2003 Mach 1 vs 1996 VR4??? awsome race

I just got my car fixed "bad water pump" i was driving it home while i saw this red Mustang Mach 1. I turn and start driving didnt think much about it. I had the windows down and the roof slid back just cruising along feeling happy cause i got my car fixed "$389" then i hear the engine, next thing i know he flys by me and stops. We reach a red light going out of town and he looks towards me revs i rev back and it's on. The guy seemed like an import hater cause on his window he had calvin pissing on a honda symbol. Adrenaline is pumping iam reving my engine getting ready to launch, light turns green felt like "this was my best launch ever" launched at about 3000rpm, get bout 3-4 car lengths i can hear him burning the tires hit second and looks like iam gonna kill him next thing u know he's about only 1 car length away from me, I hit 3ard me and him are about even now and this is what won me the race, I can hear him sift into 4th and iam at about 6900rpm and were still neck and neck goin bout 105 at this point but iam still in 3rd I dont shift till 7200 after 4th gear i break away slowly. I was bout half car length ahead and moving away then he let off. Of course I turned on the hazards showing him i won and slowed down gave him a thumbs up. GOOD RACE gotta love the VR4. Now that's another car to put on my list.

1999 SS
1998 WS6 TA
1995 Z28
2003 mustang GT
2003 mustang mach 1
1989 rx7 - fucker was fast
to many v6 stang and camaro to list, civics as well

:bs: you will not and cannot take a mach1 of the line with a 3000rpm launch! unless he sat back and burned his tires all day

not everyone can drive like Michael Schumacher you know

not everyone can drive like Michael Schumacher you know


i would not dismiss youngvr4's post so easily. he owns a vr4 himself so he knows what he is talking about. I'm not by any means an expert on vr4's but a 3000 rpm launch does sound a bit low for an awd car

:bs: you will not and cannot take a mach1 of the line with a 3000rpm launch! unless he sat back and burned his tires all daywell obvisously u dont know how to drive a stick cause if ur lauching at a higher rpm say 4 and just drop the cluth your gonna ruin ur cluth that way espically on AWD. AWD wasent ment for the cluth to be droped. When i lauch at 3000rpm i slip the cluth so it dosent lose all the power at once. Plus u havent a diffrent set up then me i have a 6 speed compared to your 5 speed. I have driven both and the five speed is so much diffrent from the 6 speed. I know my car and what it can do.

Well 3000 grand does sound a little low. (Used to hearing 5000rpm launches) However it’s not that bad. I could still see you taking a RWD car off the line, especially if he smoked his tires.

Edit: VR4's must have a great top end cause I keep on hearing about them taking cars at high speeds. I would think with with AWD it would be better at lower speeds and launches but I guess its got a good top end too. Whats the gearing like on VR4s?

well if its anything like a DSM or a evo. then 3K is kinda low. my friends with DSM's lauch at 4K and my friend with the evo and every other evo owner launches at 5.5K. cuase usually at 3K you'll bog from such a heavy drive train. also you won't be boosting once the clutch is fully released. hmmm i mean even for my car 3K is kinda low for a decent launch. but hey what do i know? i've never driven a vr4 before. lolz

exactly what you just said, it will bog and have to gain power again.

hopefully yogs will see this and call it out, even he says about 5500 launch is normal you can't take off with a 3000 rpm launch and take a mach1 :disappoin

exactly what you just said, it will bog and have to gain power again.

hopefully yogs will see this and call it out, even he says about 5500 launch is normal you can't take off with a 3000 rpm launch and take a mach1 :disappoin


Did you not read anything i wrote. You are droping the clutch that's not a good launch. You are driving your VR4 likes it's RWD. That's what RWD does rev and drop the clutch. Try it sometime rev to 3000G and slip the clutch "if you know how to" and you will see your car do so much better.

just did it, its not beating a mach1 off the line, its not neck snapping either, like a 5,500 launch.
how old are you?

I gotta call some bs here. If you drop the clutch at 3000rpm in an awd car you are gonna bog the shit out of it. If you "slip the clutch" after the amazing 3000rpm launch in an effort to get revs up quicker without transmitting a jolt through the driveline then you are wasting time, speed and burning the hell out of that clutch face. What was this you were saying about improving clutch life again? roflmao.

If you launch at 3000rpm (well shy of the fat portion of that engines power-band btw) and then "slip your clutch" (damn that just sounds so F&TF) in an effort to build the revs back up quicker you basically just wasted any advantage awd would theoretically provide and are tearing your clutch all to hell in the process. The absence of a big jolt due to your slipping theory may keep the clutch from potentially shattering but it sure as hell ain't good for it.

With your "method" of launching your car a stock Mach-1 is liable to blow your ass off from a dead stop unless that driver has a worse launch technique than you utilize.

oh your 18.

anyway i stand corrected, it wont bog but niehter will it ake a mach1 its just a steady pace but your burning the hell out of your clutch, not fast at all.

just talked to yogs and he basically said a 3000rpm launch is not enough to take a mach1 unless(like i said) he was spinning back there.

i know how to drive, i have a lot more experince then you.

