Wow, the more and more I see these anti-Ford and anti-Mustang threads the more and more I get nauseous.

Every Mustang GT since the late 80's has been a 14 second car. The SN-95's were a little slower (low 15's) and the 99+ were low 13 second cars. The 6 cylinder ones...well that's another story.

Stock times for the lightest Ram I have seen are low 15's. Quad cabs are 16's etc.

I been reading what people get on the dyno over at HTC and there is no way a stocker will compete with a late model Mustang GT.

I'm not defending Ford, I'm just saying people should realistically start looking at weight to horsepower ratios and aerodynamics and the fact that our big heavy trucks have 300+ at the flywheel but due to the heavy *** drive train, we only psh 250-260 stock on the dyno to the wheels.

 

Well these are the pics of the Stang and the Ram.

[IMG]local://upfiles/11899/B83476AA11DC41A589A2F68712739803.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]local://upfiles/11899/77112856AA7A49588C0AA263BA6F99F6.jpg[/IMG]

 

So a 5.0 vs a 5.9er? 4X4 to boot? No wonder he got owned.[]

 

Well thats definitely no "late model GT" Thing looks like its covered in rust...or is that the color?? Either way...I hate that model...yuck. Thats just me tho lol.

My bro has a new stang and Ive got a 02 ram. No mods on either....I'll race him and get back to ya

 

That is one of the worst looking Mustang's I have ever seen. The Ram looks good. Well, any car looks good in blue to me.

 

I'm guessing that's the car's color. Either that or that is one f*cked up car.

 

Color or rust...car is screwed up either way...and definitely ugly

 

2005 Ford Mustang GT (0-60 - 5.1) (QM - 13.80)
2004 Dodge Ram 1500 Quad Cab (0-60 - 8.0) (QM - 16.20)

 

So it is possible then with mods to beat that Rustang in the 1/4 mile.



-Matt-

 

I guess so...I stopped paying attention to this thread about an hour ago.