• Mar 25, 2011
David Ragan sets new record in 2011 Ford Mustang GT – Click above to watch video after the jump

NASCAR Driver David Ragan hopped out of his Ford Fusion and into a Ford Racing-modified 2011 Mustang GT and set out on the Bristol Motor Speedway to take a shot at the half-mile speed trials. The result? A new production car lap record of 98.497 miles per hour in 19.481 seconds.

Seeing a sub-100-mph speed for a track race may seem slow, but trust us, it's not. By comparison, a Yamaha superbike hit the course and managed a time of 19.582 seconds at a speed of 97.990 mph.

Ford Racing's modified Mustang uses a supercharger to add an extra 200 horsepower, bringing the total up to 624 hp. To manage that power, Ford Racing also fitted upgraded brakes and suspension parts. Click past the jump to see the Mustang, its new parts and David Ragan in action.

[Source: YouTube via MustangsDaily.com]


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 42 Comments
      • 3 Years Ago
      the PONY does it again whoRaaah who's the BOSS ?
      • 3 Years Ago
      Why can't ford leave the blower off and just break the record with a standard GT? How many ford racing suspension parts are on the car? It's running stock alignment and tire sizes too right? Or is this really just a race car in disguise?

      Why not run the GT500 then? Perhaps because that car is a heavy pig and Ford would rather make the lighter GT run with GT500 horsepower numbers? Isn't that a bit misleading since you just dipped into the aftermarket and don't even sell this combination of parts in a production car? Regardless if the dealer produces the blower or not that's bull to slap it on there and pretend it makes the 2011 GT any better.

      Always doublespeak from that Ford camp. But when a terribly underpowered stock 290hp Evo runs within a few seconds of a 400hp+ mustang it's because the Mustang is better right?

      The Evo has such amazing suspension that a similar weighted vehicle with much less power runs similar times? Why can't we ever see an Evo with aftermarket turbo running for one of these publicity stunts? The other cars only keep up because they are majorly overpowered. They race cars with big motors and poor suspensions against a car with awesome suspension but no power.

      Every magazine shootout always has the Stock Evo coming slightly behind cars with nearly double the power. With such an amazing suspension the car immediately destroys on the track with just some bolt ons or even another turbo. An Evo at 400bhp keeps up with a Lambo around a track no problem.

      We can never run that car with any more power than stock can we.... But lets keep throwing bigger HP numbers on mustangs and somehow pretend that makes the car's platform better. I love Mustangs but they are not track cars until you basically redo the suspension. I found out later in life it's much harder to perfect a suspension, when power can be added to just about anything.

      Evo IX + FP Black Turbo + turbo back exhaust + fuel pump + injectors + tune = 500 minimally at the wheels on a stock motor from 2 liters and under $3000 total investment. That's cheaper than simply ordering this blower from Ford.

      An Evo IX with 290 horsepower laps the Nurburgring-Nordschleife in 8:11 at over 3300lbs. It just needs some more power to dominate since the suspension is already there. http://burntire.ru/tracks/nurburgring-nordschleife (position 75)
        • 3 Years Ago
        Acidtonic, did you happen to own Hondas in the '90s? Every excuse you just gave is exactly what the ricers said back then when they got walked by a 5.0. Power/weight, blah blah blah. Win, or lose, that's all there is. The excuses stop when the race is over. If Mitsu is leaving that much on the table don't bitch at Ford for not. Also, the EVO is $5k more than the Mustang with no options, $8k for the MR. Does that not figure into your argument at all? Go build another Civic hatch and complain about it running 14s.
        • 3 Years Ago
        From C&D's latest Lightning Lap

        3:08.6 FORD MUSTANG GT 5.0 LL2 2/11

        3:10.6 MITSUBISHI LANCER EVOLUTION SE LL2 2/11

        2 seconds a lap in road racing is a lifetime.

        BTW, 412HP is not nearly "double" the HP of 290.
        • 3 Years Ago
        The Evo X is running extremely rich with horrible cam timing maps for intake and exhaust. It's all about safety and emissions and the car is just dying for a tune. No other parts even, just a proper tune like the Ford has. Mitsu for some reason really detunes the US models, it's a joke and anyone who tunes one of these realizes it immediately.

        Without modifying anything, except tuning the car like Ford has, the car gains around 80 horsepower at the wheels while at the same time gaining fuel economy when you stay out of the throttle. The new 5.0 is awesome, I had a 32 valve 4.6 in my Cobra and those motors are nice. The new 5.0 however isn't going to gain that kind of power by plugging into a computer.

