boduke0220

70mm throttle body would help throttle response

cliffyk

How many miles does the car have one it, how is it driven--around town 5-10 mile trips, or 30-50 mile commutes?

If 50k miles or more and mostly short trips then change the plugs; Motorcraft AGSF-32PM are OEM replacements, I run Champion stk # 3401 single platinum. Check the air filter as well.

If less than 50k miles then I doubt there has been any loss of power, but more likely that your wife has grown accustomed to the power level--which on a bone-stock GT is not all that impressive after the initial rush wears off...

You mentioned you do not have and do not want a tuner--this means that running premium fuel is just throwing money away. The stock tune is setup, very conservatively, for 87 octane gasoline.

This also means that nearly any bolt-on mods will be largely wasted money. You can open up the exhaust to 2-1/2" from the manifolds back, and add an after market plenum and TB (plenum first if on a budget, it's the weak point) to let the engine breath a bit better, however without a tune the gains will be minimal.

If you do want to pep things up I recommend you rethink a tune/tuner. The OEM tune is, as I said above, very conservative; tending toward rich in open loop operation, and with decidedly ho-hum ignition timing.

OTH, a good tune setup for premium fuel, proper AFR at WOT, and even moderately aggressive timing will add a lot of punch to the low end and mid range making the driving experience quite a bit more enjoyable. I have tuned a number of dead stock GTs and never had an owner come back without a grin on their face.

So open up the exhaust, plenum & TB, get a tune/tuner, then do 3.73 or 4.10 rear end gears...

modmach

I would do the plugs and add a K$N or airhog filter to free up some power

mikebol

Thanks everyone for the inspiration. You've all given me a good idea where I need to go to open up the HP. This was what I expected really, no different than my diesel; better intake flow, better exhaust flow, and a programmer. I'm not opposed to going this route, she just needs some convincing.

@Cliff, the car has 70k miles on it and is mainly driven less than 10 miles a day now. When we lived in GA, she drove it during more, 75 miles a day to and from work. So I think the lack of engine heat and sustained driving could be a contributing factor. I had her running higher octane fuel thinking it would help the motor build more heat and limit carbon build up; maybe that's just wasteful, not sure.

Thanks!

Mike

cliffyk

The 10 miles/day is definitely not helping, it's good that you change the oil at 3k intervals as it will never get hot enough for long enough to boil off the nasties.

However it's enough that there shouldn't be any problems with carbon buildup as long as you take it out a couple times a month and run it for 20-30 miles on the interstate. Premium fuel will have very very little, if any, impact on combustion chamber temps, save your money...

v braaten

Yeah... Do the plugs and get a K&N air filter; then ask her how it runs.

natistang

I would highly recommend 4.10 rear gears. Since you plan on keeping the car close to stock (i.e. no forced induction) then gears are a great way to wake up a stock gt. Combine that with a tune for 93 octane (which you already use evey fill up anyway) and your car will feel like a whole new animal.

stangalator

unless your wife likes shifting like crazy i'd say no to 4.10s as its not going to be a DD. A set of 3.73's id say as a max or even 3.55's would be better suited for your wife. I mean I have 4.10;s and i love the pull but it is a bit much if you are DD'ing in a city. Just something to think about.

MustangGt40th

it wont let me PM, and i personally havent had any trouble with it but things i have read on this website that other people have said, said that mobil 1 shouldn't be considered as a real synthetic. i guess that was a stupid comment of me sorry.

cliffyk

There was a bogus wear test performed by an Australian web magazine (maybe hard copy too) in mid-2006 that had trashed Mobil 1. Someone had started a thread here here a while back that linked to the article.

The ""winners" of the tests, Valvoline and BP, were both advertisers and sponsors of the magazine/site, and the manufacturer of the test equipment stated that not only were the tests flawed, the apparatus was not even designed for testing motor oil.

The magazine published a back-pedaling article in a later edition, but by then the "viral effect" had taken hold, and the original garbage was spread all over--every now and then it crops up again...