how would i do against a mach 1 [Archive]

flash20

01-07-2008, 11:21 AM

fazm

01-07-2008, 11:32 AM

against the mach 1 without juice its gonna be close until bout 80mph is my guess

02StangGuy

01-07-2008, 12:01 PM

i have 373s with mickey thompson et streets. the 13.3 run was on nittos with a 2.0 60ft i belive and i pill 1.8s all day with the mickeys. hopefully i could pull another tenth or 2 out of her. as for the mach driver, not like this should have anything to do with his driving ablilities but he was askin me my mods and i told him i had a 100 shot so i said im pretty confident i could beat him, them he goes"but its a 4v not a 2v" like thats supposed to matter or somethin? plain and simple, i make a but load more hp then him and have suspension mods plus sticky tires. on the bottle he is done. he just didnt seem to birght to me...

Stone629

01-07-2008, 02:00 PM

ORIGINAL: 99GTvert

ORIGINAL: Stone629

ORIGINAL: 99GTvert

I know 4Vs respond damn well to mods, but with just a chip and a catback (OP didn't confirm the intake) to 300RWHP? I'd figure closer to 280RWHP.

Machs put down over 280rwhp stock.

Any proof? That's saying they are underrated severely and make maybe 340-360 at the crank, which I don't believe.

I found an article that states about 265-270 at the wheels, bone stock. (http://www.dynoperformance.com/article_details.php?article_id=27)

Found a video. Made 271 on a Mustang Dyno. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLvBGpVRMi8&feature=related)

dang :D

Proof? Yea, I could (and will if you insist) go on youtube and pull up several dyno pulls showing Machs putting down +280rwhp bone stock. Motertrend did a test on the Mach and proved that they were underated and were putting out 325hp at the crank. Take a high 14% drivetrain loss and you have 280rwhp. There is a guy in the Mach section that put down like 291rwhp with just an exhaust, headers, and a CAI, no tune. Just say that he picked up 15rwhp from those mods without tuning, that would put him at 280rwhp if he were stock. Another Mach ownerposted in the Mach section that he pulled293/299 with high fow cats and weld in flowmasters. Like I said, it will be a good race judging by the OP's ETs, but only from a dig. The Mach will pull him up top.

USMCrebel

01-07-2008, 02:02 PM

if your on the giggle gas, you stomp his ass. if your not and he can drive, flip a quarter......there are a bunch of guys around here that dont know **** about cars, but they can drive the piss outta a car.

roostracing

01-07-2008, 02:04 PM

99GTvert

01-07-2008, 02:05 PM

ORIGINAL: roostracing

ORIGINAL: 99GTvert

ORIGINAL: Stone629

ORIGINAL: 99GTvert

I know 4Vs respond damn well to mods, but with just a chip and a catback (OP didn't confirm the intake) to 300RWHP? I'd figure closer to 280RWHP.

Machs put down over 280rwhp stock.

Any proof? That's saying they are underrated severely and make maybe 340-360 at the crank, which I don't believe.

I found an article that states about 265-270 at the wheels, bone stock. (http://www.dynoperformance.com/article_details.php?article_id=27)

Found a video. Made 271 on a Mustang Dyno. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLvBGpVRMi8&feature=related)

dang :D

271 rwhp on a mustang dyno is like 285-290 on a regular dyno jet...mustang dyno #'s are lower

I was well aware of that.

Stone629

01-07-2008, 02:08 PM

ORIGINAL: redstanger

ive race a hand full of ls1's with my full bolt on gt (old old setup). Never lost. i never raced past mid 4th gear either. I onlyhad 282rwhp with a 2v 4.6L. people will say they werent drove right/running right. I had drag suspension so i could pull so hard out of the hole shot. yeah they have the 130mph+ speed capibility but who cares. I also see a lot of people that say they stuff is better because its theres. Most/all MACH1's drivers dont know how to drive though. I just hate it when people think LS1/f-body's are not the end all engine/car. In my opinion i hate the boat looking f-bodys.

That's not a cool thing to say man. Very narrow-minded statement.
Is the based on the sole fact that you know a couple of bad Mach Drivers? Just wondering..:eek:

roostracing

01-07-2008, 02:11 PM

well...here is a good mach 1 driver 11.93 @ 114 mph on a STOCK uncracked mach 1 motor

if you know what you have and are a good driver...than you should be able to drive ANYTHING

USMCrebel

01-07-2008, 02:19 PM

ORIGINAL: roostracing

well...here is a good mach 1 driver 11.93 @ 114 mph on a STOCK uncracked mach 1 motor

if you know what you have and are a good driver...than you should be able to drive ANYTHING

what do you mean by stock, b/c thats not a sstock car on stock tires.

USMCrebel

01-07-2008, 02:23 PM

http://mach1registry.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2860

those are the 1/4 mile times for the mach 1 registry.

roostracing

01-07-2008, 02:34 PM

yup...i believe i'm number 8 on that list...

i dont think stock tires would help in getting to the 11's man...

stock MOTOR....i'll tell ya my bolt ons for power: pulleys, cold air kit, headers, full exhaust, sct tune....that equals to 313 rwhp

full suspension + good driver + MINOR weight reduction = 11.93 @ 114 mph

USMCrebel

01-07-2008, 02:46 PM

ORIGINAL: roostracing

yup...i believe i'm number 8 on that list...

i dont think stock tires would help in getting to the 11's man...

stock MOTOR....i'll tell ya my bolt ons for power: pulleys, cold air kit, headers, full exhaust, sct tune....that equals to 313 rwhp

full suspension + good driver + MINOR weight reduction = 11.93 @ 114 mph

no im saying that the car isnt bone stock, stock is the way it comes from the factory IE tires engine tune, suspension. not pulley's, cai,headers and all that other crap. there is no mach 1 from the factory running under 12.5 STOCK, and i think thats a stretch too.

number 45 on the list, nice run 11.9

c6z51

01-07-2008, 03:31 PM

ORIGINAL: redstanger

ive race a hand full of ls1's with my full bolt on gt (old old setup). Never lost. i never raced past mid 4th gear either. I onlyhad 282rwhp with a 2v 4.6L. people will say they werent drove right/running right. I had drag suspension so i could pull so hard out of the hole shot. yeah they have the 130mph+ speed capibility but who cares. I also see a lot of people that say they stuff is better because its theres. Most/all MACH1's drivers dont know how to drive though. I just hate it when people think LS1/f-body's are not the end all engine/car. In my opinion i hate the boat looking f-bodys.

You never beat one credible LS1 ever.

The same cars you beat got beat by stock LT1's and Mustang GT's with 260whp. They all had issues be it high miles and low maintainance or a **** driver.

And you really should take a look at a F-Body beside a Mustang or on a scale. There the same size and almost the same weight.

redstanger

01-07-2008, 04:12 PM

ORIGINAL: c6z51

ORIGINAL: redstanger

ive race a hand full of ls1's with my full bolt on gt (old old setup). Never lost. i never raced past mid 4th gear either. I onlyhad 282rwhp with a 2v 4.6L. people will say they werent drove right/running right. I had drag suspension so i could pull so hard out of the hole shot. yeah they have the 130mph+ speed capibility but who cares. I also see a lot of people that say they stuff is better because its theres. Most/all MACH1's drivers dont know how to drive though. I just hate it when people think LS1/f-body's are not the end all engine/car. In my opinion i hate the boat looking f-bodys.

You never beat one credible LS1 ever.

The same cars you beat got beat by stock LT1's and Mustang GT's with 260whp. They all had issues be it high miles and low maintainance or a **** driver.

