Posts: 4124
Joined: 3/13/2007 From: Huntsville, AL Status: offline
quote:
ORIGINAL: S8ER01Z
quote:
ORIGINAL: USMCrebel
im saying if ford made a 5.8 modular it would over shadow the ls7 power. and your gas mileage has to do with the gearing, i promise you the ls1's with the 4.10 4.30. 4.56's aint getting anywhere close to 28mpg. if i put 2.73's in a stang i'd get that mileage too. and if you say corvette, well **** lemme take 400lbs off a cobra slap some 2.73s on there and then test again.
At the same time you have to consider the fact that your cat with 2.73s is going to suffer more of a performance hit than that big GM motor... fortunately we don't need to drive around with 4.10s in the back to get down the track. :)
Also...GM has a 3.5L in the new CTS making 300hp and Nissan has 306hp from their 3.5L V6 cars (350Z)
i've never been in the Z, but i drove a couple CTSs' and they dont have the get up (weight) as the stang too, very very nice but not the pick up. that is what im saying you get the performance you do b/c of the 5.7, if the ls1 was a 4.6 the it wuold suffer the same hit. your pushing more exhaust with that extra 1l, so that makes up the performance hit. LOL neither does the mach or the 99-01 cobra (3.55's). i keep coming back to ford's ****ty ass heads. like i said earlier ford made a mod motor that will compete with the ls7 in 2000, the 5.4l all aluminum cobra R pushing 385/385. why could they release that engine to the norm mustang with the direct injection and work the heads and gears?
_____________________________
2003 Ox Wht Mach 1 1:814 bone stock Her name is Melanie
You're kidding right? Do you really believe those are the best of the best just because you pulled them off the registry? I ran a 13.4 at 106 stock on my 3rd try. Two weeks ago, I watched a 20 year old kid take his yellow stock Mach 5spd 13.2 at 106 on hid first attempt ever at the track. Machs run mid-low 13s with the slightest amont of practice. And before you question my ET, just know I'm being very gentle with it since I inherited a few problems with the 4.10s (traction and wheel hop).
you think you have wheel hop problem's?
come take a ride in mine. your damn head bounce's off the roof
I feel for ya man, that IRS can be a bit ch. You would think a solid rear would stay planted better, but if you ever get a chance, check out the LCAs on a Mach and you'll see why. They are pathetic. The part that connects to the axle is about as big around as a #2 pencil and the other half of the arm is made out of some rubber crap. Looks just like a rubber corndog, literally!
Ummmmm,
LCA = Lower Control Arm
You are describing the upper horizontal axle damper. This is what keeps your car from having major wheel hop. With harder bushings or aftermarket LCA/UCA these can usually be removed.
I was getting ready to argue that, but then I realized my brain was jacking off again. Sorry for the idiotic post. I wrote that late last night. You are correct, so let me re-word that...The pathetic upper horizontal dampner is killing me when it comes to wheel hop.
yeah, the 4.6 is doing far more than the 5.7 thats what that says, think if for made a modular 5.8 your ls7 would be able to touch it! less displacment and same power = as ls1 whos really the efficient motor?
Remember the MAch has twice as many valves.
"There is no repalcement for displacement"... expect for multiple valve valetrains, N2O, forced induction, etc.
Comparing these two motors based on output per displacement is inconclusive. The worth/value/"better" factor is certainaly not determined by HP number or output. They are both sweet performers.
You are describing the upper horizontal axle damper. This is what keeps your car from having major wheel hop. With harder bushings or aftermarket LCA/UCA these can usually be removed.
I was getting ready to argue that, but then I realized my brain was jacking off again. Sorry for the idiotic post. I wrote that late last night. You are correct, so let me re-word that...The pathetic upper horizontal dampner is killing me when it comes to wheel hop.
Why do you still insist on getting so ****ing hung up about displacement?
