04 Mach 1 vs 02 ZO6

**Angus66** · 11-22-2006, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by tonyjnjz

how is the 03-04 mach engine diff from the 01 cobra engine??? i thought it was basicly the same ...4.6 4v putting down 300/320........specs the same...???? explain

The '03/'04 Mach has different (improved) heads, cams & higher compression compared to a '99 or '01 4V Cobra does.
(All '03/'04 4V's had the same improved heads/cams BTW - Cobras, Navigators, Aviators, Marauders, Etc...)

This was how my '01 compared to my '03 when they both were stock:

**tonyjnjz** · 11-22-2006, 11:35 AM

http://www.dynoperformance.com/dyno_...r=model%7Cdesc
this is the link off your site ..the mach1 club ......shows 270-274 for completely stock mach 1s......that equals 310-315 at the flywheel when corrected at 15 percent.....

**tonyjnjz** · 11-22-2006, 11:37 AM

oh and heres where i got the link from http://www.mach1registry.com/FAQ.htm#who
ahhhhhh and thanks for the info on the improvments between 01 and 03.....i never would of guesssed since they rated them nearly the same..dam car companys.....the 01s were OVERRATED..and your 03 is obviously slightly underrated

**djvaly** · 11-22-2006, 12:52 PM

ur dyno may be generous. I agree 270-275 I have seen as more accurate readings..hey u may have one of those monster Mach1.. maybe we are all right, but I'm not really speaking of ur car in particular, I speak of the Mach1 masses.. I have seen a lot of Mach1 stock times.. it is not a fixed number on the 1/4 since they're a lot of variables involved. but the best I've seen was a Mach1 2004 13.4,, take it or leave it bud. I spoke with the guy after and he was stock, he got it a few months previous and did not want to change it yet since he would forfeit his warranty.
his et. was 0.8ish so he had a good launch..
fyi. I have a friend who has a c6, and he does 12.9-12.8 on the track regularily, u realize what ur saying ur 100hp less and 300lbs heavier Mach1 does 12.9's ..yeah right..
also, I have 342rwhp. guess what I'm doing 12.7 at the track as best time, 12.8-12.9 on regular basis.. I dought ur Mach1 stock has 340rwhp stock.. think about it guy..

**Hot Black Trans-Am** · 11-22-2006, 01:35 PM

Originally Posted by tonyjnjz

aparently im missinformed hot black trasam......how is the 03-04 mach engine diff from the 01 cobra engine??? i thought it was basicly the same ...4.6 4v putting down 300/320........specs the same...???? explain

Angus66 stated it already. Just driving them both you can tell they are different. I've raced both and the Mach hung alot closer than the 01 Cobra did.

**djvaly** · 11-22-2006, 01:48 PM

that's a true statement, same here I was stock, Nov '05 and took on a Mach1.. had no idea if he's stock or what so I was whata hell.. let me run it,
we did 30 roll to 120ish I was up by a car and a half length.

**Pythias** · 11-22-2006, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by tonyjnjz

u didnt answer my question????

Your question was already answered around 6 posts up.... go read.

**preston1980** · 11-23-2006, 01:11 AM

The original post is about a ZO6 vs a Mach 1.

But tha fact of the matter is a 03/04 Mach 1 vs a 01/02 F-body is a drivers race, they are matched pretty close, with the F-body having a slight horsepower advantage, very slight, also the Mach 1 haveing the rear end gear advantage 3.55's vs 3.42's, but the F- body has a 6 speed tranny vs a 5speed, so the transmission advantage goes to the F-body. Weight wise, the advantage goes to the Mach 1, slightly (less than 80 pounds). All in all they both run low to mid 13's consistantly per all the magazines Ive read.

The race would go to who ever got better traction and better shifting.
That is my opinion.

**djvaly** · 11-23-2006, 05:54 AM

Originally Posted by preston1980

The original post is about a ZO6 vs a Mach 1.

