Skip to main content
HOME   |   ABOUT   |   NEWS   |   TECH ARTICLES   |   AT THE TRACK   |   REVIEWS   |   VIDEOS   |   CONTACT ME

2015 Mustang GT breaks into the 11's in the 1/4 mile!




It went 11.77 seconds to be exact and past the traps at 116 mph and that's with minor modifications. The modifications were courtesy of the folks at Ford Racing. They recently got a hold of three 2015 Mustangs, one with the 2.3L EcoBoost engine making 310 hp and two GT's with the 5.0L V8 making 435 hp.




The power modifications are minor for two of the three Mustangs. The 2.3 EcoBoost gets a "Prototype Off-Road Exhaust" which most likely means there are no catalytic converters or "cats", a more free flowing exhaust and a tune. One of the GT's gets the same off-road exhaust treatment and a tune plus "ARH Cobra Jet Long Tube Headers". In the video, they say they did "a few changes to the air intake system but basically these are close to what any consumer can buy" so they may have included a K&N drop-in filter which FRPP Performance Packs for the 2014 Mustang GT included or an aftermarket CAI with a cone style filter.

The final GT gets the full treatment which includes all the above plus a Ford Racing Roush supercharger and obviously a new intake to accommodate the supercharger. It is unclear what the boost psi level is for the supercharged GT and what the tune raises the EcoBoost psi to but the 1/4 mile numbers are great. Additional suspension parts and drag slicks help the drop the time.

The passenger and rear seats are removed and the driver seat is replaced with a race seat but that seems to be the extent of it for weight savings, probably to substitute for the roll cage and testing equipment if any are fixed to the car. If you pause at 2:18, you'll see one of the the mounting points for the front passenger seat surrounded by black (the carpet). I know the front seats on the S197 Mustangs weigh about 60 lb. each (mine weighed 57 lb. with the frame). According to American Muscle, a rear seat delete kit on the S197 Mustang saves "up to 30 lb."  Between the race seat and removed passenger and rear seats, total savings should be under 120 lb. The roll cage probably offsets most of that if not all so overall difference, positive or negative, compared to a stock interior is probably negligible.

If these parts are available through Ford Racing like power packs for the S197 and maintain warranty if installed by the dealer, it will make a lot of people happy. Watch the video above to see the new Mustangs going at it or scroll below to see a list of modifications and 1/4 mile numbers although no dyno numbers are listed.


2.3L EcoBoost - 1/4 mile: 12.56 s at 109.17 mph


Ford Racing parts:
- Performance Rear Subframe Kit
- Heavy Duty Half-Shaft Kit
- Draft Shaft Safety Loops
- Prototype Off-Road Exhaust
- Ford Racing Development Engine Calibration

Other parts:
- Hoosier Drag Racing Slicks (Rear)
- Weld-Racing AlumaStar Drag Wheels (Rear)
- Four-Point Roll Cage
- Recaro Race Seat


Naturally Aspirated 5.0L GT - 1/4 mile: 11.77 s at 116.21 mph

Ford Racing parts:
- Performance Rear Subframe Kit
- Heavy Duty Half-Shaft Kit
- Prototype Off-Road Exhaust
- Draft Shaft Safety Loops
- Ford Racing Development Engine Calibration

Other parts:
- Hoosier Drag Racing Slicks (Rear)
- Weld-Racing AlumaStar Drag Wheels (Rear)
- ARH Cobra Jet Long Tube Headers
- Four-Point Roll Cage
- Recaro Race Seat


Supercharged 5.0L GT - 1/4 mile: 10.97 s at 128.91 mph

Ford Racing parts:
- Ford Racing/ROUSH Performance Supercharger Kit
- Performance Rear Subframe Kit
- Heavy Duty Half-Shaft Kit
- Drive Shaft Safety Loops
- Ford Racing Development Engine Calibration

Other parts:
- Hoosier Drag Racing Slicks (Rear)
- Weld-Racing AlumaStar Drag Wheels (Rear)
- Four-Point Roll Cage
- Recaro Race Seat


Comments







Does An Aftermarket Grille Really Increase Airflow?
I put a Saleen S281 grille to the test to answer that question.

Stock Suspension S197 Mustang With Square 305/30/19's
What you need to fit a proper size square tire setup.