And you really should take a look at a F-Body beside a Mustang or on a scale. There the same size and almost the same weight.

you mean cuz it wasnt yours:D

USMCrebel

01-07-2008, 04:14 PM

yeah like 100lbs or less diffrence,
i just ignored his gt beating an fbody, but what do you consider credible, if its an ls1 its still and ls1 regardless of what beats it, how well the driver/owner kept it up makes a diffnrece, but no in the outcome of his race

redstanger

01-07-2008, 04:14 PM

ORIGINAL: Stone629

ORIGINAL: redstanger

ive race a hand full of ls1's with my full bolt on gt (old old setup). Never lost. i never raced past mid 4th gear either. I onlyhad 282rwhp with a 2v 4.6L. people will say they werent drove right/running right. I had drag suspension so i could pull so hard out of the hole shot. yeah they have the 130mph+ speed capibility but who cares. I also see a lot of people that say they stuff is better because its theres. Most/all MACH1's drivers dont know how to drive though. I just hate it when people think LS1/f-body's are not the end all engine/car. In my opinion i hate the boat looking f-bodys.

That's not a cool thing to say man. Very narrow-minded statement.
Is the based on the sole fact that you know a couple of bad Mach Drivers? Just wondering..:eek:

Yep well most/all around here. Is that better stated or do i have to butter it up for ya.:eek::D

Stone629

01-07-2008, 04:21 PM

ORIGINAL: redstanger

ORIGINAL: Stone629

ORIGINAL: redstanger

ive race a hand full of ls1's with my full bolt on gt (old old setup). Never lost. i never raced past mid 4th gear either. I onlyhad 282rwhp with a 2v 4.6L. people will say they werent drove right/running right. I had drag suspension so i could pull so hard out of the hole shot. yeah they have the 130mph+ speed capibility but who cares. I also see a lot of people that say they stuff is better because its theres. Most/all MACH1's drivers dont know how to drive though. I just hate it when people think LS1/f-body's are not the end all engine/car. In my opinion i hate the boat looking f-bodys.

That's not a cool thing to say man. Very narrow-minded statement.
Is the based on the sole fact that you know a couple of bad Mach Drivers? Just wondering..:eek:

Yep well most/all around here. Is that better stated or do i have to butter it up for ya.:eek::D

You can butter it up all you want, but it's still a B.S. statement. How someone can sterotype an entire group of car owners is beyond me.

USMCrebel

01-07-2008, 04:36 PM

calm down stone, ignorance is just jealousy:D

Stone629

01-07-2008, 04:43 PM

ORIGINAL: USMCrebel

calm down stone, ignorance is just jealousy:D

+1 :D

94Blk5.0

01-07-2008, 06:37 PM

ORIGINAL: USMCrebel

no im saying that the car isnt bone stock, stock is the way it comes from the factory IE tires engine tune, suspension. not pulley's, cai,headers and all that other crap. there is no mach 1 from the factory running under 12.5 STOCK, and i think thats a stretch too.

number 45 on the list, nice run 11.9

He is not implying the car is bone stock. All that was said was "stock Mach motor." You can add as many bolt-ons as you like, and the motorcan still bestock.

c6z51

01-07-2008, 06:42 PM

ORIGINAL: redstanger

ORIGINAL: c6z51

ORIGINAL: redstanger

ive race a hand full of ls1's with my full bolt on gt (old old setup). Never lost. i never raced past mid 4th gear either. I onlyhad 282rwhp with a 2v 4.6L. people will say they werent drove right/running right. I had drag suspension so i could pull so hard out of the hole shot. yeah they have the 130mph+ speed capibility but who cares. I also see a lot of people that say they stuff is better because its theres. Most/all MACH1's drivers dont know how to drive though. I just hate it when people think LS1/f-body's are not the end all engine/car. In my opinion i hate the boat looking f-bodys.

You never beat one credible LS1 ever.

The same cars you beat got beat by stock LT1's and Mustang GT's with 260whp. They all had issues be it high miles and low maintainance or a **** driver.

And you really should take a look at a F-Body beside a Mustang or on a scale. There the same size and almost the same weight.

you mean cuz it wasnt yours:D

Nope it's just that your car wasn't fast enough to beat LS1's. Unless were talking the 1/8th here since you could hook and they couldn't. As for the roll races my previous reasoning applies.

And Brett please don't ruin this post with the BS drama that has ruined posts here and elsewhere.

94Blk5.0

01-07-2008, 06:49 PM

^ Why wouldn't he be able to beat a LS1 if he is putting down 280RWHP? Thats notto far off what an LS1's will lay down, and 20 RWHPcould easily be made up bygearing, weight, driver, or any other countlessvarialbe.

On another page it was said Mach 1's will lay down 280 RWHP, and they are a good run for certain LS1's, depending on gearing, are they not?

Stone629

01-07-2008, 07:07 PM

Most Machs run 13.2-13.5 bone stock. Most Ls1 F-bodys run 13.0-13.4 bone stock. Most people realize it's more or less a drivers race.

c6z51

01-07-2008, 07:07 PM

ORIGINAL: 94Blk5.0

^ Why wouldn't he be able to beat a LS1 if he is putting down 280RWHP? Thats notto far off what an LS1's will lay down, and 20 RWHPcould easily be made up bygearing, weight, driver, or any other countlessvarialbe.

On another page it was said Mach 1's will lay down 280 RWHP, and they are a good run for certain LS1's, depending on gearing, are they not?

This is going to piss a few people off but here it goes, this is why a 280whp gt will not take a LS1.

Even when modded the 2V 4.6 SOHC lacks top end/high RPM power, the LS1 pulls all the way to redline with no drop off. Also the gearing that it takes to make a short breathed GT jump off the line kills it's power anywhere else. The lowpower band and excess shiftingare just good enough for second place.

That is why a Mach1 will beat the same modded GT and also why the Mach1 will have problems with LS1's. The DOHC engine itself is on par with a LS1 but the transmission and gears are not. These are the same reasons a LT1 could usually beat 99-04 GT's.

I have ran several Mach1's in my LS1's and it was always close through 1st and 2nd in 3rd I would just run away.

USMCrebel

01-07-2008, 07:24 PM

ORIGINAL: 94Blk5.0

ORIGINAL: USMCrebel

no im saying that the car isnt bone stock, stock is the way it comes from the factory IE tires engine tune, suspension. not pulley's, cai,headers and all that other crap. there is no mach 1 from the factory running under 12.5 STOCK, and i think thats a stretch too.

number 45 on the list, nice run 11.9

He is not implying the car is bone stock. All that was said was "stock Mach motor." You can add as many bolt-ons as you like, and the motorcan still bestock.

oh ok, i must've missed that my bad

Stone629

01-07-2008, 07:25 PM

ORIGINAL: c6z51

ORIGINAL: 94Blk5.0

^ Why wouldn't he be able to beat a LS1 if he is putting down 280RWHP? Thats notto far off what an LS1's will lay down, and 20 RWHPcould easily be made up bygearing, weight, driver, or any other countlessvarialbe.

On another page it was said Mach 1's will lay down 280 RWHP, and they are a good run for certain LS1's, depending on gearing, are they not?

This is going to piss a few people off but here it goes, this is why a 280whp gt will not take a LS1.

Even when modded the 2V 4.6 SOHC lacks top end/high RPM power, the LS1 pulls all the way to redline with no drop off. Also the gearing that it takes to make a short breathed GT jump off the line kills it's power anywhere else. The lowpower band and excess shiftingare just good enough for second place.

That is why a Mach1 will beat the same modded GT and also why the Mach1 will have problems with LS1's. The DOHC engine itself is on par with a LS1 but the transmission and gears are not. These are the same reasons a LT1 could usually beat 99-04 GT's.

I have ran several Mach1's in my LS1's and it was always close through 1st and 2nd in 3rd I would just run away.

I agree completely except for the top end of the Mach. It may not pull as hard as an LS1 on top end, but I have never had an Ls1 run away from me up top. In stock form with 3.55 gears, the Mach will top out in 4th gear at 145mph. 5th gear will continue to pull just as hard.I have a video of a top end run on a "not yet open" interstate with a good friends 6spd Z28 vert. I got a better launch than him and jumped out aby acar or so. All the way to 150mph, he could not close the gap. That's how close they are from start to finish. Ls1s are literally 1-3 tenths, quicker at best -whether it be 1/8 mile, 1/4 mile, or on a 8 mile stretch. I have always had the same experience with F-bodies at the track, either I'll get them by a half car or vice-versa. Always very close in trap speed as well. You are right about the 2v and it's limitations. That what I was thinking about as well when I said that the OP would do good from a dig, but that the 4v would catch him and possibly pass at the top.