But tha fact of the matter is a 03/04 Mach 1 vs a 01/02 F-body is a drivers race, they are matched pretty close, with the F-body having a slight horsepower advantage, very slight, also the Mach 1 haveing the rear end gear advantage 3.55's vs 3.42's, but the F- body has a 6 speed tranny vs a 5speed, so the transmission advantage goes to the F-body. Weight wise, the advantage goes to the Mach 1, slightly (less than 80 pounds). All in all they both run low to mid 13's consistantly per all the magazines Ive read.

The race would go to who ever got better traction and better shifting.
That is my opinion.

+1, f-body has 3.23 or 2.73 gears depending on year.. the mostly used is 3.23.. i'm doing 3.73 next week.

.

**preston1980** · 11-23-2006, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by djvaly

+1, f-body has 3.23 or 2.73 gears depending on year.. the mostly used is 3.23.. i'm doing 3.73 next week.

.

you must have an auto. then. most 6 speed cars have 3.42's.

**djvaly** · 11-23-2006, 12:40 PM

nope A4 or M6 it don't matter,, it's based on year I think..TA and Camaros have 2.73 or 3.23 gear stock depending on the year.. not sure about the vettes. probably 3.23 as well.. that's why I'm doing 3.73 upgrade and tq converter as well. yah!

**Mach1Mustang** · 11-23-2006, 01:48 PM

I really hate closed minded "car people". I respect the members on this board who know what they are talking about. Some of you dont even know much about your own car, much less mine! I only have 316 rwhp and i run low 8s all day long in the 1/8 and last time i was at the 1/4 i ran 12.8s all night! If i had 342 rwhp i would run low 12s. Damn, i have less hp than you yet i run just as fast. I really think that disproves your theroy!

**preston1980** · 11-23-2006, 06:10 PM

Originally Posted by djvaly

nope A4 or M6 it don't matter,, it's based on year I think..TA and Camaros have 2.73 or 3.23 gear stock depending on the year.. not sure about the vettes. probably 3.23 as well.. that's why I'm doing 3.73 upgrade and tq converter as well. yah!

Actually the 1993- 1995 had the option on the auto and m6, but 96-02 m6 V8 cars were all 3.42's, the auto's those years were either 2.73 or 3.23.

**Mach1Mustang** · 11-23-2006, 07:53 PM

Originally Posted by preston1980

Actually the 1993- 1995 had the option on the auto and m6, but 96-02 m6 V8 cars were all 3.42's, the auto's those years were either 2.73 or 3.23.

You sir are correct. Dont you love it when someone tries to tell you about your car when they dont know their own!

**djvaly** · 11-23-2006, 11:07 PM

nope there's no 3.42 avail to us... never heard of that gear being offered to us,

**djvaly** · 11-23-2006, 11:14 PM

Originally Posted by Mach1Mustang

I really hate closed minded "car people". I respect the members on this board who know what they are talking about. Some of you dont even know much about your own car, much less mine! I only have 316 rwhp and i run low 8s all day long in the 1/8 and last time i was at the 1/4 i ran 12.8s all night! If i had 342 rwhp i would run low 12s. Damn, i have less hp than you yet i run just as fast. I really think that disproves your theroy!

good for u if you run this time, I wouldn't jump the horse to say "close minded". go back to ur own board and check the time slips on the stock mach1.. mid 13s is what u have, if u run 12.8 is because u are moded. etc.. and nope there's no 3.42 gears that I heard of for us.
just talking to other people with ls1 u either have 2.73 or 3.23. people that call other people narrow minded or close minded are actually the ones that end up being closed minded. if you have a technical argument make it other wise don't take this on the personal level since we don't know each other that way. your stock Mach1 at best will do 13.4 as I see it. I'm happy for you if you pulled better time, but that's not what I've seen as consistent times.

**djvaly** · 11-23-2006, 11:19 PM

Originally Posted by Mach1Mustang

You sir are correct. Dont you love it when someone tries to tell you about your car when they dont know their own!

For TAs 98-02, there's 2 options 2.73 or 3.23 gears.. u can upgrade to 3.42 but there's not much difference.. most people upgrade to 3.73 for A4 and 4.10 for M6. send me the link to where you found the 3.42 gear used in TAs and I stand corrected, but to this date I only heard of those 2 options for us.
greetings.

