99+ mustang gt vs dodge neon srt 4

I here many people say there srt4 smoked a new mustang gt, but I've raced a srt4 and it did keep up with me but in the end I still won buy half a car lenth, I was not empressed with the way my mustang performed ahainst a 4 banger even tough I won!!!!!!!!!! :mad:

anybody have a different opinion

an srt isnt just a 4 banger, its a turbod 4 banger so dont feel bad... from what iver heard with good drivers the stang wins... personally i think the mustang is a much better cra and has WAY more potential (obviously)

I get tired of these turbo charged 4 bangers thinking they can smoke every car out there, they should comper themselves to other turbo or supercharged cars, such as a supercharged mustang!

Well, if you believe that, Why don't you compare yourself with something that has the same amount of cyl's as you? Such as the Trans Am or The CamaroZ28. Damn buddy you've got 8 cyl's and we've got 4, gotta have something to make up the difference right. And even still, a turbo isn't really equal to 4 extra cyl's but I manage to take GT's everytime.

You race who you race...if you got a turbo 4 and you smoke a V8 then good for you...no excuses or whining from either party about na...so if the srt-4 beat a mustang just smile and get him back some other time...give fast cars respect, no matter how many cylinders it has

Also, If you consider bang for your buck, The srt4 owns the stang. Already a drivers race stock for stock. Then take into account prices for both cars. 20,000 will get you a brand new Srt4 when GT's cost about 24,000. Then think about taking about 2,000 in mod money and putting it into both cars. The SRT will come out seconds ahead of the Stang. Also, the SRT4 has four doors, useable back seats, and better gas milage, which would make it the more resonable car. Now I know that the V8 has more potential if you wanna shell out like 20,000-30,000 in mod money but I don't think we all have that lying around to use on our cars. So if you got a normal job, friends/family that you do take around, like the fuel economy of a four banger, and love having the power to equal or beat V8's. Then the srt is the way to go.

I'v race camaro's all the time and I'm tired of the comparison, look for the price the srt-4 is a good deal I don't diss it one bit hell I was startled when I raced it a it was on my ass!! the srt 4 will and can beat any 98 and below cobra and gt hands down, I wish ford would open it's eyes and realize they need to put cars with more horse power, except the 03 cobra they finally got smart, I love mustang's and I got my 1/4 mile time down to a 13.89 and this is with bassini x-pipe, flowmaster two chamber exhaust, and 3.73 gears, i'm broke just like mason rsx.

I agree for the money i spent on mods if i had a srt-4 i would probably run a mid 13

...... Sorry man, I just needed to vent. I just hate when V6's and V8's race me, and I win and they give the whole "Well your turboed! Let me get turbo and we'll see" BS excuse. I mean because I guess they forget that they have more cylinders and more displacement than I do, so comparing my turbo I4 is not even comparable to a turbo/super V6/V8. And when you said turbo 4's should compare themselves to supercharged mustangs, I just flipped. But explain me your reasoning why you think that turbo 4's should compare to turbo/super V8's?

...... Sorry man, I just needed to vent. I just hate when V6's and V8's race me, and I win and they give the whole "Well your turboed! Let me get turbo and we'll see" BS excuse. I mean because I guess they forget that they have more cylinders and more displacement than I do, so comparing my turbo I4 is not even comparable to a turbo/super V6/V8. And when you said turbo 4's should compare themselves to supercharged mustangs, I just flipped. But explain me your reasoning why you think that turbo 4's should compare to turbo/super V8's?

Who cares how or why a car is fast? If it's fast then it's fast, period. That's all that matters.

i'm broke just like mason rsx.

hahahahahahaha!! If i put the money university tuition money into my car, my car would be sooooo fast!

And kman said basically what I have been trying to say...it doesn't matter what you have...if its fast, its fast

ya, it doesnt matter how many cylinders or whether its na or not... all that matters is how fast it is... but there is a difference between a 4 cyl and a turbo 4 cyl... and thats not saying that a turbo 4 banger isnt equal to a v8 but there is a difference and its ignorant to ignore the fact that it is turbod... that being said the new mustang is CONSIDERABLY faster and has been dynod at 280 at the wheels (thats about 325 at the crank) the old mustang was 260 at the crank... so ya, so much for mustangs being underpowered...

that being said the new mustang is CONSIDERABLY faster and has been dynod at 280 at the wheels (thats about 325 at the crank)

Got a dyno sheet for that? Considering the quarter mile times that it's running, I don't doubt it, but I'd just like to see if it's true.

ya, it doesnt matter how many cylinders or whether its na or not... all that matters is how fast it is... but there is a difference between a 4 cyl and a turbo 4 cyl... and thats not saying that a turbo 4 banger isnt equal to a v8 but there is a difference and its ignorant to ignore the fact that it is turbod... that being said the new mustang is CONSIDERABLY faster and has been dynod at 280 at the wheels (thats about 325 at the crank) the old mustang was 260 at the crank... so ya, so much for mustangs being underpowered...

