'00 Z/28 Vs. '03 Mach 1

[BLKCLOUD]

Okay.

Even if they have massive weight reduction and every bolt-on (short of power adders as you said) I still find it hard to believe they are deep in the 11's.

I found one 1/4 listing for a Mach 1 with exhaust work:

1/4 Mile ET: 12.976
1/4 Mile MPH: 104.810
1/8 Mile ET: 8.269
1/8 Mile MPH: 83.730
0-60 Foot ET: 1.769
Temperature F: 81.0
Timeslip Scan:
Car Make: Ford
Car Model: Mustang
Car Type: Mach 1
Car Year: 2003
Driver: Greg
E-Mail: Click HERE
Videos: Mustang Videos
Web Site:
http://www.lamc.ca

Less than 1.8 sec 60 time which is a good driver, and just ever so slightly under 13 seconds. Dropping 2.5 seconds (or so)off of that with bolt-ons seems like an awful lot to ask.

I could probably find one listing for an LS1 with just exhaust work that was in the high 13's. Doesn't mean much - but I could probably find an example.

Go over the Mach1registry.org. Do a search for Angus66 and 03AV8R. Those are the quickest stock-internal Mach 1s that I know of. The results may surprise you.

its def not like sayin a lt1 isnt fast cause its not a ls1...the 94-95 5.0 cars are garbage

We all have our opinions. Some are more short-sighted, biased, and just plain ignorant than others, but we all have them, none-the-less.

and if its the 4.6...well ive seen a i/e 5spd 3.8 camaro beat an auto one....

Cool. And I've seen a 2.0L Honda beat a 5.7L LT1. The point is?

a lt1 CANNOT be compared to a 5.0 or a 4.6 sohc pos...thats like comparing a ls1 to a 305tpi

See above about opinions. And though my intent was not to compare anything to anything else, I will gladly go down that road, if you like.

Bring references. I will.

Bob

[Raoul-Duke]

I could probably find one listing for an LS1 with just exhaust work that was in the high 13's. Doesn't mean much - but I could probably find an example.

Go over the Mach1registry.org. Do a search for Angus66 and 03AV8R. Those are the quickest stock-internal Mach 1s that I know of. The results may surprise you.



We all have our opinions. Some are more short-sighted, biased, and just plain ignorant than others, but we all have them, non-the-less.



Cool. And I've seen a 2.0L Honda beat a 5.7L LT1. The point is?

a stock 2.0l honda? lol, yaaah right..maybe the lt1 was also running on 4 cylinders hahahaha...im talkin about a 98+ camaro 3.8 i/e 5spd beating an auto 96-98 4.6 gt

See above about opinions. And though my intent was not to compare anything to anything else, I will gladly go down that road, if you like.

Bring references. I will.

Bob

oooohhhh references....

[jad628]

I could probably find one listing for an LS1 with just exhaust work that was in the high 13's. Doesn't mean much - but I could probably find an example.

Go over the Mach1registry.org. Do a search for Angus66 and 03AV8R. Those are the quickest stock-internal Mach 1s that I know of. The results may surprise you.




Bob

I went there. Both failed to list mods in their sig's, other than one does use the bottle for some runs (which doesn't count) and they use slicks. Both claim low 11's, and 03AV8R especially tickles me with the following in-depth info about his mods:

"Bolt-ons, all the good ones"

Yeah, that's informative. His best 60' of 1.474 seconds, and a run of 11.2 on "stock factory motor" were both mesmerizing.

The Mach 1 seems to be capable of a flat 13 second (at best) run with the stock 305 hp rating from most accounts. I happen to like them too, and always have. But I'll leave it to others to determine how much work has to be done to the same car to shave 1.8 seconds off the 1/4 time without power adders or internal work. I'm thinking about 200 hp has to be added, and probably several hundred pounds of weight reduction to make that possible. Maybe with the right gearing, and a car that really hooks, it could lessen those numbers a bit, but we are left wondering without the facts, aren't we?

There might be a few that can do it, but you made it sound like Mach 1's can almost do it without any effort. I differ with you.

[BLKCLOUD]

oooohhhh references....

Good job!