I have driven quite a few Stealths in my day and I have driven both the five and the six speed RT/TT. I must say that both would bog at a 3,000 RPM clutch drop. I had much better launches at above 4,500 RPM. You wouldn't have had as many car lengths on that Mach 1 dropping the clutch at 3,000 much less beating him at all. I just find it hard to believe, unless he did burn his tires pretty badly. In that case, good kill.

Your not gonna burn your clutch if you know what your doing. A 5500RPM launch and dropping the clutch is much worst then slipping the clutch at 3000. You dont hold the clutch thier. You can tell when u held the clutch for to long cause you can smell it. It's like starting in first gear you slowly let your clutch out but the diffrence is you have it on full throttle. When i was at the drag strip with a bad second gear syncro i ran a 1.902 60ft but a really bad 1/4 mile. My best time for that day was only 13.99 it was pathetic. Because i couldnt power shift into second. I'll have the slip on this site once i get my scanner to work.

We'll just havet to see some time cause i will put my 3000 launch agisnt ur 5500 dropped clutch technique anyday. When i laucnh at 3000 i have hardly any bogging i have the power i need off the line cause i release the clutch slowly and have it full throttle

I have driven quite a few Stealths in my day and I have driven both the five and the six speed RT/TT. I must say that both would bog at a 3,000 RPM clutch drop. I had much better launches at above 4,500 RPM. You wouldn't have had as many car lengths on that Mach 1 dropping the clutch at 3,000 much less beating him at all. I just find it hard to believe, unless he did burn his tires pretty badly. In that case, good kill.

Does anybody not read what i write. I dont drop the clutch. That's for RWD drivetrain. It does no good for an AWD car. But hey if you wanna lauch at 5500 rpm and drop the clutch good for you i do what works for me. 3000rpm and sliping the clutch, havent lost yet to off the line accelaration.

This story sounds a little fishy. Feathering and or dropping a clutch at 3K rpms on such a heavy car will undoubtedly make you bog compared to what you should launch at (Atleast 4000 rpms). I use to own a 92 Stealth R/T Twin Turbo (For a whole whopping 3 months, that costed me $8K). I honestly couldn't launch the car (No real practice, cause the P.O.S. was always breaking). Do I believe that you could win, of course. I saw a 98 Cobra conv't. almost lose to a 89 S/C'ed MR2 that was near stock. The guy probably relined the Mach 1 and dropped the clutch (Not hard to do with 300 rwtq). I definitely wouldn't call that your best launch ever though.

ok you slip at 3k but what RPM are you at when the clutch is fully engaged... i think i do the same thing as you which owns on launching ( for me anyway) which is hold it at about 3500-4000rpm obviously too low to launch but when i start feathering i start rev higher ending up with the clutch fully engaged at about 5000rpm... the money spot for my car... you could get the same effect by slipping at 5k and but i dont get that burnt clutch smell (trademark of the high rpm scooby launch) if i do it my way acceleration is way smoother and faster

well i'm no expert in the AWD systems, i basically only touched on it in my powertrains class. I'll go home and look this up in a few hours. However i have to back to the guys who think that "dropping his clutch" at 5K rpm's is going to be less stressful on his transfer case and or tranny than a 3k rpm launch...Maybe you should explain this a little further, cause last i checked a tranny getting slammed at 5k is a little more stressful than at 3k. I believe he beat this Mach1 but not by as many car lengths as he claims. Just one of my biased :2cents:

no one said it was less stressful. its common sense that the higher the dump the harder it is on your tranny. but doing what he's talking about is not very good and is not good enough to take a mach1 off the line unless its spinning like crazy

ok you slip at 3k but what RPM are you at when the clutch is fully engaged... i think i do the same thing as you which owns on launching ( for me anyway) which is hold it at about 3500-4000rpm obviously too low to launch but when i start feathering i start rev higher ending up with the clutch fully engaged at about 5000rpm... the money spot for my car... you could get the same effect by slipping at 5k and but i dont get that burnt clutch smell (trademark of the high rpm scooby launch) if i do it my way acceleration is way smoother and faster


Aight here we go. Iam reving at 3000, when that light turns green i let of the clutch part way car jolts foward and i keep sliping the clutch and my rpms are still building up so when i fully let of the clutch iam at about 4000 rpm already. As to 5500 reving and just dumping the clutch the car jolts foward but you will bog down way to much. And one these days your gonna break something cause of all that power in just a snap.And you dont even get to hold ur rpm up. I did beat the Mach 1 off he line by 2 or 3 car lengths. It's second gear when all the V-8's catch up. Didnt you read my story i won it in 3rd by half car length.

i pretty much figured thats what you were doing... alot of people hold the RPMs higher and slip the clutch... instead of raising the RPMs while slipping they just maintain that constant high RPM... seems like a lot of added stress put on the motor without any advantage over bringing it up while slipping but w/e to each their own

i pretty much figured thats what you were doing... alot of people hold the RPMs higher and slip the clutch... instead of raising the RPMs while slipping they just maintain that constant high RPM... seems like a lot of added stress put on the motor without any advantage over bringing it up while slipping but w/e to each their own

Damn Straight This guy knows how to drive an AWD. Dumping the Clutch is for RWD cars not AWD. Racing is gonna be hard on your car espically if your dumping at 5500 rpm when ur slipping ur accelarating faster and less stress also. Thx you we finally have somebody that knows something about AWD :)

:bs: you will not and cannot take a mach1 of the line with a 3000rpm launch! unless he sat back and burned his tires all day


I have to agree with this... There is no way you can take a Mach 1 off the line your VR4 does not have anywhere near the torque the Mustang has... The only way you could beat him off the line is if he had to start his car's engine first then shift into drive....