USMCrebel

01-07-2008, 07:34 PM

ok c6 maybe this video should clear this **** up for you, an ls1 vs mach 1 is a drivers race
all the mods are about the same on the cars.
http://videos.streetfire.net/video/af0124a6-b09f-4518-a35e-99080002bbd0.htm

****s and giggles
http://videos.streetfire.net/video/0a7dc89d-dfdc-4485-929f-98a9011ec63e.htm

redstanger

01-07-2008, 07:47 PM

nice vids.

redstanger

01-07-2008, 08:07 PM

ORIGINAL: c6z51

ORIGINAL: redstanger

ORIGINAL: c6z51

ORIGINAL: redstanger

ive race a hand full of ls1's with my full bolt on gt (old old setup). Never lost. i never raced past mid 4th gear either. I onlyhad 282rwhp with a 2v 4.6L. people will say they werent drove right/running right. I had drag suspension so i could pull so hard out of the hole shot. yeah they have the 130mph+ speed capibility but who cares. I also see a lot of people that say they stuff is better because its theres. Most/all MACH1's drivers dont know how to drive though. I just hate it when people think LS1/f-body's are not the end all engine/car. In my opinion i hate the boat looking f-bodys.

You never beat one credible LS1 ever.

The same cars you beat got beat by stock LT1's and Mustang GT's with 260whp. They all had issues be it high miles and low maintainance or a **** driver.

And you really should take a look at a F-Body beside a Mustang or on a scale. There the same size and almost the same weight.

you mean cuz it wasnt yours:D

Nope it's just that your car wasn't fast enough to beat LS1's. Unless were talking the 1/8th here since you could hook and they couldn't. As for the roll races my previous reasoning applies.

And Brett please don't ruin this post with the BS drama that has ruined posts here and elsewhere.

Cody your ruinin this post..if you read it the smiley face ment i was giving you crap. in a funny haha kind of way. So tech. you over dramatising another thread. just like cobaltss.net which you were kicked from. come on were is your E-sense of you humor.

roostracing

01-07-2008, 11:55 PM

mach 1's are superior to LS1's...my opinion of course...nah just messing...

for every argument or discussion of what is better...will never end....i can say that where i am from NO LS1 has ran an 11 n/a on the STOCK MOTOR.....it doesnt mean that they havent done it....i am pretty sure there are plenty of LS1's doing just that....just not here or near here

roostracing

01-07-2008, 11:59 PM

radaman

01-08-2008, 12:15 AM

ORIGINAL: ripped camel

With those numbers I don't see why you wouldn't beat him.
256 rwhp/gt vs a 285+rwhp/mach... Answered your own ? I think. You may beat the driver, but u r not beating the car.

c6z51

01-08-2008, 08:33 AM

USMCrebel, the last place a respectable person would temp to gather evidence from is streetfire or youtube. And remember I simply said the same holdbacks in the transmission and gears affect the GT and Mach1 equally.

Andredstanger your false sense of humor is terrible. It wasn't a joke you were simply trying to imply something which was BS. Your GT just wasn't as fast as you thought it was plain and simple. And please don't bring up other sites like they want you there.

S8ER01Z

01-08-2008, 09:28 AM

ORIGINAL: ripped camel

With those numbers I don't see why you wouldn't beat him. Â*

Easy..everyone knows Mach 1s are 12 second cars from the factory *sarcasm*...

OP...I think you would do fairly well with him having a (slight) advantage.

USMCrebel

01-08-2008, 09:52 AM

ORIGINAL: c6z51

USMCrebel, the last place a respectable person would temp to gather evidence from is streetfire or youtube. And remember I simply said the same holdbacks in the transmission and gears affect the GT and Mach1 equally.

Andredstanger your false sense of humor is terrible. It wasn't a joke you were simply trying to imply something which was BS. Your GT just wasn't as fast as you thought it was plain and simple. And please don't bring up other sites like they want you there.

nice try for a cheap shot but you fail, that is video evidence, hard to argue that. a stock ls1 will not walk a mach 1 not even close to WALKING it. a gt with the exact same hp and gears as a mach 1 will do the same against it as a mach 1. and where would you gather info/proof in video form :eek:? Your ls1 is a wonderful engine, but take your pick the mach 1 the 99-01 cobra, and equally powered gt, will all do the same against a stock LS1= drivers race! you should go check your facts, read LS1 sticky up top and do more HW on the 4v before running your suck, im sorry if that was harsh, but you've exhibited slight ignorance on several occasions and attempt to make your LS1 the end all engine, and its not.

roostracing

01-08-2008, 09:57 AM

everyone knows that NO MACH 1CAN BEAT A LS1 *sarcasm*...

anyways, it would be a drivers race if horspower levels are the same or near the same

roostracing

01-08-2008, 10:00 AM

it STILL baffels me to see die hard LS1 guys log into a MUSTANG FORUM...why? I understand if they had a mustang and a camaro or something but to just have GM stuff in their sig is beyond me...

c6z51

01-08-2008, 10:15 AM

ORIGINAL: USMCrebel

ORIGINAL: c6z51

USMCrebel, the last place a respectable person would temp to gather evidence from is streetfire or youtube. And remember I simply said the same holdbacks in the transmission and gears affect the GT and Mach1 equally.

Andredstanger your false sense of humor is terrible. It wasn't a joke you were simply trying to imply something which was BS. Your GT just wasn't as fast as you thought it was plain and simple. And please don't bring up other sites like they want you there.

nice try for a cheap shot but you fail, that is video evidence, hard to argue that. a stock ls1 will not walk a mach 1 not even close to WALKING it. a gt with the exact same hp and gears as a mach 1 will do the same against it as a mach 1. and where would you gather info/proof in video form :eek:? Your ls1 is a wonderful engine, but take your pick the mach 1 the 99-01 cobra, and equally powered gt, will all do the same against a stock LS1= drivers race! you should go check your facts, read LS1 sticky up top and do more HW on the 4v before running your suck, im sorry if that was harsh, but you've exhibited slight ignorance on several occasions and attempt to make your LS1 the end all engine, and its not.

Come on there kiddo think it through.

What is the one thing that 99% of Mustang GT owners do to help it along in the 1/4?

And the answer is: GEARS

Sorry pal but a 280whp GT can mean a bunch of things and can be achieved many ways.

Simply put a geared to hell 280whp GT will loose to a stock 280whp Mach1. Even with heads, cams and an intake the SOHC just won't make the all the wayto redline powerlike the DOHC. Add in all of the excess shifting and it doen't take much to see how this works.

A 280whp Mach1 will be a drivers race for a LS1 with a small advantage to the LS1.

By the way roostracing just because I don't have a Ford in my sig now doesn't mean I didn't have any fun in my 2003 GT or 1991 GT. I could afford to upgrade several times and did so.

bluebeastsrt

01-08-2008, 10:25 AM

ORIGINAL: redstanger

ORIGINAL: c6z51

ORIGINAL: redstanger

ORIGINAL: c6z51

ORIGINAL: redstanger

ive race a hand full of ls1's with my full bolt on gt (old old setup). Never lost. i never raced past mid 4th gear either. I onlyhad 282rwhp with a 2v 4.6L. people will say they werent drove right/running right. I had drag suspension so i could pull so hard out of the hole shot. yeah they have the 130mph+ speed capibility but who cares. I also see a lot of people that say they stuff is better because its theres. Most/all MACH1's drivers dont know how to drive though. I just hate it when people think LS1/f-body's are not the end all engine/car. In my opinion i hate the boat looking f-bodys.

You never beat one credible LS1 ever.

The same cars you beat got beat by stock LT1's and Mustang GT's with 260whp. They all had issues be it high miles and low maintainance or a **** driver.

And you really should take a look at a F-Body beside a Mustang or on a scale. There the same size and almost the same weight.

you mean cuz it wasnt yours:D

Nope it's just that your car wasn't fast enough to beat LS1's. Unless were talking the 1/8th here since you could hook and they couldn't. As for the roll races my previous reasoning applies.

