So which would win overall, at the strip, on the track, whatever. A 2003 Mach I or a 02 WS6 T/A with the LS1. Please no Ford is better or vice versa crap. Only the facts please.

i'll take the WS6 since it has that awesome ls1 small block 350 which imo has the most aftermarket suport out of the v8's out there....also that air package gives the car such a mean look

Im not sure of the horsepower in the Mach 1 so I cant very well make an opinion. As of now, it might come down to the driver.

blah, mach 1 has nuthin on the ls1 equipped T/A, last mag review ive seen on that mach 1 they did a 14.0 @ 101, not even a threat.

Originally posted by 1BAD305
blah, mach 1 has nuthin on the ls1 equipped T/A, last mag review ive seen on that mach 1 they did a 14.0 @ 101, not even a threat.

Thats not what I read. In ''Mustangs and fast Fords'' Magazine they did a test and they said with slicks it ran a 12.97, also had one of the best drivers in the world doing it though. So with street tires, 13.5 shouldn't be hard to accomplish with a person with strip experience.

Originally posted by ILike2DriveCars
Im not sure of the horsepower in the Mach 1 so I cant very well make an opinion. As of now, it might come down to the driver.

305 HP. But the mustang is lighter than the T/A if I'm not mistaken.

put that LS1 on slicks, seen radial ls1s do high 12s before. i thought the new stangs were heavier then the fbodys? oh well i could be wrong

Anybody else have an opinion?

1BAD305- I watched a episode of car and driver, and I quote - ''Finally a Mustang besides a Cobra that can atleast run with an LS1 Camaro or Trans am''. They are fast and sound mean, maybe you should test drive one yourself before saying the Mach 1's got nothing on the LS1 F-body's. Sure it will stomp any GT Stang, but the Mach is WAY faster than a GT. The mach has the practically the same engine that old N/A Cobra's had.

''Finally a Mustang besides a Cobra that can atleast run with an LS1 Camaro or Trans am''.

well duh, it's a cobra 4v motor :slap:

since a ls1 would bury a 99/01 cobra i would have to go with the ls1 on this one :icon16:

It's not completely the same as the cobra engine. It has different cams, I know that much. But yeah it is the 4 BBL, 4 valve per cylinder.

LS1 - stock to stock. Mod to mod. Its going to come out on top.

Originally posted by PWMAN
'Finally a Mustang besides a Cobra that can atleast run with an LS1 Camaro or Trans am''


The 32 valve 4.6L DOHC V8 in the Mach 1 is a strong motor - bit more of a twenty first century V8 for not having pushrods - and has the potential for incredible gains.

Nevertheless, the 16 valve 5.7L pushrod LS1 V8 is a sleeping monster - incredible in stock trim, and it just loves simple bolt on mods.

I must give the nod to the LS1 - but I know what the 32 valver is all about. My buddy's '98 Corbra (powertrain bone stock) ran a flat 13 ET when he just swapped out the gears to like a 4.30 something.

Edit: His trap speed was 108 Mph.

And by the way the 32 valve 4.6L V8 "IS" the Cobra engine - so to say the Mach 1 is the first non-Cobra Mustang to keep up is a bit misleading cause its running the Cobra motor.

The Mach 1 isn't non-Cobra cheap either.

But then again F-body pricing started to get a bit rediculous near the end.

Yes, now thats the kinda opinion I wanted. Thanx :smile: :bigthumb:

Don't worry, I know the potential of pushrod engines. In my Power Wagon, I put a engine from a '65 Barracuda - a 273 (4.5L) CID. It's bored .040 over (makes it a 4.6L), head was milled some to make it 9:1 compression, stock size valves, and no porting and I'm pushing 325 horses from a 4.6L pushrod. Now the ports on this engine came pretty decent from the factory, but with porting, larger valves, upped compression to 10:1, and a cam swap, and I'd be doing 450 HP. All from a 2 valve per cylinder - pushrod - carburated 4.6L. Oh but it has a solid lifter cam, which helps ALOT. Adjusting the valves is a pain, but it's worth it.

I'm Sorry I'm A Huge Ford Guy But I Do Have To Admit A Ws6 Would Beat The Mach 1..Bc My 5.0 Can Beat A Mach 1 And I Got Eaten Alive By A Ws6

Originally posted by PWMAN
So which would win overall, at the strip, on the track, whatever. A 2003 Mach I or a 02 WS6 T/A with the LS1. Please no Ford is better or vice versa crap. Only the facts please.

