Ford Mustang: A Brief History in Zero-to-60-MPH Acceleration

No segment has relied more on the zero-to-60-mph measurement as its call to arms than American muscle cars. While a vehicle’s sprint to 60 mph is just one of many objective measures that can be used to indicate its performance, manufacturers tout it aggressively because it provides a standardized performance baseline that virtually everyone can relate to. That goes not only for Ford and its Mustang but also for the staff here at Car and Driver.

Thanks to our extensive history of gathering our own performance data, we have decades of revealing numbers captured by our editorial staff that not only offer a unique look into a vehicle’s evolution but also serve as a performance barometer of sorts for any given era. Jump in, and flip through more than five decades of Mustang acceleration numbers pulled from some of the hottest (and not so hottest) performance ponies ever strapped with C/D test equipment.

It’s easily the best thing to come out of Dearborn since the 1932 V-8 Model B roadster. But for all Ford’s talk of Total Performance, it’s still clear that the Mustang has been designed and built to a price. The necessity of meeting cost goals meant that it had to share a maximum number of components with other models in the Ford line. Out of this situation sprang the advantage of an extremely wide availability of options for the Mustang, selected from the Falcon, Fairlane, and Galaxie series. READ MORE>>

You’d think that dropping an anchor like the 390 engine into the Mustang would overload the front end and make it handle like a real dog, wouldn’t you? The puristi will glance at the specs and hoot derisively at the 60.3/39.7 percent weight distribution and tell you the rig will never fly, right? In truth, even we expected the Mustang 390 GT to plow like an Ohio farmer. It doesn’t. The car we tested had over 400 pounds more weight on the front wheels than the last Mustang we tested-a 271-hp 289. There have been no basic changes in the Falcon-inherited suspension, yet the Mustang 390 GT has balance and handling. READ MORE>>

The Mustang engine was all business. No chrome air cleaner or valve covers. Just plain old blue paint. Even the headers were kind of pale blue. Right on top was a super-tall aluminum, two 4-barrel inline intake manifold with a pair of 540-cfm Holleys and a paper-element air cleaner. There it was, tunnel-port fans, right in front of our very eyes. The real thing. “Well, yes, this is your regular 12.5 to 1 compression ratio, dry-deck, tunnel-port 302,” allowed Ford Man, still a bit defensive from the tire discussion. “How many do ya want?” READ MORE>>

It may just be that this time the stylists have done too good a job. Look at the Mustang Mach I, and you expect miracles-drive it, and they are not forthcoming. The pieces are there-most of them anyway-but the sum is far short of its parts. READ MORE>>

To race or not to race? Ford has finally decided. Not to. With all the pressure from ecologists and auto-safety advocates, Ford was finding it impossible to justify dropping four or five million at the tracks every year where people could see it. So no more racing. That sort of leaves the Boss 351 dangling from the end of the limb that has been cut off. The main purpose of its existence has been to fulfill the SCCA production requirement so that the factory racers would have something from which to build a juggernaut for the Trans-Am. But if the factory isn’t going to race them, who will? READ MORE>>

While the Mustang II shares some standard compo­nents with the Pinto, it is not just another version of that econ­omy sedan-no more than the original Mustang was simply a Falcon. It has been built with the specific intention of coming into the market as a Super Coupe and, in terms of “feel,” it’s a success. As opposed to the sterile practicality and cost-trimming measures so dispassionately evident in American-made economy cars up to this time, the Mustang II in no way seems to be a cheap car. READ MORE>>

You can’t deny its initial appeal-a glorious sobriquet from the past, Carroll Shelby paint job, scoops, spoilers, white-letter tires, V-8 motor, and four on the floor. Sounds neat, but what you get is a mini Mark IV all dressed up in performance gear with nothing to make it go. Your mother-in-law deserves more than 105.7 mph. To strangle a 302-cubic-inch motor down to a sickly 134 horsepower is an amazing-but embarrassing-feat of modern technology. READ MORE>>

First the bad news: The big motor’s gone. We say “big” with tongue firmly planted in cheek, because 1979’s 302-cubic-inch V-8 sucking life through a two-barrel straw was hardly what you’d call muscle bound. Nevertheless, this year’s plan is a smaller cylinder bore and less displacement to wring one more mile out of every precious gallon of gas. The new, 255-cubic-inch (4810 cc) V-8 also trims 25 pounds off front-end weight. What this costs you is roughly 10 horsepower compared with the 302 V-8’s 140 net horsepower output. Ford claims the change brings a fuel-economy improvement of 1.2 mpg. READ MORE>>

Press on the Mustang’s gas pedal, and great things happen. An authoritative growl from under the hood is accompanied by screeches of rubber at the back of the car. This Mustang is at the moment the quickest machine made in America, and our internal sources at the Ford Motor Company suggest that efforts are afoot to keep Mustangs and Capris that way. READ MORE>>

Now that the year-old redesign of the Ford Mustang has some miles on it, both Ford and the Mustang’s obsessed clientele are ready for a few important changes. A Mustang Cobra making more than 300 horsepower is certainly welcome. And finally banished from the ’96 Mustang GT is the ancient overhead-valve 4.9-liter V-8, which-in various guises-has powered Mustangs since their inception. Certain purists may wail and gnash their teeth over this one, but it’s a transition we like. READ MORE>>

Who ever thought a factory Mustang would command a price of $28,000? More surprising, who could have imagined that a Mustang would have an independent rear suspension? Well, the 1999 SVT Mustang Cobra lays claim to both those surprises and makes a strong case that the latter (abetted by a new 320-horsepower version of the four-cam, aluminum-block 4.6-liter V-8) justifies the former. READ MORE>>

The Mach 1 earns its silver medal because it is brute fun. Drop the hammer, and with no especially refined technique, 60 mph is yours in a scalding 5.2 seconds, just 0.7 second behind a $34,750 SVT Cobra and the fastest time in this test by a full half-second. The first two shifts of the notchy box leave skid marks, and the fourth shift puts paid to 151 mph.