I went there. Both failed to list mods in their sig's, other than one does use the bottle for some runs (which doesn't count) and they use slicks. Both claim low 11's, and 03AV8R especially tickles me with the following in-depth info about his mods:

"Bolt-ons, all the good ones"

Yeah, that's informative. His best 60' of 1.474 seconds, and a run of 11.2 on "stock factory motor" were both mesmerizing.

There is a 1/4 mile Forum over there that can only be accessed if you are a member. Sorry, I forgot about that. Join if you like, but if you want the short story...

Both absolutely use slicks. Both have significant weight reduction (especially 03AV8R, whose raceweight is less than 3000 lbs). Both have what most folks on the internet call "full bolt-ons", meaning full exhaust, CAI, gears, dyno tune, a good-shifting tranny, etc. Both are likely putting down ~320 RWHP. Bill (Angus66) has gone 11.35. Rodney (03AV8R) has gone 11.28 (11.39 on Hoosier 'street' tires).

Here's a post from Rodney's run on another Forum: http://www.corral.net/forums/showthread.php?t=921062

Here are Bill's runs: http://www.corral.net/forums/showthread.php?t=846939

There is so, so much more to ET than just adding HP. That is evidenced by these two. They probably make 60 more flywheel HP than when they were stock, but as said, run almost 2 seconds quicker. The key is putting the power to the ground efficiently, getting the car light, and driving it like you intend to break it as soon as you drop the clutch.

As an FYI, my own car went 11.60 with a bone stock motor from the TB to the oil pan. Like those above, it had exhaust, slicks, gears, etc, but I didn't gut the hell out of it, as it was still my daily driver.

Also, there are plenty of LS1 folks who have done the same thing. None of the M6 "Bolt-on" LS1s have gone as fast as those two Machs, but a handful of A4s have gone faster.

The Mach 1 seems to be capable of a flat 13 second (at best) run with the stock 305 hp rating from most accounts.

As delivered, from the factory, 13 flat is pretty much unheard of, though a few have gotten close.

But again...please...I'm talking only a stock long block...ie...nothing inside the motor has been touched.

I happen to like them too, and always have. But I'll leave it to others to determine how much work has to be done to the same car to shave 1.8 seconds off the 1/4 time without power adders or internal work.

I just detailed it. If you don't wish to believe it, I can't do anything about that.

I'm thinking about 200 hp has to be added, and probably several hundred pounds of weight reduction to make that possible. Maybe with the right gearing, and a car that really hooks, it could lessen those numbers a bit, but we are left wondering without the facts, aren't we?

Covered all above.

There might be a few that can do it, but you made it sound like Mach 1's can almost do it without any effort. I differ with you.

Please quote where I made it sound like that. There are indeed several Machs in the 11s with no motor work and no power adder. Like above, you'll have to either believe it or not believe it.

Bob

[Raoul-Duke]

Good job!

bow down bob...BBBOOW DDDOOOWWNNN!!!! lol

[SnakeEatr]

bow down bob...BBBOOW DDDOOOWWNNN!!!! lol

no happy juice needed or wanted here.

[SAGGIN]

Nice kill. I raced one a while back they are rated at like 300 hp and he was stock so I really didn't have a problem pulling away from him.

[jad628]

Good job!


There is a 1/4 mile Forum over there that can only be accessed if you are a member. Sorry, I forgot about that. Join if you like, but if you want the short story...

Both absolutely use slicks. Both have significant weight reduction (especially 03AV8R, whose raceweight is less than 3000 lbs). Both have what most folks on the internet call "full bolt-ons", meaning full exhaust, CAI, gears, dyno tune, a good-shifting tranny, etc. Both are likely putting down ~320 RWHP. Bill (Angus66) has gone 11.35. Rodney (03AV8R) has gone 11.28 (11.39 on Hoosier 'street' tires).

Here's a post from Rodney's run on another Forum: http://www.corral.net/forums/showthread.php?t=921062

Here are Bill's runs: http://www.corral.net/forums/showthread.php?t=846939

There is so, so much more to ET than just adding HP. That is evidenced by these two. They probably make 60 more flywheel HP than when they were stock, but as said, run almost 2 seconds quicker. The key is putting the power to the ground efficiently, getting the car light, and driving it like you intend to break it as soon as you drop the clutch.

Depending upon the cams, and assuming you're not porting/shaving the heads, a Mach 1 will probably gain 20-30 HP over the stock cams. The bottleneck is the long-runner intake.