Auto to auto, LS1 T/A with a few tenths to spare. Manual to Manual, LS1 T/A by a little. Bone stock with equal drivers assuming of corse.

Originally posted by Tekone


Auto to auto, LS1 T/A with a few tenths to spare. Manual to Manual, LS1 T/A by a little. Bone stock with equal drivers assuming of corse.

How is it that the auto tranny on a TA is better? better gearing? shifts quicker? Or just plain more torque from the 5.7 VS the 4.6?

Originally posted by PWMAN


How is it that the auto tranny on a TA is better? better gearing? shifts quicker? Or just plain more torque from the 5.7 VS the 4.6?

GM knows how to build an auto tranny. Ford does not. An LS1 f-body is one of the very few cars that can run the 1/4th just as fast in an auto as a manual. That is quater mile only. Races from a roll, espically highway rolls are a different story of course. Gear wise, they should be close, as they are both 4A's. I'd have to go look up the exact gearing, but it should be very similar. The LS1 does have more torque and most of it avaliable down low.

One option that first caught my eye on the Mach 1 (which I would get for sure!) is the retro 4-speed "four on the floor" manual transmission with the 3.55:1 rear end.

I really really like the Mach 1's (gotta wonder what next years "Boss" model is going to be all about).

WS6's are so bad-ass and a Mach I still is a stang, but an evil one at that. I'll take the WS6, I don't care for any mustang of this generation. They are all ugly. The WS6 just looks like it would suck little kids right through its hood! Badass....

This is probably going to be a driver's race. The mach 1 is underrated and actually produces 320hp/320tq. The transam produces around 340hp/325tq. It's pretty even so driver's skill will determine the outcome probably!

Also not to mention that the Mach 1 was setup for drag... It runs 12s with Drag Radials... not slicks. Its a solid axle w/ 3.55s and a nice drag suspension... at the track theres been some people running 13.1-13.4 with them, so its pretty much a drivers race against an LS1.

Autos, blah... the 4R70W (99+) is ONE of the best autos that Ford has come out with... All it needs is 4.10s, or even lower if you want :iceslolan , a new torque converter w/ tranny cooler and shift kit and itll do pretty good at the strip not to mention itll stay consistent:wink:

Originally posted by DkShadow


Autos, blah... the 4R70W (99+) is ONE of the best autos that Ford has come out with... All it needs is 4.10s, or even lower if you want :iceslolan , a new torque converter w/ tranny cooler and shift kit

Yeah but do all that stuff to the WS6 and what do you got?


What are the curb weights on these 2 vehicles? Anybody know?

Originally posted by PWMAN


Yeah but do all that stuff to the WS6 and what do you got?


What are the curb weights on these 2 vehicles? Anybody know?

Im thinking something along the lines of 3350-3400 :dunno:
HOnestly though i wouldnt get a Mach 1 with an auto. Ive been hearing some pretty bad comments about them... also the Stds have forged cranks while the autos have iron,.. I believe,.. Correct me if im wrong :biggrin:

Not sure about the crank, it could be I'm not going to dispute that it can't be.
Yeah I would ONLY get a manual, autos suck-they're no fun:bigthumb:

Originally posted by DkShadow


Im thinking something along the lines of 3350-3400 :dunno:
HOnestly though i wouldnt get a Mach 1 with an auto. Ive been hearing some pretty bad comments about them... also the Stds have forged cranks while the autos have iron,.. I believe,.. Correct me if im wrong :biggrin:

They are both just a little bit over 3400 lbs. And hands down I'd take a WS6, there is no reason I'd take the Mach 1, Camaros/Trans Ams/Firebirds are one of my favorite cars of all time, especially the late 80s Irocs and the GTA's, it really hurts to see these things going but cant do much about it. Should have made this into a poll. And I can't stand the newer Mustangs, ever since they got rid of the 5.0's even I hate it. I just cant stand a 282 cubic inch V-8, why in the hell didn't they at least make it a 289, dont those put out a good solid 300 hp?? as with some of these 282s they were only like, 260?? Pony/Muscle cars dont mix with small V-8's like that, they need big ones IMO.

v10_viper , i know where youre coming from but honestly, i couldnt care less about the engine. The 281 4.6 can run circles all day on a 5.0. The only thing the 5.0s have going for them is the low end torque but after that the 4.6 is going to beat them. The 4.6s arent that bad, just that theres not much mods that you can do thatll let you gain alot of power of than nitrous and FI.
Also the Mach 1 is a DOHC, that has a lot more potential than the SOHC 2v engine found on GTs. :smile:

Originally posted by v10_viper


I just cant stand a 282 cubic inch V-8, why in the hell didn't they at least make it a 289, dont those put out a good solid 300 hp?? as with some of these 282s they were only like, 260?? Pony/Muscle cars dont mix with small V-8's like that, they need big ones IMO.

