LT1 vs. Mach1

**JwMonE99** · 07-25-2007, 05:10 PM

How would a stock 97 trans am A4 do against a stock A4 03 mach1?

**rajiv1998** · 07-25-2007, 05:14 PM

mach's run around the same time(s) as a stock LS1....... so u figure it out

**Mach1Mustang** · 07-25-2007, 08:42 PM

the stock autos are not quite as fast as the ls1 autos, but close.

**preston1980** · 07-25-2007, 09:35 PM

Originally Posted by JwMonE99

How would a stock 97 trans am A4 do against a stock A4 03 mach1?

Both cars being autos, it would be close, but the Mach will win. Although the 96-97 TAs with the ram air set up were a lttle faster that the regulars. So if it were a Ram Air vs a Mach 1, Auto vs Auto, it would be close. I would still give it to the Mach 1 though. But not by much.

I would say the auto TA would run a 13.7, and the auto Mach a 13.5

**JwMonE99** · 07-26-2007, 04:23 AM

What about a trans am with a cowl hood?

**blackhawk01** · 07-26-2007, 04:38 AM

Im gonna say Mach 1 on this one...those mothers will giddy up

**ttadriver** · 07-26-2007, 04:50 AM

Did they make automatic Mach 1s?

**BLKCLOUD** · 07-26-2007, 05:47 AM

Yes, but they are significantly slower than an M5 Mach 1. Their redline is 1000 rpm lower (5800 vs 6800), and Ford automatic OD transmissions suck from a performance standpoint.

**2000T/A Guru** · 07-26-2007, 07:13 AM

My buddy bought a mach 1 when we were test driving we drove both a A4 and the 5 speed you could really really feel the difference. The a4 could barely chirp off the line too. The a4 is much slower and i think a lt1 would be a good race if they are both auto.

**jrc1122** · 07-26-2007, 06:11 PM

i knew a guy who had a Manual Transmission 04 Mach 1-- It was bad ass.
On an accellerometer (beltronics FX2) -- He managed 4.65 0-60 mph.. The best I have managed with my LS1 (so far) is 5.11 0 - 60mph.

**JwMonE99** · 07-26-2007, 06:22 PM

What is better to have ram air or a cowl hood, I understand ram air and how that helps but does the cowl hood help that much as well?

**BLKCLOUD** · 07-26-2007, 06:46 PM

"Ram Air"....here's some light reading for you...

Light Reading #1

Light Reading #2

**RJWZ28** · 07-27-2007, 07:30 AM

Good question. Race him and pass on the info! LT1 has more torque down low, and if it is a WS6 the horsepower numbers will be pretty close. The only honest way to know is to call him out and see what happens. Just don't put any significant cash on the race, just do it for fun. Maybe bet a tank of premium.

**2000T/A Guru** · 07-27-2007, 07:41 AM

Ws6s dont make anymore power than any other LS1 car, the hood does nothing, Ive seen a couple test that got 1-2 more hp at 80+mph before that speed there was no difference, The ram air hood isnt a sealed hood therefore it does nothing, but look cool.

**RJWZ28** · 07-27-2007, 07:54 AM

This isn't an LS1 car. 1996-1997 LT1 Z28s and T/As were rated at 285 horsepower, but the SSs and WS6s were rated at 305 horsepower (310 with optional exhaust), and when the quarter mile performance is evaluated on those models many say that they were under-rated and pushing closer to 320+.

**RJWZ28** · 07-27-2007, 07:57 AM

And with the optional exhaust 320 horsepower should easily fall within the mandated 3% of the average engine test so nobody's hand gets slapped over the deal.

**2000T/A Guru** · 07-27-2007, 08:15 AM

Ok how aobut this, they say my car should be making 305hp at the crank when i dynoed in at just over 310 to the rear wheels when stock, how does that work? cause all ls1s make 350hp and 355torque the 01s and 02s had a better itnake manifolrd and there were little changes here and there injector size and what not. The only reason the T/A and Camaro werent rated at 350hp was because they cant have cars with as much power as the corvette. I have seen many stock ls1 cars dyno over 300rwhp, which doesnt translate to 305 or 325 at the crank. As for lt1s most dyno in at 265rwhp or so and the say they make 285 at the crank, so they lose only 20 hp, when 18-20% is really about 50hp, chevy has always been underrating cars the 70 chevelle with the ls6 made too much power so they had to underrate that. You can never belive what chevy puts down for stock numbers crazy mother fuckers.

**BLKCLOUD** · 07-27-2007, 08:51 AM

Ok. How do you measure HP at 80 mph, especially down to 1 or 2 HP?

LT1s were not underrated, at least not by much.

LS1s in F-bodys were severely underrated.

LS1s in GTOs were rated just about spot on.

LS1s in Corvettes were rated just about spot on.

LS2s in GTOs and Corvettes were just about spot on.

LS6s were just about spot on.

So.....we all know the LS1 in the F-body was under-rated, badly, by GM. Once everyone figured that out, the internet world went crazy and everything except the 99 Cobra suddenly became "under-rated". Most especially everything GM.

**2000T/A Guru** · 07-27-2007, 09:13 AM

What they measured was what they calculated the air flow to be at 80mph, and i agree with everything on your last post lt1s were slightly underated the ls1 was and the ls6 from 1970 was underrated.

**preston1980** · 07-27-2007, 10:07 AM

Originally Posted by BLKCLOUD

Ok. How do you measure HP at 80 mph, especially down to 1 or 2 HP?

LT1s were not underrated, at least not by much.

LS1s in F-bodys were severely underrated.

LS1s in GTOs were rated just about spot on.

LS1s in Corvettes were rated just about spot on.

LS2s in GTOs and Corvettes were just about spot on.

LS6s were just about spot on.

So.....we all know the LS1 in the F-body was under-rated, badly, by GM. Once everyone figured that out, the internet world went crazy and everything except the 99 Cobra suddenly became "under-rated". Most especially everything GM.

I think the phrase "under rated" is over rated, and the the phrase "over used" is not used enough.