How Limited Slip Diffs Make You Faster on Track
What you need to know about how they put power down and pros and cons.

Can Telemetry Explain Schumacher's Talent?
A comparison between Schumacher's and then team mate Herbert's data.






Cayman GT4 Track Review
The first Cayman with proper (911-challenging) power.

Is an EcoBoost Mustang any good on Track?
Two days at the track in a Mustang short 4 cylinders.

2016 BMW M4 DCT Track Review
It's quick (properly quick). But is it fun?

Can a stock Golf Diesel handle a Track Day?
Not your every day track beater.




🔥 Most Visited This Week

Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2's vs Bridgestone Potenza RE-71R's

I never thought I'd ever run Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2's on my 2012 Boss 302. The cost is astronomical and they are supposed to last the least of anything comparable. So how did I end up with (nearly) fresh Sport Cup 2's? A complete fluke. I came across a lightly used set with only a few hundred miles and no track time; 305/30/19 takeoffs from a GT Performance Pack Level 2 (GT PPL2). I knew my 71R's were getting very worn before the season started and likely wouldn't last the whole season, even this short one. The price was far better than a new set of RE-71R's, a little more than half, and local Time Attack rules (Canadian Automobile Sport Clubs) recently made 180 and 200 TW tires equivalent, meaning no PAX or PIP point penalty for going with 180 TW tire like the Pilot Sport Cup 2's. I have been very curious about how PSC2's compare to RE 71R's but I stayed away due to their being painfully expensive and, up to last year, their 180 TW rating would

GTR vs Evo X vs STI: which has the best AWD system?

A few weeks ago, I made a post explaining  mainstream AWD system types and how they compare , pros and cons, etc. including some simple diagrams to show where the power goes and how much. As promised, this post will focus on specific cars and what AWD systems they use, especially ones that that have more or less been defined by their AWD systems, and the best place to start may be with a bombshell; the Nissan GT-R. Nissan GT-R (R35) The GT-R has built a reputation around having monster traction and very approachable performance, thanks to its AWD system - Advanced Total Traction Engineering System for All-Terrain (ATTESA) - and what it can do for you. But the GT-R doesn't actually use the most mechanically sophisticated type of AWD systems discussed in the previous article, namely a "true" AWD with a centre differential. Instead, it uses a clutch pack to transfer power. RWD-based clutch-type AWD schematic - Rams Eye The Track Guy © The R32, R33, and R34 Sky

How would a Mustang 3.5L EcoBoost compare to the 5.0L V8?

Ever wonder how a 3.5 litre EcoBoost might fair against the 5.0 litre V8 in the Mustang? Of course you have. Ever since Ford dropped it in the F150 (and perhaps well before), everyone has been wondering how it would perform. There are basically two camps; those who think it would be awesome because of tuneability and power potential and those who think it means the death of the V8 in the Mustang. If you are in the latter group, we seem to be good so far with continuous upgrades to the 5.0 litre Coyote and the brand new Shelby GT500 which still uses a supercharged V8 as it has been for over a decade and multiple iterations. But what if... Well, it seems we are closer than ever to finding out the answer to that question. American Trucks recently got together two crew cab, short box, 4x4 F150's but one has the 5.0 litre V8 and the other has the 3.5 litre EcoBoost V6. There has been a few comparisons between 5.0 litre and 3.5 litre EB F150's, but this seems to be the most di

Bridgestone Potenza RE-71R Track Review

2012 Boss 302 on square 305/30/19 RE-71R's at AMP - Graham MacNeil © For better or for worse, I have heard and read so much about RE-71R's. Everyone swears by the grip but complains about the wear. Generally speaking, the pros are: 1. They grip as well or better than most R comps. 2. They don't wear as quickly as R comps if driven occasionally on the street. 3. They work better in the rain than R comps. The cons were limited to overheating quickly when used on track (being an autocross tire) and wearing too fast on heavy cars like mine. In the popular 200 TW category, they are faster than the popular Hankook RS-4's and BFGoodrich Rival S's according to published Tire Rack Tests. According to plenty of reviews, they are also faster than well established R comps like R888R's (which don't seem to work too well on heavy cars anyway) and the venerable NT01's. But I was still hesitant for a while until I talked to a tire tech support gentleman