My GT Performance Edition (GTPE) first track launch with videos, timeslip! 0-60 in 4.12s, 1/4 mile in 12.657 @ 100.02 mph

[Frankie]

Something is wrong. That trap speed is lower than a non GT car.

Maybe this is why the review embargo hasn't been lifted yet.

 

[0t60-3.5]

Referencing the spreadsheet above... here are three runs, two on track, one on road. Both performance reports for race speed times and distance times/speed.

Best track time - clock time 17:36 (ie. 5:36pm)

Second best track time - 5:42pm

Road time - 6:22pm - this one, I may have let up on the throttle towards the end.

 

[McMoo]

Referencing the spreadsheet above... here are three runs, two on track, one on road. Both performance reports for race speed times and distance times/speed.

Best track time - clock time 17:36 (ie. 5:36pm)

Second best track time - 5:42pm

Road time - 6:22pm - this one, I may have let up on the throttle towards the end.

Referencing the spreadsheet above... here are three runs, two on track, one on road. Both performance reports for race speed times and distance times/speed.

Good info. It’s hitting a brick wall after (or maybe just before) the 1/8 mile. 0-60 looks good though! My model 3 performance traps 94-95 mph in the 1/8 and 117-118 in the 1/4 for reference so you should be picking up way more mph on the back half of the track.

 

[0t60-3.5]

Try this again --- the first video of the track launch... drove over water at starting gate, so tires were a bit wet and shows more slipping & stuttering at very start.

Mach-E GT Performance Edition- Launch 1 @ Drag Strip

 

[Nomation]

e track.
Four more on th

Try this again --- the first video of the track launch... drove over water at starting gate, so tires were a bit wet and shows more slipping & stuttering at very start.

Mach-E GT Performance Edition- Launch 1 @ Drag Strip

Thanks for the video...almost looked like traction control kicked in right after tire noise. Did it feel that way on the track?

 

[Davedough]

This is great info but if I’m honest, I’m concerned that 0-60 is half a second more than advertised

 

[Jeebus]

My Audi A5 sportback with the 2 liter turbo 4 banger traps 100MPH. Something isn't right....

 

[CharleyCarlos]

This is great info but if I’m honest, I’m concerned that 0-60 is half a second more than advertised

same. Contrary to my initial impression, it looks a little slower than advertised even accounting for rollout.

I think this would even miss the mark a little for the base GT’s claimed numbers.

Still a very slick and fast crossover, among the very best on the market in performance and style.

unfortunately I’m a little neurotic with wanting the best performance!

 

[Frankie]

I'm going to get panned for this, but I think it has to do with the tires being borderline suitable for a standard SUV, let alone one with 600 lb/ft torque. I think it was a trade off for range, as you get slightly less the wider you go. The non GT MME's are even smaller. I'd be interested in seeing how 255's or 265's would do on the track.

Trap speed is the problem and you don't fix that with wider tires. Wider tires would actually make it slower.

 

[Frankie]

Referencing the spreadsheet above... here are three runs, two on track, one on road. Both performance reports for race speed times and distance times/speed.

Best track time - clock time 17:36 (ie. 5:36pm)

Second best track time - 5:42pm

Road time - 6:22pm - this one, I may have let up on the throttle towards the end.

These are bad.

Is the GT just a flat out turd above 60 or 70 mph? These make it look like it.

edit: there's no "may have" you understand in that last one that you were actively decelerating, right? That's what negative Gs mean. You sure you had it floored prior to that?

 

[Scooby24]

These are bad.

Is the GT just a flat out turd above 60 or 70 mph? These make it look like it.

That's exactly what it looks like. I sure hope Ford doesn't come back with an explanation that they set it up to give all the beans to 60 to get that metric and then say it's not for the drag strip and this is as designed. My wimpy Stage 2 STI back in 2005 ran [email protected] If it can't beat that, I'm out.

 

[Frankie]

That's exactly what it looks like. I sure hope Ford doesn't come back with an explanation that they set it up to give all the beans to 60 to get that metric and then say it's not for the drag strip and this is as designed. My wimpy Stage 2 STI back in 2005 ran [email protected] If it can't beat that, I'm out.

Yeah I ain't payin 70 grand for something that traps 100 and runs high 12s. Lol no thanks.

 

[Davedough]

same. Contrary to my initial impression, it looks a little slower than advertised even accounting for rollout.

I think this would even miss the mark a little for the base GT’s claimed numbers.

Still a very slick and fast crossover, among the very best on the market in performance and style.

unfortunately I’m a little neurotic with wanting the best performance!

I 100% agree. I’m paying 70k for a mid 3 0-60 monster. The car I just sold did low 4 second pulls. I wanted to be faster

 

[Frankie]

The 0-60 times are at least in the ballpark. We're talking 3.5 vs 3.8.

The trap speeds on the other hand indicate this thing might get dragged by an Accord in a 60 roll. They're embarrassing.