Sounds like a Fairy Tale to me...

I am not doubting that you can beat a Mach 1 with a 3K launch. The cars are both fast and a bad luanch or bad driver will give the other guy the win.

To say that is anywhere near the optimum RPMs for a VR4 to launch from is laughable.

The second gens hit their sweet spot over the 4.5K range. You launch at 3K in your VR4 and I'll do the same in my Spyder (with all its added weight) at 4.5K and you'll have a nice view of my ass end.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

I have to agree with this... There is no way you can take a Mach 1 off the line your VR4 does not have anywhere near the torque the Mustang has... The only way you could beat him off the line is if he had to start his car's engine first then shift into drive....

Sounds like a Fairy Tale to me...

Here we go agian with the knocking. If you ever read the specs the VR4 produces 315lbs torque at 2500rpm as the Mach 1 has 320 only 5 more torque but at 4200 rpm. I dont care if you believe me or not that i can beat a mach 1 off the line with a 3000 launch. Maybe if some of you knew what i was talking you wouldnt question my launch. Plus it's RWD it cant transfer all that power and torque while trying to get the tires to hook up.

well if hes not a bs'er lets look at the facts he has said and what we know.


He said he uses his technique at the dragstrip with a bad 2nd gear and even then he said his worst time was a 13.99. Ok so we are looking at atleast a 13.99 run against a Mach I.

Now in searching around looking at the specs of Mach I's I came across something rather revealing. No 2 testers have the same time. In fact MOST of the times I saw were low 14's. I saw a mid 13 on one test and low 13's on slicks for another test. So this brings me to two opinions.

First it seems like its tricky for a MachI to get a good time with even an amatuer driver. So maybe a young teenager who's daddy bought him a Mustang was out trying to beat up on the 16 second ricers. With a Piss on Honda sticker he prolly does like to race slower imports that he knows he can win. This might be detrimental to the improvement of his driving skills and finding out how to make it as fast as possible.

Second even with some good drivers some times posted for Mach I's ARE in fact slower then the slowest time he said he obtained at the drag strip personally with his own car. Someone testing out launching technique's, even if they are different then yours, studying 60' times, participating at the local drag strip, and atleast trying to do better, might actually know how to take his car off the line the best way for him, or whatever he feels is the fastest.

this story is not impossible.

well if hes not a bs'er lets look at the facts he has said and what we know.


He said he uses his technique at the dragstrip with a bad 2nd gear and even then he said his worst time was a 13.99. Ok so we are looking at atleast a 13.99 run against a Mach I.

Now in searching around looking at the specs of Mach I's I came across something rather revealing. No 2 testers have the same time. In fact MOST of the times I saw were low 14's. I saw a mid 13 on one test and low 13's on slicks for another test. So this brings me to two opinions.

First it seems like its tricky for a MachI to get a good time with even an amatuer driver. So maybe a young teenager who's daddy bought him a Mustang was out trying to beat up on the 16 second ricers. With a Piss on Honda sticker he prolly does like to race slower imports that he knows he can win. This might be detrimental to the improvement of his driving skills and finding out how to make it as fast as possible.

Second even with some good drivers some times posted for Mach I's ARE in fact slower then the slowest time he said he obtained at the drag strip personally with his own car. Someone testing out launching technique's, even if they are different then yours, studying 60' times, participating at the local drag strip, and atleast trying to do better, might actually know how to take his car off the line the best way for him, or whatever he feels is the fastest.

this story is not impossible.

Ok first, a bone stock 2003 Mustang Mach 1 kicks out 320 hp with a quarter mile time of 13.156 at 105.35. Where you are getting your times from is a mystery to me. Here is a web page of the actual test of the Mach 1 against the Mustang GT and The Mustang Cobra.

http://www.musclemustangfastfords.com/features/0404mm_must/

By the way Mustang GT ran 14.144 at 97.25
Mustang Cobra ran 12.778 at 111

These are for bone stock Mustang.

[QUOTE=1Quick91]Ok first, a bone stock 2003 Mustang Mach 1 kicks out 320 hp with a quarter mile time of 13.156 at 105.35. Where you are getting your times from is a mystery to me. Here is a web page of the actual test of the Mach 1 against the Mustang GT and The Mustang Cobra.