And Brett please don't ruin this post with the BS drama that has ruined posts here and elsewhere.

Cody your ruinin this post..if you read it the smiley face ment i was giving you crap. in a funny haha kind of way. So tech. you over dramatising another thread. just like cobaltss.net which you were kicked from. come on were is your E-sense of you humor.
c6z51 is cody? that explains alot. Boy you've come a long way from your Cobalt ss days.

drhoward

01-08-2008, 10:29 AM

Is that Cody???? Hahahah that guy was awesome until he got booted

:D:D:D

What did his cobalt run 6's or so???:D

roostracing

01-08-2008, 10:40 AM

ORIGINAL: c6z51

ORIGINAL: USMCrebel

ORIGINAL: c6z51

USMCrebel, the last place a respectable person would temp to gather evidence from is streetfire or youtube. And remember I simply said the same holdbacks in the transmission and gears affect the GT and Mach1 equally.

Andredstanger your false sense of humor is terrible. It wasn't a joke you were simply trying to imply something which was BS. Your GT just wasn't as fast as you thought it was plain and simple. And please don't bring up other sites like they want you there.

nice try for a cheap shot but you fail, that is video evidence, hard to argue that. a stock ls1 will not walk a mach 1 not even close to WALKING it. a gt with the exact same hp and gears as a mach 1 will do the same against it as a mach 1. and where would you gather info/proof in video form :eek:? Your ls1 is a wonderful engine, but take your pick the mach 1 the 99-01 cobra, and equally powered gt, will all do the same against a stock LS1= drivers race! you should go check your facts, read LS1 sticky up top and do more HW on the 4v before running your suck, im sorry if that was harsh, but you've exhibited slight ignorance on several occasions and attempt to make your LS1 the end all engine, and its not.

By the way roostracing just because I don't have a Ford in my sig now doesn't mean I didn't have any fun in my 2003 GT or 1991 GT. I could afford to upgrade several times and did so.

My post was not directed towards you....but since you took it that way....read my post correctly...i said, "I understand if they had a mustang and a camaro"

a corvette is not always an upgrade in my book...just cause it costs more???

S8ER01Z

01-08-2008, 10:44 AM

ORIGINAL: USMCrebel
a stock ls1 will not walk a mach 1 not even close to WALKING it.

Define 'walk'... to me that means things start out equal for a short time and up top one car starts to 'walk'/pull away from the other.

Here is a list of the fastest Mach 1s listed from Mach1Registry (Including Magazine times by Evan Smith)

I placed myself in the list to show you where an LS1 falls with a full tank of gas (Full weight), bone stock and what I consider to be a bad driver. According to the results listed 4 Mach 1s exist (or have been acknowledged) that are quicker than my results. Out of those 4 I can safely say I would 'walk' all of them based on trap speeds if the race went long enough.

Please if I am taking what you said the wrong way correct me but from what I see an LS1 IS walking a stock Mach 1.

TurboMach--------(OH) Red--- '03/ M---2.03_, 13.09_ @ 106.62 *
Evan Smith-------- (NJ) Gray-- 5spd--- 2.07, 13.135 @ 105.51 *
H-TownMachI------(TX) Yellow '03/ M---1.955, 13.139 @ 104.50 *
Mary Jane--------- (KY) Gray-- '04/ M---1.981, 13.177 @ 105.62 *
S8ER01Z-----------(IL) White --'01/ M---2.152, 13.191 @ 108.59 *
BigBird-------------(FL) Blue--- '03/ M---2.072, 13.219 @ 105.77*
rguy3 ------------- (FL) Red--- '03/ M---2.038, 13.262 @ 105.78 *
Greg@GLD ---------(WI) Blue-- '03/ M---2.18_, 13.29_ @ 105.54 *
Paul Svinicki----------(MI) Black- 5spd--- n / a, 13.29_ @ 105.13 O (shifter)
bigmustangman01---- (MD) Blue-- '03/ A---2.021, 13.317 @ 104.31 *
Fun car----------- (IL) Yellow- '03/ M---2.028, 13.339 @ 104.57 *

S8ER01Z

01-08-2008, 10:45 AM

ORIGINAL: roostracing
a corvette is not always an upgrade in my book...just cause it costs more???

Not always an Upgrade??? What the hell do you consider an upgrade?

roostracing

01-08-2008, 10:54 AM

a shelby, a zo6, etc...

I am sorry man...but not all corvettes are upgrades...

NOTICE I SAID..."NOT ALL"....that means some are but some are definately not

USMCrebel

01-08-2008, 10:54 AM

i consider walking an ass beating, not .5 a car lead and slowly pulling. if its close its a good race...if you slowly pull 3 cars then thats an ass beating.

S8ER01Z

01-08-2008, 10:56 AM

Ahh..see that's where we differ....to me a 'walk' is much less of a win than an ass beating. ;) Walk = Slow to me.

S8ER01Z

01-08-2008, 11:06 AM

ORIGINAL: roostracing

a shelby, a zo6, etc...

I am sorry man...but not all corvettes are upgrades...

NOTICE I SAID..."NOT ALL"....that means some are but some are definately not

I get you... but no one here (well save a few) is driving anything better in handling/performance than even a base C6... that is definately an agree to disagree/different strokes for different folks kind of thing. :)

roostracing

01-08-2008, 11:10 AM

yup..i agree with ya there

USMCrebel

01-08-2008, 12:13 PM

ORIGINAL: c6z51

ORIGINAL: USMCrebel

ORIGINAL: c6z51

USMCrebel, the last place a respectable person would temp to gather evidence from is streetfire or youtube. And remember I simply said the same holdbacks in the transmission and gears affect the GT and Mach1 equally.

Andredstanger your false sense of humor is terrible. It wasn't a joke you were simply trying to imply something which was BS. Your GT just wasn't as fast as you thought it was plain and simple. And please don't bring up other sites like they want you there.

nice try for a cheap shot but you fail, that is video evidence, hard to argue that. a stock ls1 will not walk a mach 1 not even close to WALKING it. a gt with the exact same hp and gears as a mach 1 will do the same against it as a mach 1. and where would you gather info/proof in video form :eek:? Your ls1 is a wonderful engine, but take your pick the mach 1 the 99-01 cobra, and equally powered gt, will all do the same against a stock LS1= drivers race! you should go check your facts, read LS1 sticky up top and do more HW on the 4v before running your suck, im sorry if that was harsh, but you've exhibited slight ignorance on several occasions and attempt to make your LS1 the end all engine, and its not.

Come on there kiddo think it through.

What is the one thing that 99% of Mustang GT owners do to help it along in the 1/4?

And the answer is: GEARS

Sorry pal but a 280whp GT can mean a bunch of things and can be achieved many ways.

Simply put a geared to hell 280whp GT will loose to a stock 280whp Mach1. Even with heads, cams and an intake the SOHC just won't make the all the wayto redline powerlike the DOHC. Add in all of the excess shifting and it doen't take much to see how this works.

A 280whp Mach1 will be a drivers race for a LS1 with a small advantage to the LS1.

By the way roostracing just because I don't have a Ford in my sig now doesn't mean I didn't have any fun in my 2003 GT or 1991 GT. I could afford to upgrade several times and did so.

ok we know the stock GT blows, this is about how he would do with a mach, i was just saying, i see a GT with 287rwhp keeping up with and possibly beating a stock ls1.

Stone629

01-08-2008, 01:10 PM

ORIGINAL: S8ER01Z

ORIGINAL: USMCrebel
a stock ls1 will not walk a mach 1 not even close to WALKING it.

Define 'walk'... to me that means things start out equal for a short time and up top one car starts to 'walk'/pull away from the other.

Here is a list of the fastest Mach 1s listed from Mach1Registry (Including Magazine times by Evan Smith)

I placed myself in the list to show you where an LS1 falls with a full tank of gas (Full weight), bone stock and what I consider to be a bad driver. According to the results listed 4 Mach 1s exist (or have been acknowledged) that are quicker than my results. Out of those 4 I can safely say I would 'walk' all of them based on trap speeds if the race went long enough.

