find which
issue had the test of the 2005 Mustang GT. Please?

Road & Track tested the Mustang GT in the December 2004 issue.


Thanks! Now all I have to do is find a copy, since Eisboch won't tell me
what it did in the quarter mile.

--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary
to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

13.5 @ 103.6


Really? That's all? I thought high 11's.

The Corvette Z06 runs mid to high 11's...which is about the same as the Ford
GT. There is no way that Ford would make a Mustang that would run with
their $150,000 supercar.


What did Eisboch say his M5 did? 14.2 @ 97.5mph, or something like that?


--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 14:52:17 -0700, "RG" wrote:


Thanks! Now all I have to do is find a copy, since Eisboch won't tell me
what it did in the quarter mile.

--

Road & Track's stats for the 12/04 article:

0-60 mph: 5.3 sec.
0-100 mph: 13.5 sec.
1/4 mile: 13.9 sec @ 101.4 mph
top speed: 143 mph
braking 60-0 mph: 131 ft.
braking 80-0 mph: 233 ft.
skidpad: .84g
slalom: 64.9 mph
fuel mileage: 18.0 mpg (estimated)


Thanks, I must have looked at the wrong article. Their test car didn't get
as good a mileage as I do, 21.6 overall.

--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 16:53:14 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 23:08:26 -0700, "RG" wrote:




At least the Mustangs did a job on the BMW M3's at the Daytona Grand-Am
this year.

http://theracesite.com/index.cfm?pag...m_article=8743

--
John H.


Yep. The Mustang does alright for itself mainly due to Ford's outstanding,
high revving, 4.6 liter engine.

An M3 does not equal an M5 however. Although quick (Road & Track tested at
4.1 sec, 0-60 and Car & Driver did 4.2 secs) the real beauty of the M5 is
the handling. I am still working on the 1200 mile break-in period so I
really haven't got on it much, but I do have to keep increasing the speed
limit alarm. From what I hear through, selecting the 500hp Sport mode with
the transmission in the S-6 program results in a mind blowing experience.
We shall see.

Eisboch



Oh. I guess the M5 should be compared to the Ford GT. Probably more
appropriate. Don't know what the GT specs are. I saw the Daytona Grand-AM
on Speed. What a race. One of the Mustang's hoods went flying off, and the
thing still ended up in second place (or 1st). The Mustangs were one and
two. The handling of the new Mustang is like no other Mustang.

But, I'll concede. It's not an M5.

--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 15:50:24 -0500, " JimH" jimh_osudadATyahooDOT com
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 23:08:26 -0700, "RG" wrote:


While you're doing that, and if you take Road and Track, see if you
can
find which
issue had the test of the 2005 Mustang GT. Please?


Road & Track tested the Mustang GT in the December 2004 issue.



Thanks! Now all I have to do is find a copy, since Eisboch won't tell me
what it did in the quarter mile.

--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary
to
resolve it."
Rene Descartes

13.5 @ 103.6


Where'd you find that?

--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to
resolve it."
Rene Descartes

In the link I provided you previously.........I don't remember what page
though.

" JimH" jimh_osudadATyahooDOT com wrote in message
...

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 15:50:24 -0500, " JimH" jimh_osudadATyahooDOT com
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 23:08:26 -0700, "RG" wrote:


While you're doing that, and if you take Road and Track, see if you
can
find which
issue had the test of the 2005 Mustang GT. Please?


Road & Track tested the Mustang GT in the December 2004 issue.



Thanks! Now all I have to do is find a copy, since Eisboch won't tell
me
what it did in the quarter mile.

--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary
to
resolve it."
Rene Descartes

13.5 @ 103.6


Where'd you find that?

--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary
to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

In the link I provided you previously.........I don't remember what page
though.


http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...112_0501_bang/

"JohnH" wrote in message
...


What did Eisboch say his M5 did? 14.2 @ 97.5mph, or something like that?


--
John H.


Car and Driver got 12.57 @ 117+ mph.
Road & Track recently tested and did a little better, except they used the
Launch Control feature.

Mr. Eisboch

"JohnH" wrote in message
...

But, I'll concede. It's not an M5.

--
John H.


And an M5 is not a Ford GT. Different animals altogether.

Mr. Eisboch