2005 Mustang GT Automatic numbers (Motor Trend)

0-60 - 5.1
1/4 mile - 13.6
Skidpad - .84
Slalom - 66.1
Figure 8 - 26.61

So yeah, the bar has been raised a bit this time around. Yay Mustangs!

As for the dyno, it hit 269/283 with the automatic, so with 15-20% drivetrain loss it means 309/325 - 322/339.

Remember, these are all automatic numbers. The manual should see low 13s.

Well, I'm just hoping the manual doesn't have the weak 4th/5th gears that the automatic does...because if not for that, I'm sure the auto could bring that trap over 100 easily. And performance tires would be nice to have as well.

well you probrably trap at around 100mph. a SRT-4 traps close to 103mph but runs a 14 flat due to traction issues. its definitly a 13.6 capable car with its trap speeds.

the mustang with a 5 speed manual will not be geared for economy in the 4th and 5th gears (and the first three should be geared a little different as well, i cant see them being exactly the same) and should trap at 105 easily and some people have been estimating they might (i said MIGHT so dont hold me to it) might run as low as 13.1 with a GOOD driver, not some high school kid.... the current mustang runs like a 14.1 at 100 mph. and as u can see by the stats listed above it handles way better as well... extremely well for a car of its size weight without irs on it. overall i say its worth the xtra 4 grand for the mustang.

and there is a pic of a dyno sheet on another site, ill try to find it.

oh no i'm not denying the ability of the new stang at all. i'm just pointing out to original thread starter of what stock SRT-4 are capable of.

if you can drive the car to its full potential then the srt4 can outrun any mustang gt or below!

still wouldnt outrun the 05 mustang gt...

Nope, no way it's gonna keep up with the new GT...yeah, it beat the Mustang on a 25-year-old platform with a 2-valve-per-cylinder setup, but it's got nothin' on a modern 'Stang.

lol, that sounded funny, "a modern stang" how quickly youve turned ur back on the current stang, hehehe, j/k

You race who you race...if you got a turbo 4 and you smoke a V8 then good for you...no excuses or whining from either party about na...so if the srt-4 beat a mustang just smile and get him back some other time...give fast cars respect, no matter how many cylinders it has

I agree!

lol, that sounded funny, "a modern stang" how quickly youve turned ur back on the current stang, hehehe, j/k

Well, you have to realize that the pre-2005 Mustang has been on the same chassis for 25 years. So yeah, a "modern 'Stang" was greatly needed. :)

so the 05 mustangs are that good huh? We'll just have to see how it fares against my 02 WS6. Then we'll talk about if it really goes 0-60 in 5.1. ha!

motor trend did a trail run on the new gt and they got a 14.0 1/4 mile time but you now how they seem to hate mustangs anyway i think they will get at least a 13.5-13.8 with good driving conditions.

I think with a manual tranny and summer tires, we're looking at low 13's. So it should be able to run with the LS1 F-Bodies easily.

As I posted in another thread, we must also look at conditions.


For example altitude will murder NA cars (here at close to 5000feet LS1's run in average 14.3 in the 1/4). On the other hand turbos can compensate easily for it.


On the other hand heat will reduce the IC effciency and kill turbo cars much more than NA.

So environment will play a huge role in comparing those cars.

About handling, the 05 might be a new platform but it still weigths a lot and that in combination with a solid axle at the back does not bode well.
Of course most people will take the stand to drag race in which case the solid axle will be best.

"Well, you have to realize that the pre-2005 Mustang has been on the same chassis for 25 years. So yeah, a "modern 'Stang" was greatly needed"

i know... but it still sounds funny to me.

and as i said earlier for a car of its size and weight with a solid axle it handles very well.

and as i said earlier for a car of its size and weight with a solid axle it handles very well.


do you have any tests or timed laps to prove that?

do you have any tests or timed laps to prove that?