        I simply want a fair comparison. The C&D lap you are talking about is also a joke. The Mustang weighs 3626 and the Evo X weighs 3583. So the Mustang weighs 43lbs more than the Evo with 411hp compared to 291 and it can only gain 2 seconds over the whole course! HA. And with a tune the Evo gains 80 hp at the ground.... then what do you think it would look like? A losing 5.0 for sure..... They just won't make these tests remotely fair.

        Cliff notes: An Evo weighing 43lbs less than a Mustang with 121 less horsepower, runs within 2 seconds of the Mustang 5.0. Evo X gains 80 horsepower from a simple tune. Do the math.
        • 3 Years Ago
        Except I'm not into Hondas or "Ricers" for that matter. I've been a Mustang guy up until my recent Evo purchase. Seeing as you turned to hatrid and not facts, I'll take that as a win since you were all numbers before I used your own argument against you.

        Prior to the STI/Evo, I thought all 4 cylinders, turbo or not were front wheel drive junk. And I stomped the imports every weekend on Woodward in my 32 valve 4.6 Cobra. Until an Evo IX blew my doors off by lengths and lengths, I never thought they were impressive. Surely they don't look impressive or sound impressive. I understand that. But go drive one, it's every bit as powerful as a Mustang, in a stiffer chassis with a really awesome all wheel drive drivetrain. My Evo simply destroys my Cobra at everything besides looking cool, and sounding cool... The V8 wins there for sure. I'm not trying to show off or look cool, so I really could care less about that part. I daily drove a Red Cobra for 4 years, I've turned enough heads. Now I just want a fast and amazing handling car without all the attention.

        I love the new 5.0, but saying it's better on the track is not really accurate. The Evo comes within 2 seconds with 43lbs less and 121 horsepower less. I'm still waiting on your argument about why that's worse than the 5.0. Yes it is a 4 cylinder, you can call that a Ricer all day, except Evo's run low 13s stock, and 12s with bolt ons, *just like mustangs*.

      • 3 Years Ago
      I had to laugh when I saw comments about the Camaro. F.Y.I. chevy boys GM is now obama motors, Chrysler is Fiat and Ford is the only American car company left.
        • 3 Years Ago
        Leave it to the Ford fanboy to make himself look ignorant.

        1. You contradicted yourself by implying GM is owned by the US GOVERNMENT, yet you say it's not American when you talk about Ford being the only American manufacturer.
        2. Just because Chrysler is owned by an Italian manufacturer, doesn't make it an Italian manufacturer itself. If that were the case, then is Jaguar/Land Rover an Indian manufacturer? Aston Martin a Kuwaiti manufacturer? Bentley and Rolls Royce German manufacturers?

        No, they aren't. All those British manufacturers are still British. They are still built in the UK by British factory workers. They are developed and designed by the British.

        Hell, would you have called Lamborghini an American manufacturer when it was owned by Chrysler?
      • 3 Years Ago
      I wouldnt want race any bike around Bristol...Walls. Guys pucker factor probably slowed him down.
      • 3 Years Ago
      This is meaningless. I'd like to see what an unmodified ZR-1 would do for reference.
        • 3 Years Ago
        The key words being "for reference". If a ZR-1 is too rich for your blood then how about Z06 or a base model? Or stay in the family and run a GT500.
      • 3 Years Ago
      Id imagine that a dozen or so other cars could come out to this track and beat the record, but they don't care enough. Is that a safe assumption to make?
      • 3 Years Ago
      Thats pretty awesome. But man is driving around a circle ever boring.
        • 3 Years Ago
        I would usually agree... but that video shows how intimidating that track can be.
        • 3 Years Ago
        There are circular gokart tracks? Why would I waste my time and money on that? All the karting tracks near me have left AND right turns. I compete at those tracks.
        • 3 Years Ago
        I actually agree. Watching him go around circles was boring. straight, turn left, straight, turn left, straight, turn left. No shifting, not much turning of the wheel. I would imagine after a while that would get a bit boring unless there are more cars on the track or you where going sideways around the turns.
        • 3 Years Ago
        To say that this is boring must mean you don't have a competitive bone in your body. Pay $5, rent a go cart at a track near you, and you will see that even a 5hp Briggs & Stratton can be exciting to drive in a circle. Competition is fun, and driving a powerful car in a circle, straight line, or around a road course should be good enough for any car lover.

