what exactly makes Mach 1 Mustanks faster?

**2000T/A Guru** · 10-22-2007, 11:58 AM

Yeah i have a 87 not a new style, with 517rwhp. BTW i dotn have my supra for racing, so gas mileage doesnt matter, same with the T/A if you want gasmileage dont get a T/A and supra with 350rwhp got a little better than the T/A with 337rwhp. I do agree six speed is better, but im just saying just cause you out one in a car doesnt make it faster. Which is what the coment, put a 6 speed in it and it would be a contender states.

**predator** · 10-22-2007, 12:01 PM

Its a street car... you gotta have gas milage...

My statement was CLEARLY that they need a 6 speed to both maintain streetability and be able to really give an ls1 car a run for its money...

i can put a power glide in a drag car and whip some ass... I was simply saying the final drive ratios you could get with a 6 speed would really wake up the car in stock form...

-me

p.s. im done...

**2000T/A Guru** · 10-22-2007, 12:04 PM

What im tellign you is i own a 500+rwhp supra with 5 seed that is still just as streetable as it ever was. MY girlfreidns 5.0 with 622rwhp is streetable with a 5 speed and 3.73s. You dotn need a 6 speed to be streetable, however nice the gasmileage is. If your gonna complain about gas mileage dont be into street racing. I dont really need to get into how many vettes i pull up next to in the supra that think im just some dumb kid with a loud exhaust and then get smoked.

**predator** · 10-22-2007, 12:11 PM

that is me.... that is me bowing to your God like deduction and persuasion skills... I will forever regret the day I tried to show you the way... I have now reconsidered my entire style of driving and from now on I will only use 2nd, 4th, and 6th to honor you...

-me

**2000T/A Guru** · 10-22-2007, 12:18 PM

Thank you sir, i accept you surrender

As for showing me the way, the only point i was trying to argue is that you dont need a 6 speed to be a fast streetable car, which i believe was you statement, that if you wans a fast streetable car you need a 6 speed. I agree that the 6 speed is better, but just cause ls1 cars have them doesnt mean that extra gear really matters in a race.

**ATCharming** · 10-22-2007, 12:35 PM

i only read the first few posts, but fords got a couple different 4.6's. the gt has a 24 valve makin 240-260hp, the ~01 cobras have an iron 32 valve 4.6 making closer to 300hp, maybe even a little over, and the mach 1's have an aluminum 32 valve 4.6 making about 315flywheel horsepower. i might have aluminum and iron mixed up, but i know ones got one and the others got another so they arent entirely the same block

**2000T/A Guru** · 10-22-2007, 12:44 PM

But if the GTs, are 2 valves per cylinder, how do they have 24valves, the 05+ GTs have 24 valve 3 per cylinder but the 04 and earlier have 16.

Hows that z28 treating you

**Wesman** · 10-22-2007, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by ATCharming

i only read the first few posts, but fords got a couple different 4.6's. the gt has a 24 valve makin 240-260hp, the ~01 cobras have an iron 32 valve 4.6 making closer to 300hp, maybe even a little over, and the mach 1's have an aluminum 32 valve 4.6 making about 315flywheel horsepower. i might have aluminum and iron mixed up, but i know ones got one and the others got another so they arent entirely the same block

Only the 05+ 4.6 GT's are 24V, since they are 3V per cylinder. The 96-04 4.6's were either 16V (2V per cylinder) or 32V (4V per cylinder). There was no 24V before 2005.

And for the record, manual 99-04 GT's put down around 230WHP. 03-04 Mach 1's put down 270-290WHP, and 05+ GT's put down around 280WHP.

**2000T/A Guru** · 10-22-2007, 02:14 PM

Really, i ahve had friends with catback on there GTs, only put down 215rwhp

**GottaHaveLS1** · 10-22-2007, 02:40 PM

Originally Posted by Wesman

Only the 05+ 4.6 GT's are 24V, since they are 3V per cylinder. The 96-04 4.6's were either 16V (2V per cylinder) or 32V (4V per cylinder). There was no 24V before 2005.

And for the record, manual 99-04 GT's put down around 230WHP. 03-04 Mach 1's put down 270-290WHP, and 05+ GT's put down around 280WHP.

I think all your numbers are overrated. A 265 fwhp GT is not gonna lose just 30 hp thru the flywheel, clutch etc. LS1's are around 350 flywheel HP, thats why they average from 290-320 rwhp stock (including factory freaks). I doubt a 300 hp 05 GT or Mach 1 or cobra will make over 270 rwhp.

**2000T/A Guru** · 10-22-2007, 02:44 PM

Mach 1 and cobras are a little underrated, most stock machs make 275rwhp. They say the ls1 is underrated becuase my car is listed a 305hp at the crank but i made more then 300 to the wheels.

**Wesman** · 10-22-2007, 03:16 PM

Originally Posted by GottaHaveLS1

I think all your numbers are overrated. A 265 fwhp GT is not gonna lose just 30 hp thru the flywheel, clutch etc. LS1's are around 350 flywheel HP, thats why they average from 290-320 rwhp stock (including factory freaks). I doubt a 300 hp 05 GT or Mach 1 or cobra will make over 270 rwhp.

