Mustang article that everyone may find interesting (not just Paul)

[masraum]

https://www.caranddriver.com/flipbook/ford-mustang-a-brief-history-of-zero-to-60-mph-acceleration
There's a more text/info after the link, but here're the stats (I wish they'd have included something in the '85-90 range):

1964.5 Ford Mustang Convertible – 8.2 seconds
1967 Ford Mustang GT – 7.3 seconds
1968 Ford Mustang Coupe – 5.4 seconds
1969 Ford Mustang Mach I – 5.7 seconds
1971 Ford Mustang Boss 351 – 5.8 seconds
1974 Ford Mustang II Mach I – 12.2 seconds
1976 Ford Mustang II Cobra II – 8.9 seconds
1980 Ford Mustang Cobra – 10.8 seconds
1982 Ford Mustang GT – 8.1 seconds
1996 Ford Mustang GT – 6.6 seconds
1999 Ford Mustang SVT Cobra – 5.5 seconds
2003 Ford Mustang Mach 1 – 5.2 seconds
2005 Ford Mustang GT – 5.2 seconds
2010 Ford Mustang Shelby GT500 – 4.6 seconds
2011 Ford Mustang GT – 4.6 seconds
2013 Ford Mustang Boss 302 Laguna Seca – 4.2 seconds
2013 Ford Mustang Shelby GT500 – 3.5 seconds
2015 Ford Mustang GT – 4.5 seconds
2015 Ford Mustang EcoBoost – 5.2 seconds
2016 Ford Mustang Shelby GT350 / GT350R – 4.3 / 3.9 seconds
2018 Ford Mustang GT – 4.3 seconds

I think it's interesting to trace a vehicles performance over this range of time, and as stated somewhere in the article, this is a fairly valid comparison (more than it would be with something like the 911) since the pony cars or muscle cars sort of targeted this sort of performance unlike something like the 911 that was not about straight line acceleration.

It would be interesting if the motor size, power and vehicle weight were included.

[HardDrive]

Pretty funny that they simply skip a 14 years stretch in the 80/90s. The dark years indeed. Although it would have been interesting to see how the 84-86 SVO stacked up. Interesting car for the time.

The numbers for the new cars are amazing. 4.3 seconds for a standard GT. Mind blowing.

[pwd72s]

Naw, they can't possibly be that fast...

The soon to come '19 GT500 is rumored to be well over 700 horsepower. It'll be interesting to see it's times posted.

'19 Bullitt is said to be 480 horses. No place for this old man. 315 in my '09, and it's adequate for getting me where I want to go.

[masraum]

Originally Posted by HardDrive

Pretty funny that they simply skip a 14 years stretch in the 80/90s. The dark years indeed. Although it would have been interesting to see how the 84-86 SVO stacked up. Interesting car for the time.

The numbers for the new cars are amazing. 4.3 seconds for a standard GT. Mind blowing.

Actually, I was thinking that they included 74 - 82, and then skipped the mid-80s to mid 90s where things started to bounce back.

[masraum]

Originally Posted by pwd72s

Naw, they can't possibly be that fast...

The soon to come '19 GT500 is rumored to be well over 700 horsepower. It'll be interesting to see it's times posted.

'19 Bullitt is said to be 480 horses. No place for this old man. 315 in my '09, and it's adequate for getting me where I want to go.

Hell, the 2015 ecoboost 6 is probably faster than your '09.

My boxster is the very first boxster/cayman to make more than 300hp (303hp). I think the Cayman caught up the next year. And I'm plenty happy with my 300. (not that I don't find myself occasionally fantasizing about having another 100-150hp) Of course, this is probably the most powerful car I've ever owned, hahahah.

[HardDrive]

Originally Posted by masraum

Actually, I was thinking that they included 74 - 82, and then skipped the mid-80s to mid 90s where things started to bounce back.

Yeah, I guess you're right. 12.2 second 0-60. Holy hell.

[masraum]

Originally Posted by HardDrive

Yeah, I guess you're right. 12.2 second 0-60. Holy hell.

The "article" is a series of photos of each of the listed models with a single paragraph under the photo, but if you click "read more" you get what I assume is the original article or review from when they were new. This is an excerpt from the '74 that jogged that asthmatic 12.2 sec 0-60.

However, visual and even audible excellence in Super Cou*pes generally comes at the penalty of weight . . . and per*formance. That is the case in the Mustang II Mach I. Our test car weighed over 3100 lbs. Thus, despite the fact that Ford's V-6 engine is now 2820cc as opposed to its 1973 displacement of 2540cc (accomplished by increases of 0.12 inches in bore and 0.07 inches in stroke), the engine is more notable for its smoothness than any feel of power. At the time of this test, horsepower figures were not available, but there is the suspicion that the 2.8-liter version may actually be rated at less than the earlier version due to carburetor and ignition changes aimed at lower emissions. That, combined with the Mach I's surprising heft (the V-6 Capri we tested in January, 1972 weighed slightly under 2400 lbs.), yields acceleration performance that is disappointing. Moreover, the wide spac*ing between third and fourth gears in the Mustang II's exclu*sive 4-speed transmission in no way aids matters. This all-new transmission, which is built in the U.S. and housed in an aluminum case, does offer light and precise operation, but it is not as smooth in shifting as the current Pinto 4-speed.

But what I found even more entertaining was this about the V-8 version of the Mustang II. This was apparently, a domestic top speed shootout for 1976. The 5 vehicles in the test were the Corvette L-82, Dodge Dart Sport, Pontiac Trans Am, Chevy C10 (yeah, the pick up) and the Mustang in that descending order for top speed.

Every bout has a loser, and it was the Mustang II Cobra II that held up the low end of our test's performance scale. You can't deny its initial appeal — a glorious sobriquet from the past, Caroll Shelby paint job, scoops, spoilers, white-letter tires, V-8 motor and four on the floor. Sounds neat, but what you get is a mini-Mark IV all dressed up in performance gear with nothing to make it go. Your mother-in-law deserves more than 105.7 mph. To strangle a 302-cu. in. motor down to a sickly 134 hp is an amazing — but embarrassing — feat of modern technology. You need light weight for small-engine performance, but what you get in the Mustang II is station-wagon parts underneath and pound upon pound of sound deadener. The suspension developers worked diligently to filter any possible road irritation (or feel) out of the Mustang II's steering and chassis, and the optional competition suspension can't put it back.

As a kid, I remember thinking that the Mustang II was cool, but you can't fault me, I was 5-8 years old at the time.

[Tervuren]

Originally Posted by HardDrive

Yeah, I guess you're right. 12.2 second 0-60. Holy hell.

I think I've time a stock 16 passenger E-350 van at faster than that.

No wonder classic cars took off in value...

[pwd72s]

The 2015 Ecoboost wasn't a V-6...it was a 4 banger. It's 5.2 0-60 is close to the 4.6 V-8 GT, but not as quick as the Bullitt models with their higher horsepower and lower rear end.

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2015-ford-mustang-ecoboost-automatic-test-review