Who gives a **** if it's a 4.6 or 5.7 320hp is 320hp.
dude you need to chill out...Mr. i upgraded to a corvette/// Again, i am baffled to see a corvette owner log into a MUSTANG FORUM..
i obviously give a sh*t that a 4.6 is beating 5.7 LS1's...gm should be embrassed...thats my opinion and if you dont like it you can freakin log into an UPGRADED Vette site and tell everyone there you hate mach 1's....especially a guy named roostracing that had one that ran 11's n/a with 313 rwhp and beat every vette i ever raced...
ORIGINAL: 94Blk5.0 Remember the MAch has twice as many valves.
"There is no repalcement for displacement"... expect for multiple valve valetrains, N2O, forced induction, etc.
Comparing these two motors based on output per displacement is inconclusive. The worth/value/"better" factor is certainaly not determined by HP number or output. They are both sweet performers.
Well Said!
_____________________________
2001 Z28 M6 - 13.1 @ 108mph 2.1 60ft / Bone Stock (FRA / 1LE Springs - No new times yet)
ORIGINAL: roostracing dude you need to chill out...Mr. i upgraded to a corvette/// Again, i am baffled to see a corvette owner log into a MUSTANG FORUM..
i obviously give a sh*t that a 4.6 is beating 5.7 LS1's...gm should be embrassed...thats my opinion and if you dont like it you can freakin log into an UPGRADED Vette site and tell everyone there you hate mach 1's....especially a guy named roostracing that had one that ran 11's n/a with 313 rwhp and beat every vette i ever raced...
Embarassed?? GM had 350hp on tap in their base V8 car and the Mustang GT was making 260hp... If ford had given them even a little competition they might have made some changes and bumped the power but that didn't happen.
You are comparing a ~29K mach 1 against a ~22K Z28 and somehow you come off with upperhand AND want to claim you are the underdog at the same time. Wow.
_____________________________
2001 Z28 M6 - 13.1 @ 108mph 2.1 60ft / Bone Stock (FRA / 1LE Springs - No new times yet)
Actual Z28 = 355 hp and 375 lbf-ft (15% DTL / Assuming 305rwhp and 320rwtrq) - Figures Rounded. Mach 1 = 335 hp and 360 lbf·ft (15% DTL / Assuming 285rwhp and 305 rwtrq) - Figures Rounded.
I won't even get into the fact that you paid more out the door for your less underrated product. (but keeping trying to pull the card if you want)
As far as displacement is concerned... Your OHC setup works harder to make power... I would think GM proved the LS1 was barely utilizing it's cubic inches when they slapped different heads and a cam into the LS1 (obviously it's an LS6 but read up and you will find it's the LS1 with very few changes) and made 400+HP with the LS6 at 5.7L while still getting great mileage and drivability.
You just proved that the mach makes less horsepower and still hangs with a bigger more powerful motor right?
I paid $24,000 for my 2003 mach 1 brand new at 0% interest (you obviously do not know what you are talking about)...
We are not talking about swapping heads and cam to make an LS6 but sinced you brough it up, there are a BUNCH of 400 rwhp LS1's that are BARELY hitting 11's n/a...thats a joke
so i'll "keep on pulling the card"....a LS1 owner on a mustang site...lol i tell ya
ORIGINAL: 94Blk5.0 Remember the MAch has twice as many valves.
"There is no repalcement for displacement"... expect for multiple valve valetrains, N2O, forced induction, etc.
Comparing these two motors based on output per displacement is inconclusive. The worth/value/"better" factor is certainaly not determined by HP number or output. They are both sweet performers.
Well Said!
Thanks, homey.
And, there is absolutly nothing GM should be "embrassed" about. I don't understand that reasoning. LS1's make about 1 HP per Cubic Inch, which is a damn good out put for a factory stock 2 valve motor.
< Message edited by 94Blk5.0 -- 1/9/2008 11:19:20 AM >
i was talkin to a kid tonight who has a mach 1. i asked what he had done and he said a chip, catback and maby a intake, i forget. anyway i think eveyr thing else is stock down the the tires. how would i do against him from a dig without the juice.
anyways, it seems that we all got off track from the original question that was being asked. I dont even know how it went from modified gt vs. mach 1 to a mach 1 vs. LS1. So with that being said i feel that if you (GT) are on some type of sticky tire (nitto drag) you should be able to take him (mach 1). Good luck and let us know how it goes.
roostracing people like you make the internet fun for people like me.