LOL dont know were ur getting yours specs at but a Mustang Mach 1 only has 305 Horsepower at 5800rpm and 320 lbs of torque at 4200rpm. And thier is no way the Mach 1 can beat a corvette. 13.1 is no possible in a stock Mach 1. Plus its only a 4.6 liter engine. Sorry buddy but you need to find out were your getting your specs because a LS1 camaro cannot run 13.1 and that has more power than the mach 1 engine

You dont know where he's getting his specs at, yet he gave you the fucking link?

Someone should kick you in the face

yeah I seen one comparison where they ran a 13.1 in a mach I on SLICKS


They aren't that fast, My bro has a modded Impala SS running low 14's that is in the perfect leauge for Cobra's, and they are good races with the cobra usually loosing, one time a Cobra slightly pulled on it, And the Cobra had more mods then the Impala had.

like he said 4.6<5.7


NO CHANCE IN HELL it would run with a C5 vette or even the older DOHC cobras stand no chance, and they aren't that much different then those cars, still the same basic engine.

as far as i know they run 13.8

Mach-1's, assuming the driver can actually drive, can and do run mid thirteen second quarter miles all day long. From my experience a 13.4 or a 13.5 e.t. is a very good run for a bone stock Mach-1. I have heard folks say they have seen 13.3 and change e.t.'s out of bone stock Mach-1's but I cannot attest to that as I have never seen one do it. 13.4's actually seem to come a lot easier for this car than say 12.6's to 12.8's do for the typical 03 Cobra driver from what I have seen.

There is no doubt the 03/04 Cobra is faster down the 1/4 than a Mach-1 strictly speaking in terms of the car. However, the Cobra seems much harder to drive well than the Mach-1 which I am certain surprises nobody. With slicks the Mach-1 can barely break into the twelves rock stock. But, I do mean it can BARELY break into the twelves from what I have seen. Slicks put the blown Cobra on another plane of existence altogether. Assuming you keep the rear-end together during all your runs.

http://www.mach1registry.com/FAQ.htm#quartertimes


Look at what the stockers are running, with what 60'. Mag times are in there too.

They don't have 305HP. It's more like 320 with 340TQ. Don't forget, they are running the same 4V motors as the 2001 Cobras, with better tune.

http://www.dynoperformance.com/search_details.php?ID=506

http://www.dynoperformance.com/jpgraph/graph_hptq.php?ID=506&width=680&height=450

3000GT VR-4 Curb Weight: 3760 lbs.
2003 Mach1 Curb Weight: 3465 lbs.

It also doesn't nearly have the drivetrain loss your car has.

This is NOT a knock on your car, as God knows, I'd love to own a VR-4, but you have to learn to be REAL.

Look at what the stockers are running, with what 60'. Mag times are in there too.

They don't have 305HP. It's more like 320 with 340TQ. Don't forget, they are running the same 4V motors as the 2001 Cobras, with better tune.

http://www.dynoperformance.com/search_details.php?ID=506

http://www.dynoperformance.com/jpgraph/graph_hptq.php?ID=506&width=680&height=450

3000GT VR-4 Curb Weight: 3760 lbs.
2003 Mach1 Curb Weight: 3465 lbs.

It also doesn't nearly have the drivetrain loss your car has.

This is NOT a knock on your car, as God knows, I'd love to own a VR-4, but you have to learn to be REAL

You know Mustang Mach 1 only has 305 HP sorry to say but that's what they put out. And only 320 lbs torque. They are fast i give you that but they are not faster than a C5 corvette. And they are diffently beatable by a VR4 and i now cause i have beaten one. Mach 1 are just not good enough to run a 13.1

[QUOTE=1Quick91]Ok first, a bone stock 2003 Mustang Mach 1 kicks out 320 hp with a quarter mile time of 13.156 at 105.35. Where you are getting your times from is a mystery to me. Here is a web page of the actual test of the Mach 1 against the Mustang GT and The Mustang Cobra.

LOL dont know were ur getting yours specs at but a Mustang Mach 1 only has 305 Horsepower at 5800rpm and 320 lbs of torque at 4200rpm. And thier is no way the Mach 1 can beat a corvette. 13.1 is no possible in a stock Mach 1. Plus its only a 4.6 liter engine. Sorry buddy but you need to find out were your getting your specs because a LS1 camaro cannot run 13.1 and that has more power than the mach 1 engine

If you would just click on the link in my post you can read it for yourself... The numbers you are quoating for the LS1 sound a bit inflated to me. I did a search on the net for LS1 1/4 mile times and the best run I can find for a LS1 is 13.8... Maybe you should back up your info with a credible source like a web page with a link.

You know Mustang Mach 1 only has 305 HP sorry to say but that's what they put out. And only 320 lbs torque. They are fast i give you that but they are not faster than a C5 corvette. And they are diffently beatable by a VR4 and i now cause i have beaten one. Mach 1 are just not good enough to run a 13.1

Even presented with overwhelming evidence, you choose to be ignorant. Wow.

What does the C5 have to do with this discussion? I am referring to the Mach 1 versus YOUR car. Way to steer the discussion away from that, so that people won't call even more BS on your story. Are you sure it was a Mach1 you ran?