        "No thank you Mr. Force, I don't want do drive your Top Fuel Funny Car because going in a straight line would be far too boring for me." This is how way too many people on this site act.
      • 3 Years Ago
      Unless there is some hella work to the rear supension and enormous rear tires, good luck driving that thing down a road w/ turns in both directions.
        • 3 Years Ago
        Road courses should be smooth, so wider rear tires wouldn't be needed to compensate for the solid axle.
        Wide front tires would be needed to compensate for the front heavy weight distribution, 55/45
        • 3 Years Ago
        Um the '11 Mustang GT matches the BMW E92 M3 around a road course...
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Elmo,

        No, the mustang with R compounds, a crap load of mods and basically a race set up beats the M3 around one road course. The car that did it was basically set up for the track with adjustable sways, awesome Coilovers, a stiffened body, light wheels, crazy awesome barely legal tires. against a stock M3. I would say, one production race car mustang beat the M3 around one road course.

        Not bashing the mustang either, I would love one of those track build production mustangs.
      • 3 Years Ago
      Man what a bunch of wimps! In the 50's, 60's and 70's when NASCAR was still known as stock car racing that is exactly what it meant! The cars driven on these same tracks had to be able to be bought at your local dealership, and that's where "stock car racing" came from. Any car that raced at Daytona, Bristol or any other stop on the circuit, the tracks were smaller and in worse shape then, had to be sold as stock vehicle to the general public. Those drivers drove the same cars that we raced and wrecked on the streets all over America, on some of the same tracks they still race on today. Many have been replaced by much bigger venues because today it's all about money, in those days it was more about the American auto industry one upping each other and the pride drivers and fans had in their Fords, Chevy's, Plymouth's, Dodges, hell even AMC managed the Javelin. It was a hell of a lot more fun to watch then too. Talk about balls, the pro drivers had em, the street drivers had them, and we weren't afraid to race anywhere anytime. We didn't need video games, we were living them.
      • 3 Years Ago
      The 5.0 is a wet sump right? I wonder what they did to keep from starving the engine. Those are some g's in the corners.
      • 3 Years Ago
      This posted below for some reason:

      From Wikipedia:

      - Overall fastest lap: Jason Blonde, 13.245 s (144.871 mph) March 19, 2011
      - NASCAR Sprint Cup Series Qualifying: Ryan Newman, 14.908 s (128.709 mph), 2003
      - NASCAR Sprint Cup Series Race (500 laps): Charlie Glotzbach, 2 h 38 min 12 s (101.074 mph), July 11, 1971
      - NASCAR Nationwide Series Qualifying: Greg Biffle, 15.093 s (127.132 mph), 2004
      - NASCAR Nationwide Series Race (300 laps): Kyle Busch, 2:13:59 (71.606 mph), March 25, 2006
      - NASCAR Nationwide Series Race (250 laps): Harry Gant, 1 h 26 min 2 s (92.929 mph), April 4, 1992
      - NASCAR Camping World Truck Series Qualifying: Ken Schrader, 15.118 s (126.922 mph), 2004
      - NASCAR Camping World Truck Series Race (200 laps): Travis Kvapil, 1 h 12 min 1 s (88.813 mph), August 20, 2003
      - NASCAR Whelen Modified Tour Qualifying: Justin Bonsignore, 14.835 s (129.343 mph), 2010
      - ASA Late Model Series Qualifying: Justin Larson, 15.147 s (126.678 mph), 2008
      • 3 Years Ago
      From Wikipedia:

      - Overall fastest lap: Jason Blonde, 13.245 s (144.871 mph) March 19, 2011
      - NASCAR Sprint Cup Series Qualifying: Ryan Newman, 14.908 s (128.709 mph), 2003
      - NASCAR Sprint Cup Series Race (500 laps): Charlie Glotzbach, 2 h 38 min 12 s (101.074 mph), July 11, 1971
      - NASCAR Nationwide Series Qualifying: Greg Biffle, 15.093 s (127.132 mph), 2004
      - NASCAR Nationwide Series Race (300 laps): Kyle Busch, 2:13:59 (71.606 mph), March 25, 2006
      - NASCAR Nationwide Series Race (250 laps): Harry Gant, 1 h 26 min 2 s (92.929 mph), April 4, 1992
      - NASCAR Camping World Truck Series Qualifying: Ken Schrader, 15.118 s (126.922 mph), 2004
      - NASCAR Camping World Truck Series Race (200 laps): Travis Kvapil, 1 h 12 min 1 s (88.813 mph), August 20, 2003
      - NASCAR Whelen Modified Tour Qualifying: Justin Bonsignore, 14.835 s (129.343 mph), 2010
      - ASA Late Model Series Qualifying: Justin Larson, 15.147 s (126.678 mph), 2008
    • Load More Comments