Who gives a **** what I drive now? Do you realize if all of the Non-Ford guys left how lame this place would be. Then who would you try to pound your chest to then?
Why not just admit that the " Why is a corvetteor LS1 owner on a mustang site " bs is your only defense?
You keep arguing that the two cars are equal and clearly they aren't.
Same track, same day, same driver and same conditions: - LS1 will have the better ET - LS1 will have the better trap speed - LS1 will have highest top speed - LS1 will get 28mpg on the trip home
So tell me again how the Mach1 is equal or better again?
I have nothing against Mach1's but people like you make it really hard not to say anything.
Actual Z28 = 355 hp and 375 lbf-ft (15% DTL / Assuming 305rwhp and 320rwtrq) - Figures Rounded. Mach 1 = 335 hp and 360 lbf·ft (15% DTL / Assuming 285rwhp and 305 rwtrq) - Figures Rounded.
I won't even get into the fact that you paid more out the door for your less underrated product. (but keeping trying to pull the card if you want)
As far as displacement is concerned... Your OHC setup works harder to make power... I would think GM proved the LS1 was barely utilizing it's cubic inches when they slapped different heads and a cam into the LS1 (obviously it's an LS6 but read up and you will find it's the LS1 with very few changes) and made 400+HP with the LS6 at 5.7L while still getting great mileage and drivability.
You just proved that the mach makes less horsepower and still hangs with a bigger more powerful motor right?
I paid $24,000 for my 2003 mach 1 brand new at 0% interest (you obviously do not know what you are talking about)...
We are not talking about swapping heads and cam to make an LS6 but sinced you brough it up, there are a BUNCH of 400 rwhp LS1's that are BARELY hitting 11's n/a...thats a joke
so i'll "keep on pulling the card"....a LS1 owner on a mustang site...lol i tell ya
It's called MSRP not 'I bought my 03 when they were trying to dump it because it wasn't selling or the 04s were on the way'
And the LS6 made 405hp (CRANK) and a few of them ran high 11s bone stock in Z06 cars... you pulling out 400rwhp cars that can't pull 11s because the driver sucks is completely rediculous. I've seen Mach 1s running 14s and it doesn't prove a thing!
FWIW your less powerfull mach is 'hanging' for two reasons.... 1 = slightly less weight 2 = easier to launch
Look at the 60fts and look at the trap speeds. I am not saying 'don't be happy with the Mach 1' I am saying they are close but the LS1 simply makes more power and has an advantage. You are the only one here that seems to lack the comprehension skills to put that together.
_____________________________
2001 Z28 M6 - 13.1 @ 108mph 2.1 60ft / Bone Stock (FRA / 1LE Springs - No new times yet)
actually its the other way around...you wanna come to a MUSTANG FORUM and tell people that a LS1 is superior and you want Mustang owners to just accept your opinion? C'mon bro...and about the " Why is a corvetteor LS1 owner on a mustang site " bs is your only defense?...well, its not even a defense...its the truth...i'm sorry man but you do look a lil dumb being on a mustang site putting down mustangs man...I do not need to tell people how a mach 1 is better...i had one and i ran what i ran and i feel i have NOTHING to prove....been there done that...so anyways like i said earlier, this is about a gt vs. a mach 1
Actual Z28 = 355 hp and 375 lbf-ft (15% DTL / Assuming 305rwhp and 320rwtrq) - Figures Rounded. Mach 1 = 335 hp and 360 lbf·ft (15% DTL / Assuming 285rwhp and 305 rwtrq) - Figures Rounded.
I won't even get into the fact that you paid more out the door for your less underrated product. (but keeping trying to pull the card if you want)
As far as displacement is concerned... Your OHC setup works harder to make power... I would think GM proved the LS1 was barely utilizing it's cubic inches when they slapped different heads and a cam into the LS1 (obviously it's an LS6 but read up and you will find it's the LS1 with very few changes) and made 400+HP with the LS6 at 5.7L while still getting great mileage and drivability.
You just proved that the mach makes less horsepower and still hangs with a bigger more powerful motor right?