Please if I am taking what you said the wrong way correct me but from what I see an LS1 IS walking a stock Mach 1.

TurboMach--------(OH) Red--- '03/ M---2.03_, 13.09_ @ 106.62 *
Evan Smith-------- (NJ) Gray-- 5spd--- 2.07, 13.135 @ 105.51 *
H-TownMachI------(TX) Yellow '03/ M---1.955, 13.139 @ 104.50 *
Mary Jane--------- (KY) Gray-- '04/ M---1.981, 13.177 @ 105.62 *
S8ER01Z-----------(IL) White --'01/ M---2.152, 13.191 @ 108.59 *
BigBird-------------(FL) Blue--- '03/ M---2.072, 13.219 @ 105.77*
rguy3 ------------- (FL) Red--- '03/ M---2.038, 13.262 @ 105.78 *
Greg@GLD ---------(WI) Blue-- '03/ M---2.18_, 13.29_ @ 105.54 *
Paul Svinicki----------(MI) Black- 5spd--- n / a, 13.29_ @ 105.13 O (shifter)
bigmustangman01---- (MD) Blue-- '03/ A---2.021, 13.317 @ 104.31 *
Fun car----------- (IL) Yellow- '03/ M---2.028, 13.339 @ 104.57 *

Are these guys stock? If they are stock,their times are in line with most Machs, or at least what most Machs should be doing. That's a pretty tight race with most Ls1s in the 1/4.
Btw, walking to me means a steady pull, like pretty bad, like a Z06 to a 03 Cobra bad.

USMCrebel

01-08-2008, 01:18 PM

yeah thos e are all stock times, if you look back a page or two there is a link to the 1/4 times on the mach 1 registry.

SpecterGT260

01-08-2008, 01:23 PM

ORIGINAL: USMCrebel

wihtout your jiuce your toast. even with your 4.10's
machs are under rated by 10-15 hp and about 10ftlb, they throw 320-325 at the crank, thats what 280rwhp stock, with a cat back and intake and chip/tune he's sitting on 300rwhp with the 3.55's you'll pull slightly on him until about 70-90, and then he will catch up and beat you to 120+, but if he's auto not stalled or anything like that have fun, if he's manual get ready, and you better know how to drive your ass off.

because I know that if I had a chip I would make sure to also tune it just to make sure I wasted every cent spent on that chip :eek:

the guys on the mach boards arent event his cavalier about the cars. Groundpounder if any of u remember him, added an xpipe, and intake to his car, and the mach1 registry guys said to look for 280ish.

I think this is a good race, and id even give the edge to the OP with his trap speed depending on where he is. around here Mach's dont trap that.

SpecterGT260

01-08-2008, 01:30 PM

ORIGINAL: USMCrebel

calm down stone, ignorance is just jealousy:D

but.... but.... that just.... doesnt make any sense at all [>:]

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c235/jim43/anchorman.jpg"When in rome" [&:]

Stone629

01-08-2008, 02:16 PM

Spector, why the uproar man? It's a fact that Machs put down at least 280rwhp stock. It's a fact theyhave 325hp at the crank. Just do the % drivetrain loss thing. USMC wasn't refering to LS1s when he said watch out, he was talking to the OP.

S8ER01Z

01-08-2008, 03:22 PM

ORIGINAL: Stone629
Are these guys stock? If they are stock,Â*their times are in line with most Machs, or at least what most Machs should be doing. That's a pretty tight race with most Ls1s in the 1/4.
Btw, walking to me means a steady pull, like pretty bad, like a Z06 to a 03 Cobra bad.

Saying these guys are 'on par' with what all machs should do is like saying that Evan smiths 12.8 and 12.9 passes are on 'par' with what every LS1 should do. Those are the 'best of the best' times I can find anywhere.

And as mentioned I had a different take on what 'walk' means...I get what you guys are saying given your definition of 'walk' its not like an LS1 just rips away from a Mach 1... but an LS1 should pull away none the less. (2 ~ 3mph difference in the 1/4 is huge in my book)....

Stone629

01-08-2008, 03:35 PM

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).

USMCrebel

01-08-2008, 03:46 PM

http://mach1registry.org/forums/showthread.php?t=74420
NA
12.9 @ 108 w/ 1.9 60ft

99GTvert

01-08-2008, 03:51 PM

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

:eek:

c6z51

01-08-2008, 03:54 PM

ORIGINAL: drhoward

Is that Cody???? Hahahah that guy was awesome until he got booted

:D:D:D

What did his cobalt run 6's or so???:D

Nope that sweet little ride ran 13.7 @ 104mph, which admit it or not was decent.

Anyway back to the originally scheduled program!

USMCrebel

01-08-2008, 03:57 PM

ORIGINAL: 99GTvert

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

:eek:

****, **** that the internet pwnd me again
anyhow the article is about a guy running an 11.4 with a 150shot and he NA time is 12.9

c6z51

01-08-2008, 04:03 PM

ORIGINAL: S8ER01Z

ORIGINAL: roostracing
a corvette is not always an upgrade in my book...just cause it costs more???

Not always an Upgrade??? What the hell do you consider an upgrade?

Som people here don't like Corvettes but reguardless of that I condsider my car one hell of an upgrade from even my GTO.

Sarge_13

01-08-2008, 04:05 PM

ORIGINAL: c6z51

ORIGINAL: S8ER01Z

ORIGINAL: roostracing
a corvette is not always an upgrade in my book...just cause it costs more???

Not always an Upgrade??? What the hell do you consider an upgrade?

Som people here don't like Corvettes but reguardless of that I condsider my car one hell of an upgrade from even my GTO.

IMO I'd rather have an LS2 M6 GTO over a 'Vette. You just see less of them and the few that I do are usually bone stock. Cammed/full exhaust LS2 GTO ftw...[sm=gears.gif]

USMCrebel

01-08-2008, 04:18 PM

well if it came odwn to those two i would go with the vette, but i wouldnt turn down the GTO.

S8ER01Z

01-08-2008, 04:40 PM

ORIGINAL: USMCrebel
****, **** that the internet pwnd me again
anyhow the article is about a guy running an 11.4 with a 150shot and he NA time is 12.9

His N/A Time is also Modded...(Not sure what this was in reaction too exactly)....

04 mach 1 with K&N intake, off-road x-pipe, steeda mufflers (catback), electric water pump, tune and a 150 wet shot.
N/A - 318rwhp - 340rwtq corrected numbers
N/A time - 12.9 @ 108 w/ 1.9 60 ft (before dyno tune and electric water pump.)

USMCrebel

01-08-2008, 04:43 PM

thats still in LS1 times, i think i could take a stock mach (factory) to 13.0, anyone got one they wanna let me borrow?

S8ER01Z

01-08-2008, 04:55 PM

ORIGINAL: Stone629

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).

Is that what I believe?? Are you serious? I've been around a lot longer than people think... I have put this in front of people time and time again... find me a better time (stock) and I will eat everything I've said (I think people on here can attest that I've been wrong and fully admitted to it). 12 second bone stock Mach 1s don't exist.. they just DON'T (and until one does so with proof you can't even entertain it) The absolute best times I've seen anywhere were presented. I am well aware of what Mach 1s run... and it's hardly news to anyone that a mustang is easy to take down the 1/4... My friend ran his bone stock 03 GT to 13.9 @ 100mph on a 1.9 60ft on his 2nd pass at the track with it... his best in my car on the same day was 14.6 @ 98mph on a 2.4 60ft after several attempts.

You won't find an argument from me that machs are easy to get a low 13 from... to say machs are faster than that when no one has ever done it is rediculous.

bluebeastsrt

01-08-2008, 04:57 PM

ORIGINAL: c6z51

ORIGINAL: S8ER01Z

ORIGINAL: roostracing
a corvette is not always an upgrade in my book...just cause it costs more???

Not always an Upgrade??? What the hell do you consider an upgrade?