The majority of 99-04 Mustang GT dynos I've seen averaged between 220-230WHP. If you do the math, a 265HP 4.6 losing 15% (manual) through the drivetrain figures out to 226WHP. Not that far off from 230WHP.

As for Mach 1's, they are slightly underrated from the factory, hence the numbers. Its prety widely known that they put down around 280WHP.

As for the 05+ GT's, I remember people saying they put down around 270-280WHP, but could be off with those numbers.

**Rikki_SeVeN** · 10-22-2007, 03:18 PM

Originally Posted by Wesman

The majority of 99-04 Mustang GT dynos I've seen averaged between 220-230WHP. If you do the math, a 265HP 4.6 losing 15% (manual) through the drivetrain figures out to 226WHP. Not that far off from 230WHP.

As for Mach 1's, they are slightly underrated from the factory, hence the numbers. Its prety widely known that they put down around 280WHP.

As for the 05+ GT's, I remember people saying they put down around 270-280WHP, but could be off with those numbers.

280whp for Factory Freaks you mean... my friends Mach1 put down 265whp on a DynoJet... and it's Low Millage Bone Stock...

**GottaHaveLS1** · 10-22-2007, 03:25 PM

Originally Posted by 2000T/A Guru

Mach 1 and cobras are a little underrated, most stock machs make 275rwhp. They say the ls1 is underrated becuase my car is listed a 305hp at the crank but i made more then 300 to the wheels.

Think they're underrated??? They are man lol. I've seen stock f body's dyno more rwhp than c5's.

**GottaHaveLS1** · 10-22-2007, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by Wesman

The majority of 99-04 Mustang GT dynos I've seen averaged between 220-230WHP. If you do the math, a 265HP 4.6 losing 15% (manual) through the drivetrain figures out to 226WHP. Not that far off from 230WHP.

As for Mach 1's, they are slightly underrated from the factory, hence the numbers. Its prety widely known that they put down around 280WHP.

As for the 05+ GT's, I remember people saying they put down around 270-280WHP, but could be off with those numbers.

you're right, and there' always a range with rwhp even between the same model, same year or any car. I really meant that you're numbers were just slightly high, but some cars will dyno more hp than others.

**NvyBluMtlc02WS6** · 10-22-2007, 06:58 PM

I'm still up in arms over everyone's comments about the Mach. I'm completely stock and a mach 1 has no business even trying to play with me. The literally don't stand a chance. Stock for stock that is. I really don't know how you all can say that they are a contender for an LS1. Post all the numbers you want, out on the roads they don't compare.

**Rikki_SeVeN** · 10-22-2007, 07:07 PM

Originally Posted by NvyBluMtlc02WS6

I'm still up in arms over everyone's comments about the Mach. I'm completely stock and a mach 1 has no business even trying to play with me. The literally don't stand a chance. Stock for stock that is. I really don't know how you all can say that they are a contender for an LS1. Post all the numbers you want, out on the roads they don't compare.

well maybe for a M6... they might not have what it takes...but it'll still be relatively close...as for A4's... my friend Beat me...only by 3/4 of a car... but a Win is a win...and his is a M5...

**Wesman** · 10-22-2007, 07:35 PM

Originally Posted by NvyBluMtlc02WS6

I'm still up in arms over everyone's comments about the Mach. I'm completely stock and a mach 1 has no business even trying to play with me. The literally don't stand a chance. Stock for stock that is. I really don't know how you all can say that they are a contender for an LS1. Post all the numbers you want, out on the roads they don't compare.

Stock for stock an M5 Mach 1 should beat an A4 LS1, and a M6 LS1 should beat an M5 Mach 1. A lot of it comes down to driver skill.

Saying that "they have no business even trying to play with you" is just ignorant. Were talking a few tenths of a second difference here, not a V6 Mustang vs an LS1.

**Knight Stalker** · 10-22-2007, 10:25 PM

Originally Posted by GottaHaveLS1

I think all your numbers are overrated. A 265 fwhp GT is not gonna lose just 30 hp thru the flywheel, clutch etc. LS1's are around 350 flywheel HP, thats why they average from 290-320 rwhp stock (including factory freaks). I doubt a 300 hp 05 GT or Mach 1 or cobra will make over 270 rwhp.

It's generally a wise idea to assume factory flywheel horsepower ratings are bullshit until they're substantiated with dyno pulls. A good friend of mine owns a speed shop with a chassis dyno, and I've been witness to countless dyno sessions on many different vehicles. I've never personally witnessed a Mach 1 on the dyno, but I can attest to Wesman's claims regarding the actual whp of '99-'04 2-valves and the '05 up 3-valves. The stock '99-'04 5-speeds I saw ranged from 215-230, and the '05-up from 265-280 rwhp.

**94lt1ss** · 10-23-2007, 05:17 AM

ya i had a tuned 99 cobra and one of my friends has a 02 ss and its bone stock 6spd vs. my 5spd and he beat me by like five from a 40 to 140. the ls1 is a beast