FYI...there are several Mach 1's running deep into the 11s with bone stock long blocks (including stock cams).

Also, there are plenty of LS1 folks who have done the same thing. None of the M6 "Bolt-on" LS1s have gone as fast as those two Machs, but a handful of A4s have gone faster.


As delivered, from the factory, 13 flat is pretty much unheard of, though a few have gotten close.

But again...please...I'm talking only a stock long block...ie...nothing inside the motor has been touched.


I just detailed it. If you don't wish to believe it, I can't do anything about that.


Covered all above.


Please quote where I made it sound like that. There are indeed several Machs in the 11s with no motor work and no power adder. Like above, you'll have to either believe it or not believe it.

Bob

Here is the remark you made:

Depending upon the cams, and assuming you're not porting/shaving the heads, a Mach 1 will probably gain 20-30 HP over the stock cams. The bottleneck is the long-runner intake.

FYI...there are several Mach 1's running deep into the 11s with bone stock long blocks (including stock cams).

To me, and maybe it was only me, that sounded an awful lot like runs in the 11's were very simple for "long-block" Mach 1's, with little effort.

In your list of "full bolt ons" you mentioned a good shifting tranny. Now while I agree a tranny is technically a bolt-on, I don't think that is the usual category for such a big mod. Maybe you just meant a better shifter, then okay.

Now as to this:

As an FYI, my own car went 11.60 with a bone stock motor from the TB to the oil pan. Like those above, it had exhaust, slicks, gears, etc, but I didn't gut the hell out of it, as it was still my daily driver.

You have a '99 Cobra with a stock long-block that runs 11.6?

Do they even make 5.5+ gears?

Please tell me you have a video of that......

[BLKCLOUD]

Here is the remark you made:



To me, and maybe it was only me, that sounded an awful lot like runs in the 11's were very simple for "long-block" Mach 1's, with little effort.

Ok. If I mislead you, it was not intentional.

In your list of "full bolt ons" you mentioned a good shifting tranny. Now while I agree a tranny is technically a bolt-on, I don't think that is the usual category for such a big mod. Maybe you just meant a better shifter, then okay.

Please - I originally said "stock long block" and no power adder. I am essentially using the same point of reference as the folks over at LS1Tech.com for "bolt-ons". One of the cars in question has a Tremec TKO for a trans, I don't know what the other has. The main reason for swapping the Stock 3650 for a TKO is strength - they actually soak up more power to run (I have back-to-back dyno runs that show it).

Now as to this:

You have a '99 Cobra with a stock long-block that runs 11.6?

Correct. And unlike the 03 Mach I referenced, it wasn't gutted. Still had 2 factory seats, A/C, stereo, power windows, etc.

Do they even make 5.5+ gears?

Yes they do. However, I had 4.56s.

Please tell me you have a video of that......

Anything else?
Bob

[jad628]

Ok. If I mislead you, it was not intentional.



Please - I originally said "stock long block" and no power adder. I am essentially using the same point of reference as the folks over at LS1Tech.com for "bolt-ons". One of the cars in question has a Tremec TKO for a trans, I don't know what the other has. The main reason for swapping the Stock 3650 for a TKO is strength - they actually soak up more power to run (I have back-to-back dyno runs that show it).


Correct. And unlike the 03 Mach I referenced, it wasn't gutted. Still had 2 factory seats, A/C, stereo, power windows, etc.


Yes they do. However, I had 4.56s.




Anything else?
Bob

Sure.

1) Do you spell your name backwards?

2) What is the top speed of your car with 4.56's?

3) 4.6 is making how much power and your best guess of weight?

Thanks.

[jad628]

BLKCLOUD,

I forgot to add that your run was very impressive. You hooked up very well. It looked like your "competitor" just didn't even bother.

She hooks up, no doubt. Well done. Your stock long-block now makes more sense to me since I researched a bit and see your experience in that class.


Keep up the good runs.

I still say 11-ish Mach 1's in stock long-block form are an exception, not the rule.

As a DD, I couldn't imagine a 4.56 or 4.88 gear with 93 octane at $3.50 a gallon.

YIKES!!!

[BLKCLOUD]

Sure.

1) Do you spell your name backwards?

Yes: Forwards = Bob. Backwards = Bob.