Speaking of C5's I have seen some stockers run consistent 13.8s at the track. Are YOU claiming that you are as fast as C5s then?

You have to understand, the Mach was designed as a drag-strip burner. They gave it a solid-axle, optimized the gearing, and even adjusted the suspension for a better launch.

If you did the same things to a C5, it'll probably be deep into the 12's. I don't how old you are, but you are apparently not old enough to realize that even in drag-racing, power isn't the absolute.

All I can say is if this guys drives like he reasons (and spells for that matter) then he probably couldn't beat a Cavalier Z24 off the line. People need to understand that if you come in here with outlandish claims, AND write like you are still in the sixth grade people will not take you seriously.

If you would just click on the link in my post you can read it for yourself... The numbers you are quoating for the LS1 sound a bit inflated to me. I did a search on the net for LS1 1/4 mile times and the best run I can find for a LS1 is 13.8... Maybe you should back up your info with a credible source like a web page with a link.
Bwahahahahaha. Yeah right. 13.8 sec. 1/4 mile is the best you have seen listed on LS1.com. You obviously don't go there often. Snakeeater has run a high 12 sec. pass in his WS6, and it is on video. Alot of members there, in the Florida area, have run low 13's in LS1 powered vehicles. Heck, Snakeeater has a vid of him smoking his buddies modded 03 Cobra, let alone a Mach 1. BTW LS1's typically dyno about 15-20 rwhp higher then a Mach1. Horsepower to weight ratio wise it's a drivers race. Here is a link to a dyno pic on LS1.com Please note that the car has more rwhp then a Mach1.
http://www.ls1.com/link_dyno1.html
Oh and the Mach 1 is not all that much alike to the 01 Cobra, I believe it has a different exhaust or intake valve then the 01 Cobra. It also has alot flatter torque curve then the 01 Cobra. All in all it is close to an LS1, I just don't buy that it is faster or more powerful then an LS1. BTW I has alot quicker times at LACR then an 01 Cobra when my former Z28 was near stock. I believe he also was a better driver, but it didn't matter cause my car was running about 2 tenths of a sec. faster.

Actually here are the correct # for the Mach 1. The 04 has been rated slightly higher then the 03, 310hp with 335 lb-ft manual and 308hp with 323 lb-ft auto. The 03 was rated at 305hp with 320 lb-ft or torque manual. Now these are just ratings, and as most Mach owners are finding out, the ratings seem pretty low, which is what I believe carrrnuttt was trying to get at. In reality the 04 Mach 1 has been dynoing at 283rwhp and 311 lb-ft stock according to 5.0 Mustang. So that equals out to be about 325 BHP with a 15% drivetrain loss.

So I'm standing by carrrnuttt statements. Only thing I have to say about what he said is that the Mach 1 motor is not the same as the 01 Cobra motor. Both blocks may be aluminum, but its a different design. The cams well as the heads, are different from the Cobra. Many people often consider the Mach 1 motor the same as the 99/01 Cobra motor, but that's just not true.

OK now to the nitty gritty. Look at this, In the August 03 issue of 5.0 Mustang and Superfords, they ran a 03 Mach 1 to 13.19 at 106.7 MPH. This was in stock from with street tires.

In the March 03 Issue of MM&FF, they ran a 03 Mach 1 to 13.13 at 105.5 mph with a 2.07 60 foot time. This too was also bone stock. Anyone drag racer knows that if slicks were added to achieve a 1.8 or 1.9 60 foot, the Mach will be in the 12's no problem.

In the March 04 issue of MM&FF, they just did a shoot out between the 04 GT, 04 Mach 1, and 04 Cobra. They were able to pull of a 13.156 at 105.35 mph in the Mach with a 2.03 60 foot time. Again add slicks, and you would be seeing 12's with a sub 2 sec 60 foot. Here's a general rule of thumb, for ever tenth you reduce your 60 ft, you will reduce your 1/4 mile time by 2 tenths.

Now granted the times listed in those zines are by drivers who have skill and know how to get the most out of a car, but there are still plenty of hard-core drag racers out there that can achieve the same thing.

Of course driver style and how aggressive of a launch will also have a big part in 1/4 mile times, ranging upwards of high 13's by an amateur driver. Take a look at the Mach 1 Registry on the 1/4 mile page. There's guys there that are getting very low 13's with awesome 60 ft's in a completely stock car, so It is possible.

OK, now I think some of you need to check out www.mach-1.org (http://www.mach-1.org/) or www.mach1registry.com (http://www.mach1registry.com/) to educate yourself a little more for next time on the Mach 1! Trust me I've done my homework on this car and that's why I REALLY want one, it's one bad mofo!

Every thing you said was right HiFlow, except for one little thing. It was the April 04' issue that the Mach got a 13.156 @ 105.35 mph (at best). Lol, sorry man.

[QUOTE=carrrnuttt]Even presented with overwhelming evidence, you choose to be ignorant. Wow.

What does the C5 have to do with this discussion? I am referring to the Mach 1 versus YOUR car. Way to steer the discussion away from that, so that people won't call even more BS on your story. Are you sure it was a Mach1 you ran?