Som people here don't like Corvettes but reguardless of that I condsider my car one hell of an upgrade from even my GTO.

Well now that you finally have a car worth bragging about, post up a few photos. You were pretty Impressed with that Cobalt ss and the GTO of your. You must be creamin in your jeans now.

USMCrebel

01-08-2008, 04:58 PM

I STAND BY MY OFFER, if anyone has a bone stock mach, ill get it to 13.0, i dont know about 12.9, but i think i can def get a 13.0

S8ER01Z

01-08-2008, 05:02 PM

ORIGINAL: USMCrebel

thats still in LS1 times, i think i could take a stock mach (factory) to 13.0, anyone got one they wanna let me borrow?

No one said the times weren't close...the LS1 just has more top end power and eventually pulls away. Fastest times compared the LS1 has gone 12.8xs stock... Mach 1s have been to 13.0x... so there is a small gap at the extremes but it's not enough to say ALL xx cars with beat ALL xx cars. If I lined up with a mach 1 tomorrow it would come down to driver and length of the race. End of story.
I would love to see you pull a 13.0 from a stock Mach 1 but I don't know you...on this board only a few people I can think of even have a shot...Gene K seems to pull retarded times from his cars and Doodad certainly seems to know what he is doing.... myself...I bet I could do any better than a 13.3 ~ 13.4 in a mach 1 because of driver skill.

USMCrebel

01-08-2008, 05:05 PM

lol now i just need one, or a 99-01 cobra, a basic bolt on cobra went 12.450, 12.568, 12628 in the august 2007 issue of MM&FF pg 76.

S8ER01Z

01-08-2008, 05:22 PM

ORIGINAL: USMCrebel

lol now i just need one, or a 99-01 cobra, a basic bolt on cobra went 12.450, 12.568, 12628 in the august 2007 issue of MM&FF pg 76.

Trust me no one is going to dispute they are great performers and run great times with little mods... look up bob cosby is you want to see some crazy times... he went like low 11s with bolt ons in a 4v N/A cobra.

c6z51

01-08-2008, 05:50 PM

ORIGINAL: bluebeastsrt

ORIGINAL: c6z51

ORIGINAL: S8ER01Z

ORIGINAL: roostracing
a corvette is not always an upgrade in my book...just cause it costs more???

Not always an Upgrade??? What the hell do you consider an upgrade?

Som people here don't like Corvettes but reguardless of that I condsider my car one hell of an upgrade from even my GTO.

Well now that you finally have a car worth bragging about, post up a few photos. You were pretty Impressed with that Cobalt ss and the GTO of your. You must be creamin in your jeans now.

Bragging about?

Sorry but I only spoke of well known information some were just to weak to deal withfacts. I never claimed my GTO was god it went 13.03 no faster, my SS/SC went 13.7 no faster. I had carsfive years ago that were fatser than that.

No need to get all smartassed about it though.

Gene K

01-08-2008, 06:06 PM

The C6 is pretty nice. Anyone has spent any time in one should agree on that.

In my opinion the Monaro (GTO) was intended to be a Personal Luxury Car with High Performance.
It was never intended to be a pure performancecar.It was intended as a Gentlemans Express.
Kind of like the original T-Bird. Or maybe a poor mans CL55 AMG.
I dont see it as a real competitor to the Mach 1.
They really are not the same segiment in my opinion.

Stone629

01-08-2008, 06:07 PM

ORIGINAL: S8ER01Z

ORIGINAL: Stone629

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).

Is that what I believe?? Are you serious? I've been around a lot longer than people think... I have put this in front of people time and time again... find me a better time (stock) and I will eat everything I've said (I think people on here can attest that I've been wrong and fully admitted to it). 12 second bone stock Mach 1s don't exist.. they just DON'T (and until one does so with proof you can't even entertain it) The absolute best times I've seen anywhere were presented. I am well aware of what Mach 1s run... and it's hardly news to anyone that a mustang is easy to take down the 1/4... My friend ran his bone stock 03 GT to 13.9 @ 100mph on a 1.9 60ft on his 2nd pass at the track with it... his best in my car on the same day was 14.6 @ 98mph on a 2.4 60ft after several attempts.

You won't find an argument from me that machs are easy to get a low 13 from... to say machs are faster than that when no one has ever done it is rediculous.

I really think we are close to being on the same page, but with a bit of misunderstanding. I'm not speaking of THE best time a stock Mach or stock F-body has ever run. That reward wouldgo to the LS1 no doubt.Frankly, I can't stand when people take literally one or two carsbest ETson acouple occasions(the 12.8-9 stock F-Body for instance) and use it as a weapon in this type of discussion. I also know what these Machs do on a regular basis and it is indeed mid-low 13s. The only proof I have are my own time slips and the memories of whatother Mach owners have run at the same track.With mods they are all over the place just like any modded car. F-bodies average the same ETs with obvivously a lotmore running low 13s than Machs. I have been the proud owner of two LS1s, and I never said they were not a tick ahead of the Mach. I can pull up good and bad times for either car, but that's not going to prove a thing. You know what you have seen and I know what I've seen. I say we agree to slightly disgaree...

bluebeastsrt

01-08-2008, 06:13 PM

ORIGINAL: c6z51

ORIGINAL: bluebeastsrt

ORIGINAL: c6z51

ORIGINAL: S8ER01Z

ORIGINAL: roostracing
a corvette is not always an upgrade in my book...just cause it costs more???

Not always an Upgrade??? What the hell do you consider an upgrade?

Som people here don't like Corvettes but reguardless of that I condsider my car one hell of an upgrade from even my GTO.

Well now that you finally have a car worth bragging about, post up a few photos. You were pretty Impressed with that Cobalt ss and the GTO of your. You must be creamin in your jeans now.

Bragging about?

Sorry but I only spoke of well known information some were just to weak to deal withfacts. I never claimed my GTO was god it went 13.03 no faster, my SS/SC went 13.7 no faster. I had carsfive years ago that were fatser than that.

No need to get all smartassed about it though.
Ok so no pics then.[8D]

Stone629

01-08-2008, 06:33 PM

You my boy Blue!!

01snake

01-08-2008, 08:12 PM

SpecterGT260

01-09-2008, 12:51 AM

ORIGINAL: Stone629

Spector, why the uproar man? It's a fact that Machs put down at least 280rwhp stock. It's a fact theyhave 325hp at the crank. Just do the % drivetrain loss thing. USMC wasn't refering to LS1s when he said watch out, he was talking to the OP.

no uproar [8D] geez, my gf isnt even that sensitive.i was actually criticizing the people who were getting all butt hurt by this thread.... i think.... i dunno. i just got back from the bar. on vacation with the lady in chicago. btw, anyone ever check out howl at the moon? cool place..... expensive tho, but thats cuz im used to cheap booze from a college town

Stone629

01-09-2008, 01:59 AM

ORIGINAL: 01snake

ORIGINAL: Stone629

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?:D

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! [8D]

Stone629

01-09-2008, 02:02 AM

ORIGINAL: SpecterGT260

ORIGINAL: Stone629

Spector, why the uproar man? It's a fact that Machs put down at least 280rwhp stock. It's a fact theyhave 325hp at the crank. Just do the % drivetrain loss thing. USMC wasn't refering to LS1s when he said watch out, he was talking to the OP.

no uproar [8D] geez, my gf isnt even that sensitive.i was actually criticizing the people who were getting all butt hurt by this thread.... i think.... i dunno. i just got back from the bar. on vacation with the lady in chicago. btw, anyone ever check out howl at the moon? cool place..... expensive tho, but thats cuz im used to cheap booze from a college town

Ahhh, You lucky dog!I wish I was in Chicago with my girlfriend. I'm stuck here at home with my wife[8D]

scg87

01-09-2008, 02:12 AM

Mach 1's are nice........

[&:][8D]

c6z51

01-09-2008, 08:37 AM

ORIGINAL: Stone629

ORIGINAL: 01snake

ORIGINAL: Stone629

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?:D

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! [8D]

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.