That's some serious motor. READ MORE>>

It doesn’t happen often, but the hens in the henhouse sometimes kill the fox. That’s apparently what happened over at Henry’s glass henhouse in Dearborn.

Of the 2005 Mustang’s myriad upgrades, none is more significant than its new foundation. At last, the Fox platform has been let out to pasture, where we can only hope it contracts hoof-and-mouth while in the clutches of an illegal leg trap.

The GT’s 4.6-liter SOHC modular V-8 now features 24 valves rather than 16. The three-valve heads permit an increase of 40 horses and 18 pound-feet of torque, although both improvements are realized at loftier revolutions. READ MORE>>

At 86 years old, Carroll Shelby should consider putting his name on something more appropriate. Bags of prunes, perhaps? But there it is, pasted across the rump of a 540-hp, Corvette-priced mega-Mustang. The faithful rejoice.

Remember when 540 horses were enough to win Indy or set a Bonneville record? The Shelby lunges forward with a fearsome roar when you mash it, the acceleration making you startlingly heavy in the seat. Even so, Ford thought our 12.9-second quarter-mile was slow by a half-second, but after two test sessions in imperfect conditions-and after letting Ford’s own hot shoe take the wheel-we were unable to better the times. Ford figures the car should run 12.5-second quarters, maybe quicker. Maybe so-we await the proof. Meanwhile, it’s no quicker than a Chevy Camaro SS, which is about $17,000 cheaper. READ MORE>>

You can read the minute technical details of this engine elsewhere on this site, but here’s what you need to know: It’s utterly fabulous, a 7000-rpm cavalry charge that generates incredibly smooth, linear thrust across its broad rev band. Were you to paint the cam lids red and stick on a chrome trident, most Maserati owners would never know the difference. Yes, it’s that good.

The 412 horsepower and 390 lb-ft of torque, the latter on a gloriously flat curve that peaks at 4250 rpm, are achievements. It’s enough to knock out a 60-mph sprint in 4.6 seconds, and the quarter-mile in 13.2 seconds at 109 mph, which are more or less Camaro SS times. Finally, a Mustang engine that doesn’t have to eat dust from a small-block. READ MORE>>

Two. That’s how many times this author looked underneath the 2013 Boss 302 Laguna Seca to make sure some crafty Ford employee hadn’t replaced the solid axle with a fancy-pants independent-rear-suspension setup. It’s not as if the Boss were suddenly devoid of axle hop or radically more skilled at navigating off-camber curves and uneven pavement than are other current Mustangs, but Ford has finessed the stick axle to the point where it no longer spoils an otherwise good time. Still, we wanted to be 100 percent sure the company hadn’t slipped us a ringer. READ MORE>>

With a car like this, you inevitably focus on the numbers. The $54,995 GT500 coupe turns in a zero-to-60-mph sprint of 3.5 seconds. Ferociously tall gearing means third gear is good for 140 mph and first gear is long enough to reach highway speeds. Even so, the quarter-mile passes in 11.8 seconds. Slam a redline shift from second to third, and you’ll hear the rear tires chirp. We also saw an even 1.00 g on the skidpad. READ MORE>>

With a six-speed manual sprouting up between the seats, the V-8 makes very short work of the first three gears. The accelerative rush is such that the somewhat cheesy Ground Speed label on the speedometer makes some sense, and the needle swings into triple digits very quickly. Zero to 60 mph is accomplished in 4.5 seconds, and the quarter-mile lights tripped in 13 flat; our Mustang also hit 150 mph in well under 30 seconds. Also, there’s no Muzak version of the Daytona 500 played through the speakers in the Mustang. The GT’s V-8 soundtrack, although more subdued than we expected, is generated solely by combustion events and not electrons. We came away from this hushed GT thinking about refinement, not tinnitus. READ MORE>>

As with any turbo, there’s some hesitation as the turbo boils up. But this is a high-tech aluminum engine, fitted with direct injection and cam phasing (it even takes regular gas!), and it doesn’t make you wait long. Nor are its power lumps especially pronounced. The torque flows in a pretty even rush to the transmission, and in most situations you have to be looking for the turbo lag to really notice it.

Ford tuned the six-speed automatic to be a willing partner, meaning it downshifts quickly and gets the 2.3-liter spinning when you want a rapid departure. No, it’s not as neck-bending as the V-8, nor is it quite as instantaneous as the V-6, but when the power comes, it comes big enough to break the rear loose. READ MORE>>

Not that the new Shelby isn’t quick, but it’s not a dedicated quarter-mile eater, either. The base GT350 reaches 60 mph in 4.3 seconds after a somewhat difficult launch and does the quarter-mile in 12.5 seconds at 117 mph. Perhaps not stunning numbers these days, but the test car did weigh 3796 pounds. With its 18-pound carbon-fiber wheels and stickier Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2 tires, the R (at 3710 pounds) makes it to 60 in 3.9 seconds and through the quarter-mile in 12.2 seconds at 119 mph. Guess what? Porsche 911 GT3 drivers don’t jump up and down about drag-strip times. Stats that matter to them more are skidpad grip and braking distances. There, the 350 and 350R pull 0.98 g and a startling 1.10 g, while stopping from 70 mph in 152 feet and 146 feet. Ford’s priorities become clear when you check the track-sheet data. READ MORE>>