I was recalling to an earlier discussion how a Mach 1 could keep up with a vette read all of the threads before you write.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupe/112_0310_frst2_mach1/

Thier you go read shut ur mouth. 13.8 sec. 13.1 with slicks.Oh and i think the the article also says QUOTE "The Mach1's acceleration of the line is tricky" 305HP and 320lbs torque Oh and yea iam pretty sure i raced a Mach1 inless Dodge makes one exactly like it.;)

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupe/112_0310_frst2_mach1/

Thier you go read shut ur mouth. 13.8 sec. 13.1 with slicks.Oh and i think the the article also says QUOTE "The Mach1's acceleration of the line is tricky" 305HP and 320lbs torque Oh and yea iam pretty sure i raced a Mach1 inless Dodge makes one exactly like it.;)

So, you keep sticking with the one article that favors your argument, while I, and other people have presented various sources...

One of the links I gave you, presented what you just put up, ALONG with other mag-times. One even as low as 14's for the Mach. Why not use that?

I even put up RWHP figures, yet you are insisting on the HP...BECAUSE MOTOR TREND SAID SO. OMG

Ever heard of underrating? Ever heard of the SRT-4? How about the LS1? Is this your first car?

I suggest you go do some research, E-Mail the dyno-tuning company that dynoed the Mach or something...before you get laughed out of every semi-knowledgeable car-forum on the Internet.

Hell, I'm not even a Ford guy...ask most of the veteran Ford guys in here about my past arguments with them.

[QUOTE=carrrnuttt]So, you keep sticking with the one article that favors your argument, while I, and other people have presented various sources...

One of the links I gave you, presented what you just put up, ALONG with other mag-times. One even as low as 14's for the Mach.

......So you ask me to put up a link to were I get the Mach1's power rating and 1/4 time. So i did to prove my self and now you are dissmissing it? I dont get you. My point is that Not only motor trend and motor trend is a very reliable source, but other sites have similar results or identicle results. First everybody was saying i was BSing about me beating the Mach1 then i had to defend my self then everybody says that the Mach1 can run 13.1 stock which they cant and same with the HP and Torque specs. So i gave you guys the link. That little chart even proved my theory showed it had even less power. What ever i say you guys just dont seem to want to believe me.

Oh yea and wasent that what i was suppose to prove because nobody believed me? That the Mach1 had 305hp and 320lbs torque?

First and foremost, kid, Motor Trend is to automotive journalism as KFC is to chicken. They're known for being easily swayed by marketing rhetoric, trying desperately to kiss up to major manufacturers, and failing to approach testing scientifically. In fact, they were famous for dropping slalom speeds as a testing benchmark.

If you were quoting from Automobile Magazine, Road & Track, or Car & Driver (three notoriously enthusiast oriented mags), then you'd have some more credit.

When Ford had their issues with overrating the SVT Mustangs in 2001, Motor Trend jumped on it as an effort to make nice with their bed buddy GM (case in point, Motor Trend Car of the Year 1997: Chevrolet Malibu). Ever since then, they've been trying their damnedest to prove that Mustangs aren't the performers they are.

The Mach 1 is an uncommonly strong car, thanks to the DOHC 4.6 engine. And the other thing you have to realise it that the SN95 chassis is EFFIN BULLETPROOF. That solid rear end, coil spring suspension, and those wide rear tires really tamp launches well so the 'Stang hooks easy and motors away. The VR4's weight, relatively narrow tires (seriously, compared to the power and the weight of the car, the tires are undersized) and the weak drivetrain (if you're going to have a heavy car with a potent TT engine, don't give it a transverse FF gearbox with a rear drive power take off, that's just begging for crap to break) gives it a huge disadvantage.

I'm not a fan of Mustangs, but the VR4 is a heavy half-baked beast with reliability woes and a poor suspension and drivetrain. The DOHC Mustang, which does make that 320hp, takes this round.

Dude... there is a thing called UNDER RATING.

For example, LS1 powered Camaro/Firebirds. The base model LS1 car was rated at 305hp. But many LS1 owners dyno'd their cars stock, and got 300+ rear wheel horsepower. Meaning, the car was actually making 350hp. Just like the Corvette, which used the same damn motor.

Look here:
1999 Chevy Corvette... 0-60: 4.8 -- 1/4: 13.3
1999 Chevy Camaro SS... 0-60: 4.9 -- 1/4: 13.5

Chevy under rated the motor, to make the Corvette look better. But the cars are powered by the same motor, and they perform almost the same. The Corvette is lighter, thus it will perform just a tad better. It also keeps the insurance rates somewhat lower to under rate the Car.


This example with the LS1, is the same scenario with the Mach1. Being rated at only 305hp. And being able to run times in the low 13s as shown by several members from several other magazines other than Motor Trend.


We've proven our case several times from several different sources, you cannot rely on just one magazine. I think you've got a lot to learn in the automotive world.