S8ER01Z

01-09-2008, 08:54 AM

ORIGINAL: Stone629
I really think we are close to being on the same page, but with a bit of misunderstanding. I'm not speaking of THE best time a stock Mach or stock F-body has ever run. That reward wouldÂ*go to the LS1 no doubt.Â*Frankly, I can't stand when people take literally one or two carsÂ*best ETsÂ*on aÂ*couple occasionsÂ*(the 12.8-9 stock F-Body for instance) and use it as a weapon in this type of discussion. I also know what these Machs do on a regular basis and it is indeed mid-low 13s. The only proof I have are my own time slips and the memories of whatÂ*other Mach owners have run at the same track.Â*Â*With mods they are all over the place just like any modded car. F-bodies average the same ETs with obvivously a lotÂ*more running low 13s than Machs. I have been the proud owner of two LS1s, and I never said they were not a tick ahead of the Mach. I can pull up good and bad times for either car, but that's not going to prove a thing. You know what you have seen and I know what I've seen. I say we agree to slightly disgaree...

Stone I am with ya here... I just hold the fact that an LS1 can walk away (by my definition) from a Mach in longer races or from roll races just based on trap speed....on ET they are so close I have nothing to say but drivers race down the 1/4 with an advantage to the mach in the 1/8th... Agree to very slightly disagree and we are good. LOL

c6z51

01-09-2008, 09:14 AM

^ I agree ^

I know from first hand experience with a few Mach1's eventually the LS1 will pull away. The LS1 traps higher and has a higher top speed so obviously the power is there.

USMCrebel

01-09-2008, 09:26 AM

+1
the LS1 cars has the gearing and the slight power advantage to Walk (his def:D) the mach in a longer race

SpecterGT260

01-09-2008, 11:12 AM

it depends on auto or m6 for the fbody. 1st gear is tall, which means not alot of torque in the m6. usually fbodies play catchup but the 3rd and 4th gears pull hard. When I was stock except for an intake I raced groundpounder in his mach with 4.10's and it was really close. he was right about at my bumper. I had DR's to his street tires, so i got him out of the hole a little, and he never made it up. real close race.

USMCrebel

01-09-2008, 11:24 AM

no doubt ls1's are great, but there are some NA car that have the ability to keep up, and win. The driver mod is the best mod that a car has!

S8ER01Z

01-09-2008, 11:26 AM

ORIGINAL: USMCrebel

+1
the LS1 cars has the gearing and the slight power advantage to Walk (his def:D) the mach in a longer race

HAHA

+1 and an LS1 definately won't walk (by his def:D) a stock mach with ease....

roostracing

01-09-2008, 12:18 PM

LS1's will not walk a darn mach or visa/versa...its a driver's race as we all know...remember...lil 281 vs a 346 and you wont know who will win till you see what kind of driver you are up against...mach 1's are superior IN MY OPINION to the LS1 based on less advertised horsepower and the smaller cubes...i'd be rather embarassed to have a 281 right next to me while i'm owning a 346 ls1 and cant pull away from the mach knowing i have more power and bigger cubes...

so for the mustang guys out there...machs rule!

Nothing personal against anyone...so dont take it the wrong way;)

USMCrebel

01-09-2008, 12:19 PM

damn looks like my def of walking needs to change to match everyone elses'

c6z51

01-09-2008, 12:23 PM

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.

USMCrebel

01-09-2008, 12:27 PM

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?

c6z51

01-09-2008, 12:31 PM

Are you drunk?

Actually when you think about it the 5.7 doesn't have to work as hard to make that power and gets 28mpg. So yes it is way more efficent.

S8ER01Z

01-09-2008, 12:37 PM

ORIGINAL: roostracing
..mach 1's are superior IN MY OPINION to the LS1 based on less advertised horsepower and the smaller cubes...

Really...lets compare advertised power...

Advertised
Z28 = 305hp / 335trq
Mach 1 = 305hp / 320trq

Actual
Z28 = 355 hp and 375 lbf-ft (15% DTL / Assuming 305rwhp and 320rwtrq) - Figures Rounded.
Mach 1 = 335 hp and 360 lbfÂ·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.

USMCrebel

01-09-2008, 12:39 PM

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.

USMCrebel

01-09-2008, 12:47 PM

S8ER01Z

01-09-2008, 12:48 PM

ORIGINAL: USMCrebel

b/c its 1.1l of diffrence, its like a 4cyl (2.3)) pumping 320hp and the 3.8 making the same hp, the smaller displacement HAS to push harder.

Exactly..

Anyone want to have a discussion about how your 4.6L V8 makes as much power as a 3.5L V6???

USMCrebel

01-09-2008, 12:50 PM

what 3.5l is pushing 300hp?

S8ER01Z

01-09-2008, 12:57 PM

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 car 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 3.6L in the new CTS making 300hp and Nissan has 306hp from their 3.5L V6 cars (350Z)

USMCrebel

01-09-2008, 01:06 PM

ORIGINAL: S8ER01Z

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?

S8ER01Z

01-09-2008, 01:11 PM

The world may never know why Ford doesn't try... LOL

USMCrebel

01-09-2008, 01:22 PM

LOL
+1 will we always the the platform car [&o]. buy it make it better b/c we wont

Stone629

01-09-2008, 01:24 PM

ORIGINAL: c6z51

ORIGINAL: Stone629

ORIGINAL: 01snake

ORIGINAL: Stone629

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?:D

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! [8D]

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.[8D]

94Blk5.0

01-09-2008, 01:48 PM

ORIGINAL: USMCrebel

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. :D

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.

94Blk5.0

01-09-2008, 01:52 PM

ORIGINAL: Stone629

ORIGINAL: c6z51

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.[8D]

Are yall talking about the quad shocks?

roostracing

01-09-2008, 01:58 PM

ORIGINAL: c6z51

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...

S8ER01Z

01-09-2008, 01:59 PM

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. :D

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!

S8ER01Z

01-09-2008, 02:04 PM

ORIGINAL: roostracing
dude you need to chill out...Mr. i upgraded to a corvette///Â* 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.

roostracing

01-09-2008, 02:07 PM

ORIGINAL: S8ER01Z

ORIGINAL: roostracing
..mach 1's are superior IN MY OPINION to the LS1 based on less advertised horsepower and the smaller cubes...

Really...lets compare advertised power...

Advertised
Z28 = 305hp / 335trq
Mach 1 = 305hp / 320trq

Actual
Z28 = 355 hp and 375 lbf-ft (15% DTL / Assuming 305rwhp and 320rwtrq) - Figures Rounded.
Mach 1 = 335 hp and 360 lbfÂ·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

94Blk5.0

01-09-2008, 02:16 PM

ORIGINAL: S8ER01Z

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. :D

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.:D

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.

roostracing

01-09-2008, 02:30 PM

ORIGINAL: 02StangGuy

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 howit went from modified gt vs. mach 1 to a mach 1 vs. LS1. So with that being said i feel thatif 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.

c6z51

01-09-2008, 02:33 PM

roostracing (http://www.mustangforums.com/showProfile.asp?memid=57671)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 LS1owner 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 Mach1is equal or better again?

I have nothing against Mach1's but people like you make it really hard not to say anything.

S8ER01Z

01-09-2008, 02:43 PM

ORIGINAL: roostracing

ORIGINAL: S8ER01Z

ORIGINAL: roostracing
..mach 1's are superior IN MY OPINION to the LS1 based on less advertised horsepower and the smaller cubes...

Really...lets compare advertised power...

Advertised
Z28 = 305hp / 335trq
Mach 1 = 305hp / 320trq

Actual
Z28 = 355 hp and 375 lbf-ft (15% DTL / Assuming 305rwhp and 320rwtrq) - Figures Rounded.
Mach 1 = 335 hp and 360 lbfÂ·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...lolÂ* 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.

roostracing

01-09-2008, 02:44 PM

actually its the other way around...you wanna come to a MUSTANG FORUM and tell people that a LS1 is superior and you wantMustang ownersto just accept your opinion? C'mon bro...and about the " Why is a corvetteor LS1owner 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

roostracing

01-09-2008, 02:56 PM

ORIGINAL: S8ER01Z

ORIGINAL: roostracing

ORIGINAL: S8ER01Z

ORIGINAL: roostracing
..mach 1's are superior IN MY OPINION to the LS1 based on less advertised horsepower and the smaller cubes...

