Originally Posted by BLM

As I said before, the only figure where the Mustang GT out-performs the Z is in straight line acceleration. The article you mentioned gave the GT and M3 4.4 0-60 and 12.7 vs 12.8 in the 1/4. I've never seen those times. Most give 4.6 and 12.9-13.0 but it's really splitting hairs. The Z is 0-60 in 4.7 and 1/4 in 13.2-13.3. And one would expect such figures from the mustang, given the extra 100 hp and 1300 cc displacement, as well as 3.73's. The Z does better on the skidpad, slalom, and braking (despite the brembo package on the mustang). The Z is also 300 lbs lighter, and the sport tuned Z is $4000 cheaper than the tested GT with Brembo's and 3.73 gears. Also, iirc doesnt the 400+ hp stang come with 255's in the rear? Traction would be a problem for sure under heavy driving. The sport Z comes stock with 245/275 with less power and less weight. That'd be my first mod if I had one (which i never would). I'd throw some 305's on the rear. I'm very impressed with the Mustang for sure. The improvements they've made are long overdue. The power:weight ratio is imo the most impressive stat on this car. And in grand Ford fashion, they're rating it at 412 hp and they're dynoing stock at 395 whp. But I'd never own one for many reasons, and unless you're on a long straight, given equally skilled drivers I think it would be a close battle between the mustang and the Z on a road course. However, if the mustang had appropriate traction I think it wouldn't be close at all. I just dont see 255 tires being able to have that car hit it's potential on the track given it's weight, power, and stopping ability.