First and foremost, kid, Motor Trend is to automotive journalism as KFC is to chicken. They're known for being easily swayed by marketing rhetoric, trying desperately to kiss up to major manufacturers, and failing to approach testing scientifically. In fact, they were famous for dropping slalom speeds as a testing benchmark.

If you were quoting from Automobile Magazine, Road & Track, or Car & Driver (three notoriously enthusiast oriented mags), then you'd have some more credit.

When Ford had their issues with overrating the SVT Mustangs in 2001, Motor Trend jumped on it as an effort to make nice with their bed buddy GM (case in point, Motor Trend Car of the Year 1997: Chevrolet Malibu). Ever since then, they've been trying their damnedest to prove that Mustangs aren't the performers they are.

The Mach 1 is an uncommonly strong car, thanks to the DOHC 4.6 engine. And the other thing you have to realise it that the SN95 chassis is EFFIN BULLETPROOF. That solid rear end, coil spring suspension, and those wide rear tires really tamp launches well so the 'Stang hooks easy and motors away. The VR4's weight, relatively narrow tires (seriously, compared to the power and the weight of the car, the tires are undersized) and the weak drivetrain (if you're going to have a heavy car with a potent TT engine, don't give it a transverse FF gearbox with a rear drive power take off, that's just begging for crap to break) gives it a huge disadvantage.

I'm not a fan of Mustangs, but the VR4 is a heavy half-baked beast with reliability woes and a poor suspension and drivetrain. The DOHC Mustang, which does make that 320hp, takes this round.
All automotive mags are swayed. Period..... Look at Car and Driver's over enthusiam over anything carrying the BMW logo. Also while you state that Motor Trend test negatively with respect to the mustang, I see that the 03 Cobra ran a near identical 12 sec. pass as the Z06 Vette in MT, whereas Car and Driver tested a 03 Cobra to only a low 13 sec. time.
Also don't count on the IRS holding up too long on the 01/03/04 Cobra's, cause they are notorious for blowing out (Halfshafts). Most 03 Cobra owners change the car to a heavy live rear axle setup. I feel kinda bad cause I set up a race at Speedway between a new 03 Cobra and a 2002 Z06. The 03 Cobra blew out it's halfshaft. Neither the VR4, nor the 01/03 Cobra have ideal setups for drag racing (I owned a 92 Stealth, and can vouch for their pathetic tranny). The 98 Cobra I use to own had a horrible tranny too (T45 tranny). It wasn't until the T56 tranny that i would really call the Cobras tranny "bulletproof". I have heard rave reviews about the Tremec tranny in the Mach 1's. i do understand your point though. Oh and author, the 300 hp models of the 3000GT VR4's were nowhere near as quick as a Mach 1 1/4 mile wise. The 320 hp models are a different story, but even then the race is close (13.6 sec. ideally for the 3000 GT, versus 13.4 sec. ideally for the Mach1).

Bwahahahahaha. Yeah right. 13.8 sec. 1/4 mile is the best you have seen listed on LS1.com. You obviously don't go there often. Snakeeater has run a high 12 sec. pass in his WS6, and it is on video. Alot of members there, in the Florida area, have run low 13's in LS1 powered vehicles. Heck, Snakeeater has a vid of him smoking his buddies modded 03 Cobra, let alone a Mach 1. BTW LS1's typically dyno about 15-20 rwhp higher then a Mach1. Horsepower to weight ratio wise it's a drivers race. Here is a link to a dyno pic on LS1.com Please note that the car has more rwhp then a Mach1.
http://www.ls1.com/link_dyno1.html
Oh and the Mach 1 is not all that much alike to the 01 Cobra, I believe it has a different exhaust or intake valve then the 01 Cobra. It also has alot flatter torque curve then the 01 Cobra. All in all it is close to an LS1, I just don't buy that it is faster or more powerful then an LS1. BTW I has alot quicker times at LACR then an 01 Cobra when my former Z28 was near stock. I believe he also was a better driver, but it didn't matter cause my car was running about 2 tenths of a sec. faster.

I was referring to stock LS1 not modded ones...

[QUOTE=carrrnuttt]Even presented with overwhelming evidence, you choose to be ignorant. Wow.

What does the C5 have to do with this discussion? I am referring to the Mach 1 versus YOUR car. Way to steer the discussion away from that, so that people won't call even more BS on your story. Are you sure it was a Mach1 you ran?

I was recalling to an earlier discussion how a Mach 1 could keep up with a vette read all of the threads before you write.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupe/112_0310_frst2_mach1/

Thier you go read shut ur mouth. 13.8 sec. 13.1 with slicks.Oh and i think the the article also says QUOTE "The Mach1's acceleration of the line is tricky" 305HP and 320lbs torque Oh and yea iam pretty sure i raced a Mach1 inless Dodge makes one exactly like it.;)

You are a complete moron... If you read your own article on the link you provided it states that a Mach 1 with a 5 speed ran a 13.2...

I was referring to stock LS1 not modded ones...

lolol, oh my. Those are times for stock LS1s. My LT1 runs 13.8s stock. LS1s run low 13s stock all day every day.