2) What is the top speed of your car with 4.56's?

I haven't a clue (nor do I care), as I have no idea how far it would have pulled the .59 5th gear.

3) 4.6 is making how much power and your best guess of weight?

At the time of that run, it was making ~315 RWHP, and weighed ~3200 lbs with me in it.

BLKCLOUD,

I forgot to add that your run was very impressive. You hooked up very well. It looked like your "competitor" just didn't even bother.

Thank you.

She hooks up, no doubt. Well done. Your stock long-block now makes more sense to me since I researched a bit and see your experience in that class.

Well, there are two seperate combinations I had that must be kept seperate, if one wants to keep things in context.

That pass on the video was with a bone stock (TB to Oil Pan) 99 Cobra motor. Best I did with the bone stock motor was 11.60. That was in the early fall of 2003 (ran my first 11.9x with that car in summer of 01).

In 2004, I competed in the NMRA's Factory Stock class. Don't let the name fool you though. While the rules were very restrictive, the motors were not "stock". Mine made ~355 RWHP with stock unported heads, stock unported intake, and stock cams (not regrinds). However, the heads had a good valve job, and I had an efficient short block (ie...lower rotating mass, good rings, etc). The car went 11.43 like this on Drag Radials (required for class) at a weight of 3340 lbs. With slicks and without the weight (I carried weight bars in the trunk), I'd like to think I could have gotten a few more tenths out of it.

Keep up the good runs.

Thanks. The car is currently transitioning to a 'street/strip' setup, without regards to any class rules (class racing is expensive - even the 'slow' class that I ran in).

I still say 11-ish Mach 1's in stock long-block form are an exception, not the rule.

And I shall concur with you.

As a DD, I couldn't imagine a 4.56 or 4.88 gear with 93 octane at $3.50 a gallon.
YIKES!!!

$3.50 a gallon sucks, but the neat thing about the car was efficiency. We couldn't put big cams in it, or port the heads, or run tons of compression. To get power meant you had to find efficiency. In doing so, mpg inevitably went up. Additionally, I ran a tall 5th gear (.59), and my street tires were 26.7" tall, so 70 mph cruising was only ~2400 rpm. 4.6 V4s like rpm anyway, so my gas mileage with the 4.56s might surprise you.

Thanks for reading my disertation.

Bob

PS...did you know that the quickest stock-internal (ie...'bolt-on') LS1 has gone 10s? The quickest are all A4 cars though. Quickest M6 bolt-on car is in the 11.4s.

[Silver Surfer]

Nice fairy tale !

Tool.

[jad628]

Yes: Forwards = Bob. Backwards = Bob.


I haven't a clue (nor do I care), as I have no idea how far it would have pulled the .59 5th gear.


At the time of that run, it was making ~315 RWHP, and weighed ~3200 lbs with me in it.


Thank you.


Well, there are two seperate combinations I had that must be kept seperate, if one wants to keep things in context.

That pass on the video was with a bone stock (TB to Oil Pan) 99 Cobra motor. Best I did with the bone stock motor was 11.60. That was in the early fall of 2003 (ran my first 11.9x with that car in summer of 01).

In 2004, I competed in the NMRA's Factory Stock class. Don't let the name fool you though. While the rules were very restrictive, the motors were not "stock". Mine made ~355 RWHP with stock unported heads, stock unported intake, and stock cams (not regrinds). However, the heads had a good valve job, and I had an efficient short block (ie...lower rotating mass, good rings, etc). The car went 11.43 like this on Drag Radials (required for class) at a weight of 3340 lbs. With slicks and without the weight (I carried weight bars in the trunk), I'd like to think I could have gotten a few more tenths out of it.


Thanks. The car is currently transitioning to a 'street/strip' setup, without regards to any class rules (class racing is expensive - even the 'slow' class that I ran in).


And I shall concur with you.



$3.50 a gallon sucks, but the neat thing about the car was efficiency. We couldn't put big cams in it, or port the heads, or run tons of compression. To get power meant you had to find efficiency. In doing so, mpg inevitably went up. Additionally, I ran a tall 5th gear (.59), and my street tires were 26.7" tall, so 70 mph cruising was only ~2400 rpm. 4.6 V4s like rpm anyway, so my gas mileage with the 4.56s might surprise you.