The old 289's were crap(mostly). The only good ones are the K code -271 HP and the ones found in the Shelby GT350 making 306 HP. Those are quite rare though. Most of the 289's found in late 60's mustangs were 2 barrels pushing 220 HP. Not that great for the muscle car era. Of course they are also one of the lightest cars in the muscle car era, that is one good argument.
The 4.6 32 valve DOHC 4V is WAY better than the 4.6 16 valve SOHC 2V found in GT mustangs. Like DKShadow said, they have much more potential.

Originally posted by PWMAN


The old 289's were crap(mostly). The only good ones are the K code -271 HP and the ones found in the Shelby GT350 making 306 HP. Those are quite rare though. Most of the 289's found in late 60's mustangs were 2 barrels pushing 220 HP. Not that great for the muscle car era. Of course they are also one of the lightest cars in the muscle car era, that is one good argument.
The 4.6 32 valve DOHC 4V is WAY better than the 4.6 16 valve SOHC 2V found in GT mustangs. Like DKShadow said, they have much more potential.

Yeah I see, but then again with todays' technology, that 289 would be right around 300 hp I'm sure. And if I can find it, at one point I had found a Mustang with the 5.0 in that had 572 hp and 580 some lb ft torque, and it was not fed air or nitrous, just a lot done to the engine, I dont think todays' 4.6's could pass 500 horsepower without using forced induction, it's just I dont think they are very tunable compared to the 289's, 302's and up. I guess I dont know about 289's but wouldn't one say all aluminum, fuel injected, and good engine managment, not produce at least 300 hp?? It's just one thing that pisses me off, kids can have a Mustang with the shitty V-6 and think that they are so cool and so fast, but yet they're not, even some of the V-8's, just not fast. It's not that I hate Mustangs, because I dont, it just irks me to see them with underpowered engines. Now for the new ones, it'd be cool to see the 4.6 as a base engine maybe, but they need one with a bigger V-8, just as said, No replacement for displacement, I mean the Mustangs now are already supercharged, what's left to do to tune them?? not much, more boost i guess but once u get up to more boost you have to run a high octane, as where with a Corvette or Viper, 10 psi is going to kill you.

Oh and another thing, for Camaro's anniversary car or whatever one that has that 600 hp 427, I like the idea of that. It'd be a great idea if Ford did the same to commemorate the Mustang, drop in a 351 with balls in it and make limited production, they'd sell like no other.

You mean the ZL1 Supercar. Badass car but one expensive mofo!!! They were selling for $100k!! How am i suppose to afford that? :frown:


...I dunno, theres some pretty fast 2v/4vs Mustangs out there. Power isnt everything, knowing how to use it is what matters, Which is why you see some pretty fast Mustangs with not that much power going to the wheels. Hell I know of some guy that has 260ish rwhp, no blower ofcourse, and runs mid 12s!! Oh and the 03s are very tunable, they respond well with bolt ons and such. Also, I believe X2C Motorsports just finished making a turbo kit for them... 800rwhp at 24psi :eek7: Thats serious power right there!!!

:smile:

Originally posted by v10_viper


Yeah I see, but then again with todays' technology, that 289 would be right around 300 hp I'm sure.

Well the 4.6L in the mach I is making 305 HP. Thats only 7 cubic inches less, not that much difference.

i cant get over the looks of the 4th gen trans ams from 98-02, totally bad ass styling. oh man is that one agressive lookin car, the ram air hood totally sets it off and like previously mentioned it looks like its willing to suck anything through that hood and blast shreded shrapnel out the exhaust. very very agressive looking car

http://carad0.ipixmedia.com/abc/carad/9704798x744072/744072-07102003193928-2_L.JPG

http://ibidusa.com/graphics/tampa/pasfront2.jpg

no generation mustang can beat that look.

Here's a pic of the Mach I for others enjoyment and comparison: