Baseline Results - 06 Mustang GT
04-10-2006, 08:39 AM
#1
LS1Tech Co-Founder
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 33,009
Baseline Results - 06 Mustang GT
I took the car to Houston Raceway Park yesterday afternoon to get some baseline results on the new project car. Temps were about 77F, low humidity. Track was well-prepped.
The car is a 100% showroom stock '06 GT 5-spd, 1400 miles.
Best pass (made 5 passes) was a 14.16 @ 99 mph, 2.25 60'
I have to say, I'm not really impressed with these engines in stock form. It seems like there is absolutely no low rpm torque, and the car is too heavy. The track was so sticky, it was very difficult to keep from bogging badly in 1st gear. Best 60' time of all those passes was a 2.19, pretty bad. I was leaving the line around 3500 rpm and feathering the clutch, but it would still bog. Tried two more passes at 4000, then 4500 rpm, but got severe wheelhop instead. Seemed like there was no in-between launch rpm.
Just looking at that poor 60' time, these cars should be capable of mid 13s without a problem. I'm thinking a good set of drag radials and maybe some gear would help get the car moving much better. This car ran too slow to use 4th gear, it was crossing the traps at 6K rpm in 3rd gear. Tried shifting to 4th on one pass, but it ran slower (97 mph). The rest were all 99 mph consistently.
Well, I guess the baseline is established. Time to start modifying the car
Tony
The car is a 100% showroom stock '06 GT 5-spd, 1400 miles.
Best pass (made 5 passes) was a 14.16 @ 99 mph, 2.25 60'
I have to say, I'm not really impressed with these engines in stock form. It seems like there is absolutely no low rpm torque, and the car is too heavy. The track was so sticky, it was very difficult to keep from bogging badly in 1st gear. Best 60' time of all those passes was a 2.19, pretty bad. I was leaving the line around 3500 rpm and feathering the clutch, but it would still bog. Tried two more passes at 4000, then 4500 rpm, but got severe wheelhop instead. Seemed like there was no in-between launch rpm.
Just looking at that poor 60' time, these cars should be capable of mid 13s without a problem. I'm thinking a good set of drag radials and maybe some gear would help get the car moving much better. This car ran too slow to use 4th gear, it was crossing the traps at 6K rpm in 3rd gear. Tried shifting to 4th on one pass, but it ran slower (97 mph). The rest were all 99 mph consistently.
Well, I guess the baseline is established. Time to start modifying the car
Tony
04-10-2006, 12:06 PM
#3
Corvette & Mustang Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Sugar Land, TX
Posts: 2,310
Tony, I can feel with my automatic how the car bogs when launching. It just doesn't have a lot of low end torque. This factory converter sure amplifies it too. It leaves very slowly and as the rpm builds you can feel it as it reaches peak torque. A set of 4.10 gears would help your standard launch much better as you know.
Are you running 93 octane? Every body says these cars run good with 87. Not so based on my track testing. I took my car to the track with 87 it ran a 13.77 @ 98.49 mph. Slightly less mph than yours. Only reason I had a better time was in the 60'. That 13.77 was with a 2.063 60'. The next week with 93 octane and air even a little warmer ran a 13.42 @ 101.80 mph, 2.011 60'. Still stock tuning.
Did you have the spare in it? Both my passes had the spare out and front sway bar removed. And of course those heavy steel cast blocks on the rear were off. Did you weigh it? Mine weighed around 3520# race weight. That was with less than 1/4 tank of fuel.
I ordered a set of the J & M LCA's but so far haven't needed them. Maybe the difference in an auto vs standard.
Once you get that turbo things will be much different.
Are you running 93 octane? Every body says these cars run good with 87. Not so based on my track testing. I took my car to the track with 87 it ran a 13.77 @ 98.49 mph. Slightly less mph than yours. Only reason I had a better time was in the 60'. That 13.77 was with a 2.063 60'. The next week with 93 octane and air even a little warmer ran a 13.42 @ 101.80 mph, 2.011 60'. Still stock tuning.
Did you have the spare in it? Both my passes had the spare out and front sway bar removed. And of course those heavy steel cast blocks on the rear were off. Did you weigh it? Mine weighed around 3520# race weight. That was with less than 1/4 tank of fuel.
I ordered a set of the J & M LCA's but so far haven't needed them. Maybe the difference in an auto vs standard.
Once you get that turbo things will be much different.
04-10-2006, 02:06 PM
#4
Staging Lane
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 60
kinda suprised at those times
i have a 2006 with a standard
13.67@ 99.66MPH 2.1sixty
the best run was a 13.48@101mph 2.0 sixty
stock as a rock with no tunes and no mods
also ran at houston raceway park
is it possible that some cars maybe slower from the factory than others?
i have a 2006 with a standard
13.67@ 99.66MPH 2.1sixty
the best run was a 13.48@101mph 2.0 sixty
stock as a rock with no tunes and no mods
also ran at houston raceway park
is it possible that some cars maybe slower from the factory than others?
Last edited by Justin3v06; 04-10-2006 at 03:41 PM.
04-10-2006, 08:07 PM
#8
LS1Tech Co-Founder
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 33,009
Larry, the car was 100% stock, no weight removed. Raceweight was 3620 lbs, with about a 3/4 tank of 93 octane. The car definitely feels heavy and underpowered.
Not sure I'll do gears yet, since Lisa has to drive this car 35 miles each way to college and back. Gas prices overrule gear swaps
Justin, looks like you did some nice driving. Funny how we are all running like 99 mph in these things.
Not sure I'll do gears yet, since Lisa has to drive this car 35 miles each way to college and back. Gas prices overrule gear swaps
Justin, looks like you did some nice driving. Funny how we are all running like 99 mph in these things.