Thanks for reading my disertation.

Bob

PS...did you know that the quickest stock-internal (ie...'bolt-on') LS1 has gone 10s? The quickest are all A4 cars though. Quickest M6 bolt-on car is in the 11.4s.

Interesting read. Yeah, I know the A4's that are stalled are the better 1/4 F-body cars. In my particular case, I had a friend selling an M6 when my T-bird got totalled. I was quite happy to buy it without shopping around.

I dearly loved that '94 T-bird. An old H.S. buddy bought it off me (I had bought the salvaged car back from Allstate) and it's a DD for his daughter. Still going strong at 150,000.

I had purchased a low mileage 4.6 and 4r70w from a wrecked NCSHP car, but when the wreck happened, there went the plans to build that. I was going to stall it, use a 3.55 in the IRS and change the intake/TB/MAF to a Cobra version with an Allen supercharger kit. I was running 17's and the car was just rock-solid, but needy of more power. It made me realize that a modular has possibilities, but now its just an unrealized dream.

I am definitely not a Ford or Mustang hater, but I really feel like Ford modualrs require F/I to make good "streetable" power. The cars you are talking about ain't my forte.

Here was my last Ford (prior to the wreck of course):

[BLKCLOUD]

Certainly the LSx engines make better street power N/A than the Modulars. Truth be told, I prefer the LSx to the Modular, and used to say that my 99 Cobra would have been damn near perfect if it had come from the factory with a live axle and an LS1.

The only real saving grace for the 4.6 4V is its rpm potential, which allows the use of steep gears, thus increasing torque multiplication to the wheels, and allowing them to do pretty well against higher HP cars.

Nice T-bird. Too bad about the wreck.

Bob

[Krazy351w]

just being retarted here but if ford would bring back the 351 and do something fancy with it like chevy did with the 350/ls1 then that would be a awsome race. buuut im retarted

[Wesman]

just being retarted here but if ford would bring back the 351 and do something fancy with it like chevy did with the 350/ls1 then that would be a awsome race. buuut im retarted

Well, like you said, that would be retarded lol.

No sense in bringing back an underpowered, inefficienct, heavy old motor that wasn't all that special in the first place.

The Ford Modular motors are the future, they 4V versions are Ford's equivelent to the LS1. If they wanted something bigger than the 5.4 version, they could make performance version of the V10.

[Raoul-Duke]

no happy juice needed or wanted here.

oohh nonsense my good friend...are you upset because it makes me faster than you?? lol...

[nomorefords]

Yea, I've wanted to race one for awhile. They seem like a rare car to come across around my area. Well, he gets on my ass and there's a ton of traffic, so once it clears I hang off in the right lane and we both get a straight away. He gets along side of me and we both hit it. I got a car on him and stayed right there all the way upto 110mph when we both hit traffic again and let off. I gave him the thumbs up, but apparently that wasn't good enough for him. So... we go at it again from 40 upto about 120mph where I had him by 1 1/2 car lengths. I honestly thought he was gonna destroy my car since I heard his cams & loud ass exhaust, but I held my own. Mods in sig...

Dude, i'm tellin' ya, i have an 01, a4 z28, with 65k and only a flowmaster set up and I've beat the same orange mach 1, 3 different days from several different rolls, there's been a couple of close one's for him, but mostly i've beat him in the same walk off manner, no bullshitin', i don't know if i've got one of those "factory monsters" or not but the old auto maro kills motherfuckers, so i believe it without a doubt. they just have that mach 1 prestige when you hear the title but like most mustangs their bark's louder than the bite!

chevy's fords right in the A!!!!!!

[Street Lethal]

...but if ford would bring back the 351 and do something fancy with it like chevy did with the 350/ls1 then that would be a awsome race.

The older 351 Windsor's already served their purpose. Many of us used to replace the factory 5.0's in our 80's Mustangs w/them (a couple of us went the bigger 460 route). Install slightly larger injectors, bump up the fuel pressure, good tune and you'd be good to go. Bringing it back for today's Mustangs would be taking a giant leap backwards for Ford though. It's not as easy as it once was for car companies to say, "okay, we're doing this" (in reference to more cubic inch displacement), because there are too many regulations that need to be met. Save for the Corvette, a make that always lived according to it's own rules, of course....