I posted the Motor Trend numbers on the second page, but I think that's all we get for now. Obviously they are just that, numbers, but the general impression I got from their article was that it is light years ahead of the old version.

I posted the Motor Trend numbers on the second page, but I think that's all we get for now. Obviously they are just that, numbers, but the general impression I got from their article was that it is light years ahead of the old version.


Oh yes i just saw the numbers and they are adequate, I would not go as fas as to say that it handles very well.

Its clearly a car setup for drag racing as its normal due to its target demographic.


So returnig to this comparo i would chose the srt4, due to handling reasons(of course after i swapped some acr or mopar coilovers).

Weight is just about the worst thing for handling, and even if you can compensate for it somewhat with good suspension and tires, after repeated laps it will simply eat away at you brakes and tires very fast.

And solid axels at the back are a nighmare on anything beside a smooth track.

im not really disagreeing with anything ur saying, im just saying it handles alot better than previous mustangs and theres still a cobra coming with irs and if the mustang is that improved while still using a solid rear axle imagine the possibilities with a good irs setup.

im not really disagreeing with anything ur saying, im just saying it handles alot better than previous mustangs and theres still a cobra coming with irs and if the mustang is that improved while still using a solid rear axle imagine the possibilities with a good irs setup.


well it should be since its the first time in years to make one on a new platform. One thing about the cobra, I really hope they make it light too at most 3300 lbs. Even if it means dropping the rear seat. I just have a personal allergy - if you could call it that - to heavy sport cars.

well, if they make a mach or a boss u can count on it getting heavier... if they make the shelby itll most likely be lighter. i doubt they drop the back seat but theyll cut weight some how. shelby knows his shit and he wont dissapoint.

well, if they make a mach or a boss u can count on it getting heavier... if they make the shelby itll most likely be lighter. i doubt they drop the back seat but theyll cut weight some how. shelby knows his shit and he wont dissapoint.


So did shelby oficially said he's goning to make one? That would be quite nice. I bet Saleen and Rouche would not be very happy for the competition though.

the 05 mustang engine isn't going to be near as fast as the LS1. Plus its Ford....I don't think they'll be able to make an engine in the GT to compete with an LS1.

well, its 0-60 is already competitive with an ls1 (5.1 seconds) and thats the auto. the stick should do it sub 5. and it runs a 13.6 (auto) in the quarter mile which isnt as fast as the ls1 but the auto it is equipped with has weak 4th and 5th gears (for economy) thats y it has a trap speed of only 99 mph. the o5 gt WILL compete with the ls1.

350 hp(5.7 LS1) vs 300hp (4.6)? Come on.....

However, I do like the fact that Ford brought back the vintage look. Just need to improve the rims.....

well, the stang is actually about 325 hp... and about 340 torque.

Max horsepower @ rpm 300 @ 6000
Max torque @ rpm 315 @ 4500

according to www.motortrend.com on a 2005 mustang GT

those were the predicted number, the 05 mustang was underrated, it was dynod at 270 hp at the wheels which is 325 at the crank

Where do you get your info? Is it legit? an 02 WS6 dynos around what....305, 310?? It won't hang with the WS6

The LS1 dynos higher, it's a little bit lighter, and it has a six-speed, so of course it's gonna be faster...but it's not much faster.

It is faster. That is all that counts. Plus, gotta love the ttops!

yes it will still be fatser but the new mustang will compete. thats the only point i was trying to make is that it will compete. (the old mach1 competed just fine with the same power ratings as the new gt) and many of the times when a mach races an ls1 its a drivers race so it will compete. and on top of all that the mustang is only 24k and is much higher quality than the ls1... but if the camaros extra 20 hp is worth that to you than to each his own.

Well, I think the LS1 is better than the modular 4.6 (I've never liked the modular 4.6), and that six-speed tranny is very strong, but other than that, the Mustang is just superior, and has been since 1994.

well, i like the mod 4.6 better, more technology... i still think for should have gone with a 302 ohc. or at least a 289 ohc (4.8L) that woulda been sick. but it does live up to its heritage of the "Pony car" ford just needs to start offering bigger engines like the good ol days.

Like I said earlier, I'm glad that they have the 3-valve design now. If they're gonna use just 2 valves, they might as well keep it OHV for the low-end...the V6 is now a 2-valve OHC design.