Really...lets compare advertised power...

Advertised
Z28 = 305hp / 335trq
Mach 1 = 305hp / 320trq

Actual
Z28 = 355 hp and 375 lbf-ft (15% DTL / Assuming 305rwhp and 320rwtrq) - Figures Rounded.
Mach 1 = 335 hp and 360 lbfÂ·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, ihave 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

c6z51

01-09-2008, 02:58 PM

So to be here I must currently own a Mustang and no matter what common sense tells me I am obligated to side with Mustangs.

Sorry but I was here when I had my 1991 GT, 2003 GT, 2000 Camaro SS, 2002 Camaro SS and am here now owning a C6.

Do you see me saying my C6 will beat a Mach1? No

I am simply saying you are wrong to think a LS1 won't beat a Mach1, nor is it a even match 0mph to finish.

JT76

01-09-2008, 03:23 PM

HAHAHA you guys crack me up.... started out as a GT vs a Mach 1... i skip 7 pages and whattya know!!!! another LS1 arguement :D[8D]

S8ER01Z

01-09-2008, 03:26 PM

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.

USMCrebel

01-09-2008, 04:15 PM

ORIGINAL: c6z51

roostracing (http://www.mustangforums.com/showProfile.asp?memid=57671)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 LS1owner 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 Mach1is 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.

USMCrebel

01-09-2008, 04:20 PM

i jsut saw the chevy/ gm comment, c6 STFU too. you and roost are pissing testastarone (i cant spell that ****) more than a dike in a gay bar.And no, if the "ALMIGHTY";) ls1 owners left there would be assholes like me to keep bitches from high fiving each other.

*first*

JT76

01-09-2008, 04:21 PM

ORIGINAL: USMCrebel

ORIGINAL: c6z51

roostracing (http://www.mustangforums.com/showProfile.asp?memid=57671)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 LS1owner 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 Mach1is 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.

well im not touching the other ones, because i think you guys know where i stand on that:D but i will say that my TA gets good gas mileage.. i drove my car home from northof NYC where i bought it home to buffalo.. a good 375 mile trip... with 3.73's and 420rwhp it made it home with more than a 1/4 tank left... i would say thats pretty impressive

USMCrebel

01-09-2008, 04:24 PM

thats not bad at all, well, i stand corrected! you can do it, but most wont:D

S8ER01Z

01-09-2008, 04:32 PM

FWIW I regularly get 30+ mpg on the highway...including a full weeks worth of city/highway mix I average over 25mpg per TANK!

USMCrebel

01-09-2008, 04:38 PM

ok first what is FWIW?
secondly, looks like im gonna have to buy me a 4v and see what kinda mileage i get

bluebeastsrt

01-09-2008, 04:42 PM

ORIGINAL: c6z51

So to be here I must currently own a Mustang and no matter what common sense tells me I am obligated to side with Mustangs.

Sorry but I was here when I had my 1991 GT, 2003 GT, 2000 Camaro SS, 2002 Camaro SS and am here now owning a C6.

Do you see me saying my C6 will beat a Mach1? No

I am simply saying you are wrong to think a LS1 won't beat a Mach1, nor is it a even match 0mph to finish.

Dont forget the Cobalt SS!:D[8D][:@]

roostracing

01-09-2008, 04:43 PM

S8ER01Z

01-09-2008, 04:43 PM

FWIW = For What it's worth...

Haha... I can't imagine a 4V does that bad..I thought they were 26+ rated?

USMCrebel

01-09-2008, 04:44 PM

ORIGINAL: bluebeastsrt

ORIGINAL: c6z51

So to be here I must currently own a Mustang and no matter what common sense tells me I am obligated to side with Mustangs.

Sorry but I was here when I had my 1991 GT, 2003 GT, 2000 Camaro SS, 2002 Camaro SS and am here now owning a C6.

Do you see me saying my C6 will beat a Mach1? No

I am simply saying you are wrong to think a LS1 won't beat a Mach1, nor is it a even match 0mph to finish.

Dont forget the Cobalt SS!:D[8D][:@]

damn

S8ER01Z

01-09-2008, 04:50 PM

ORIGINAL: roostracing
C6...i never said that a LS1 cannot beat a mach 1...in fact ive said it would be a drivers race over and over...but i have heard people say that LS1's will beat mach 1's and thats where i came into argue my point
You Might not be 'saying that' but everything you are saying implies that is what you mean.

Everyone has said it's a drivers race in most cases with the LS1 having an advantage in the power department/up top YET you still chime in and say we are wrong and that Mach 1s are equal/better. You can keep claiming all you want...everyone else can see the numbers and decide for themselves.

Also you said you ran what I ran bone stock right?? What was your exact slip? I am willing to bet you had a better 60ft and lower trap speed. My point? I SUCK at driving yet still pulled off a Mach 1 time.

Stone629

01-09-2008, 04:54 PM

ORIGINAL: S8ER01Z

FWIW = For What it's worth...

Haha... I can't imagine a 4V does that bad..I thought they were 26+ rated?

The best I can do with these 4.10s is 24mpg if I set the cruise at 70mph. I'm pretty sure it was probably around 26-27 with the 3.55s. I only kept the 3.55s for about a month so I never got a chance to really measure MPGs with stock gears.

bluebeastsrt

01-09-2008, 04:54 PM

ORIGINAL: S8ER01Z

ORIGINAL: roostracing
C6...i never said that a LS1 cannot beat a mach 1...in fact ive said it would be a drivers race over and over...but i have heard people say that LS1's will beat mach 1's and thats where i came into argue my point
You Might not be 'saying that' but everything you are saying implies that is what you mean.

Everyone has said it's a drivers race in most cases with the LS1 having an advantage in the power department/up top YET you still chime in and say we are wrong and that Mach 1s are equal/better. You can keep claiming all you want...everyone else can see the numbers and decide for themselves.

Also you said you ran what I ran bone stock right?? What was your exact slip? I am willing to bet you had a better 60ft and lower trap speed. My point? I SUCK at driving yet still pulled off a Mach 1 time.
Why dont both of you post up those slips. For comparison puposes.

USMCrebel

01-09-2008, 04:56 PM

ORIGINAL: bluebeastsrt

ORIGINAL: S8ER01Z

ORIGINAL: roostracing
C6...i never said that a LS1 cannot beat a mach 1...in fact ive said it would be a drivers race over and over...but i have heard people say that LS1's will beat mach 1's and thats where i came into argue my point
You Might not be 'saying that' but everything you are saying implies that is what you mean.

Everyone has said it's a drivers race in most cases with the LS1 having an advantage in the power department/up top YET you still chime in and say we are wrong and that Mach 1s are equal/better. You can keep claiming all you want...everyone else can see the numbers and decide for themselves.

Also you said you ran what I ran bone stock right?? What was your exact slip? I am willing to bet you had a better 60ft and lower trap speed. My point? I SUCK at driving yet still pulled off a Mach 1 time.
Why dont both of you post up those slips. For comparison puposes.

+1
yeah not to bad of a loss for the gear swap though.

roostracing

01-09-2008, 04:57 PM

ORIGINAL: S8ER01Z

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.

i didnt say that either...i think you shouldve taken my advice and read carefully what i say bro...i did not say ls1's are not capable of running 11's....i did say that WHEN YOU RUN AN11 on the stock block then argue with me...

again....10.98 @ 119 is NOT what you ran..so quit dreaming and get yours to half that...

my modded mach 1 or your 10.98 dream car was not part of the discussion either...a modded gt vs. a mach 1 was...

so to put this all to rest like i tried to do so before is....the modded GT has a really good chance of beating the mach 1....thats the purpose of this thread but SOMEWHERE along the line...some LS1 guys budded in and we are at where we are at...

for the record, i have a bunch of friends with LS1's...i have respect for them (some in the 9's) but i woul