I paid $24,000 for my 2003 mach 1 brand new at 0% interest (you obviously do not know what you are talking about)...
We are not talking about swapping heads and cam to make an LS6 but sinced you brough it up, there are a BUNCH of 400 rwhp LS1's that are BARELY hitting 11's n/a...thats a joke
so i'll "keep on pulling the card"....a LS1 owner on a mustang site...lol i tell ya
It's called MSRP not 'I bought my 03 when they were trying to dump it because it wasn't selling or the 04s were on the way'
And the LS6 made 405hp (CRANK) and a few of them ran high 11s bone stock in Z06 cars... you pulling out 400rwhp cars that can't pull 11s because the driver sucks is completely rediculous. I've seen Mach 1s running 14s and it doesn't prove a thing!
FWIW your less powerfull mach is 'hanging' for two reasons.... 1 = slightly less weight 2 = easier to launch
Look at the 60fts and look at the trap speeds. I am not saying 'don't be happy with the Mach 1' I am saying they are close but the LS1 simply makes more power and has an advantage. You are the only one here that seems to lack the comprehension skills to put that together.
again..you are bringing up ls6 z06's and all this other kind of bs...i actually think you are the one lacking the "comprehensive skills"...have you not read what i wrote?
I ran exactly what you ran bone stock on factory street tires....a 13.1....so again, how can YOU tell me and every mustang owner out there that YOUR LS1 (not zo6 or LS6) is superior?????
Well, i have to get back to work...i'll leave ya with some time to re-read what i wrote so you can come up with some other junk to tell me...when YOU can hit a 11 second n/a 1/4 on a stock motor (again, i feel i need to repeat myself here cause you didnt grasp this the last time...example no more ls6 bs, heads and cam bs, and zo6 bs) then i'll know what you are talking about...i'm out and i'll catch up later on this evening cause i know you and the vette guy will have about 3-4 pages of more bs...peace out and get those awesome LS1's into the 11's
Wow apparently only Mach 1s are capable of 11s N/A... Ego issues up the ass to go with the blind ignorance...I am almost proud of you. You almost made thing all mustang owners were toolbags again, but luckily you are a minority on this board. ;)
1.422 10.987@119.31 <-- Current N/A Stock Internals LS1 record...
Get off your high horse...I could give a **** less what you did with your modded Mach 1... it wasn't part of the discussion.
_____________________________
2001 Z28 M6 - 13.1 @ 108mph 2.1 60ft / Bone Stock (FRA / 1LE Springs - No new times yet)
Posts: 4124
Joined: 3/13/2007 From: Huntsville, AL Status: offline
quote:
ORIGINAL: c6z51
roostracing people like you make the internet fun for people like me.
Who gives a **** what I drive now? Do you realize if all of the Non-Ford guys left how lame this place would be. Then who would you try to pound your chest to then?
Why not just admit that the " Why is a corvetteor LS1 owner on a mustang site " bs is your only defense?
You keep arguing that the two cars are equal and clearly they aren't.
Same track, same day, same driver and same conditions: - LS1 will have the better ET - LS1 will have the better trap speed - LS1 will have highest top speed - LS1 will get 28mpg on the trip home
So tell me again how the Mach1 is equal or better again?
I have nothing against Mach1's but people like you make it really hard not to say anything.
#1 depends on the driver #2 the mach could spin like a MF #3 yes #4 not in a f-body only in a vette
how is the mach 1 better, i could drive the mach 1 and get 28mph highway no problem, tell me how the LS is better, its not, neither engine is bad, they both kick ass, and the potential of a motor increases with the cash flow to the motor if i put 1mil into my motor and you can only put 2k not **** mine is better i had more money. roost chill the **** out dude, 1/4 mile is overrated anyway, its fun but i can teach my wife to run good times in her VW. a road course is where it takes training and **** tons of skill, 1000hp car there is good **** until a turn then better hope it can.
_____________________________
2003 Ox Wht Mach 1 1:814 bone stock Her name is Melanie
Printable Version
RE: how would i do against a mach 1 - 
. buy it make it better b/c we wont 