**Angus66** · 11-24-2006, 01:36 AM

Originally Posted by tonyjnjz

http://www.dynoperformance.com/dyno_...r=model%7Cdesc
this is the link off your site ..the mach1 club ......shows 270-274 for completely stock mach 1s......that equals 310-315 at the flywheel when corrected at 15 percent.....

The link & info you posted only represents (3) stock Mach 1's @ (1) particular dyno shop.

The (3) Mach's listed only represent .003% of the 9652 Machs produced in 2003 as well.

Also, this info was used when the cars were brand-new & dyno info was extremely scarce - many other stock Mach's have been dynoed since the (3) listed on that site.

For caculating flywheel/crank hp or tq, you need to divide the rwhp or rwtq by the theoretical % remaining after driveline losses.

Example:

85 rwhp divided by .85 (% remaining after 15% driveline loss) = 100 crank hp.

Now take the 270 rwhp divided by .85 = 317.64 crank hp.

Take the 274 rwhp example, divide by .85 = 322.35 crank hp.
(12 - 17 crank hp higher than the factory rating of 305 hp)

Let's look at torque, which is more important than hp in getting a relatively heavy stock car moving:

The low-end Mach dynoed 286.8 rwtq. Divide that by .85 = 337.4 crank torque.

The other Mach dynoed 291.7 rwtq. Divide that by .85 = 343.17 crank torque.
(17 - 23 more crank torque than the factory-rated 320 tq)

My Mach dynoed 281.8 rwhp. Divide by .85 = 331.29 crank hp.
My 305.6 rwtq divided by .85 = 359.53 crank torque.
(26 more crank hp & 39+ more crank torque than the factory-rated 320 tq)

My Mach isn't even close to the strongest stock Mach dynoed either - numerous Machs have dynoed 290+ rwhp, with the upper-end being around 295 rwhp.

One dyno sheet I've got saved:

Stock rwhp = 291.2 divided by .85 = 342.58 crank hp.
Stock rwtq = 313.6 divided by .85 = 368.94 crank torque.
(37 more crank hp & just shy of 50 additonal crank torque over the factory rating)

Even the lower-end of the rwhp/rwtq dyno range illustrates the fact that the Machs were under-rated (especially when looking at torque) from the factory by Ford.

**Angus66** · 11-24-2006, 01:45 AM

Originally Posted by djvaly

ur dyno may be generous. I agree 270-275 I have seen as more accurate readings..hey u may have one of those monster Mach1.. maybe we are all right, but I'm not really speaking of ur car in particular, I speak of the Mach1 masses.. I have seen a lot of Mach1 stock times.. it is not a fixed number on the 1/4 since they're a lot of variables involved. but the best I've seen was a Mach1 2004 13.4,, take it or leave it bud.

I'll leave it thanks.

I've personally seen enough stock Machs run faster/quicker than that in less-than-ideal conditions to know that they're capable of more from the factory.

Originally Posted by djvaly

fyi. I have a friend who has a c6, and he does 12.9-12.8 on the track regularily, u realize what ur saying ur 100hp less and 300lbs heavier Mach1 does 12.9's ..yeah right..
also, I have 342rwhp. guess what I'm doing 12.7 at the track as best time, 12.8-12.9 on regular basis.. I dought ur Mach1 stock has 340rwhp stock.. think about it guy..

My Mach currently has 335 rwhp & runs 11.3's - 11.4's in the 1/4 (no power-adder) - how do you explain that then?

RWHP - while certainly nice to have in abundance - isn't the sole factor that
determines what ET or MPH any car will run.

Powerband characteristics, driveline efficiency, transmission & rear-end gearing, weight, suspension, weight-transfer, track prep & weather conditions all play a BIG role when trying to achieve the fastest/quickest 1/4-mile run.

**Angus66** · 11-24-2006, 02:05 AM

Originally Posted by djvaly

For TAs 98-02, there's 2 options 2.73 or 3.23 gears.. u can upgrade to 3.42 but there's not much difference.. most people upgrade to 3.73 for A4 and 4.10 for M6. send me the link to where you found the 3.42 gear used in TAs and I stand corrected, but to this date I only heard of those 2 options for us.

Link#1

Link#2

Link#3

Link#4