I'm not a fan of Mustangs, but the VR4 is a heavy half-baked beast with reliability woes and a poor suspension and drivetrain. The DOHC Mustang, which does make that 320hp, takes this round.

VR4 poor suspension?????? Sorry but thats just not possible. Heavy yes i give you that.

You are a complete moron... If you read your own article on the link you provided it states that a Mach 1 with a 5 speed ran a 13.2...

did u read pg 2

I was referring to stock LS1 not modded ones...
:lol: I dunno how high the altitude is at your track, but they run faster then a 13.8 sec. 1/4 mile. I could argue w/ an obvious mustang fan like you for hours, as I have on LS1.com The bottom line is who wins, and I beat a heckuva lot of Mustangs. Corrected for altitude I ran a 13.6 sec. 1/4 mile @ 106 mph in my 2000 Z28 when it was near stock (Muffler, HPP3 program, which btw sucks). Oh, and I can't drive worth a bean. My buddies friends SS ran a 13.2 sec. 1/4 mile at Pomona Dragway. If you think that LS1's only run a 13.8 sec. 1/4 mile, keep believing it. People need to rack up some wins.

Yes, VR4's have poor suspensions. First and foremost, Macpherson struts suck for front suspension. Double wishbone and unequal length A-arm own them every day of the week. Macpherson strut suspensions, while compact and light, allow for very little camber gain during the compression arc, very little droop but a lot of rise. This leads to tons of natural body roll and a tendency to lift the inside rear under hard braking during cornering, while lifting the inside front under acceleration.

The rear multi-link/strut combo isn't much better. It's softly sprung so the 3000 tends to squat on its hind end and spin its front tires while bogging the engine as the rears hook hard. The power take off on the transaxle doesn't transmit enough torque to make full use of the available grip at the rear. Most of the power of the engine, under acceleration, is lost in the driveline, the axles, and the movement of the body.

Couple that with their idiotic and unreliable electronic suspension control, and you've got one piss-poor suspension. The Mustang's four link solid rear end tends to bind and allows a lot of side to side motion, plus wheel hop if you can put enough power to it, but wheel hop is far preferable to bogging the engine and halfshaft wrap up.

Yes, VR4's have poor suspensions. First and foremost, Macpherson struts suck for front suspension. Double wishbone and unequal length A-arm own them every day of the week. Macpherson strut suspensions, while compact and light, allow for very little camber gain during the compression arc, very little droop but a lot of rise. This leads to tons of natural body roll and a tendency to lift the inside rear under hard braking during cornering, while lifting the inside front under acceleration.

The rear multi-link/strut combo isn't much better. It's softly sprung so the 3000 tends to squat on its hind end and spin its front tires while bogging the engine as the rears hook hard. The power take off on the transaxle doesn't transmit enough torque to make full use of the available grip at the rear. Most of the power of the engine, under acceleration, is lost in the driveline, the axles, and the movement of the body.

Couple that with their idiotic and unreliable electronic suspension control, and you've got one piss-poor suspension. The Mustang's four link solid rear end tends to bind and allows a lot of side to side motion, plus wheel hop if you can put enough power to it, but wheel hop is far preferable to bogging the engine and halfshaft wrap up.

translation... STFU newbie, cuz you're wrong:rofl::lol::lol2:

so im confused has this turned into a VR4 cant win against a mach1 arguement? or just this particular case??? so much info about underrating cars magazine conspriacies and of course whenever the mustang is brought up the mandatory LS1 comments (my personal fav). i forgot what this was all about lol

Probably because the topic of this thread has changed numerous times Brodie. IMo this thread should be locked, as it is obviously just off topic at this point.

hmmm, my car handles pretty dang good to have such horrible suspension. not just saying that cause i own one, just telling the truth or opinion. you should know by now that i'm not biased. the vr4 handles lovely if you ask me, especially at high speed like taking a curve thats says slow to 40mph and you do 90mph. i know this cause me and my dad went through the idaho pass and flew through it like an obsticle course and my dad even said the car handles lovely. but what do i know i just own the thing.

hmmm, my car handles pretty dang good to have such horrible suspension. not just saying that cause i own one, just telling the truth or opinion. you should know by now that i'm not biased. the vr4 handles lovely if you ask me, especially at high speed like taking a curve thats says slow to 40mph and you do 90mph. i know this cause me and my dad went through the idaho pass and flew through it like an obsticle course and my dad even said the car handles lovely. but what do i know i just own the thing.
You have to look at it from his perspective. He's been racing cars on tracks with turns since he was ten, and appreciates British roadsters that are more nimble than fast.

Also, if you pay attention to his last paragraph:Layla's Keeper[/b]]Couple that with their idiotic and unreliable electronic suspension control, and you've got one piss-poor suspension. The Mustang's four link solid rear end tends to bind and allows a lot of side to side motion, plus wheel hop if you can put enough power to it, but wheel hop is far preferable to bogging the engine and halfshaft wrap up.You'll see that he's referring to the supension advantage of the Mustang in a straight-line, drag launch, which is true.

Just a matter of perspective.

Yes, VR4's have poor suspensions. First and foremost, Macpherson struts suck for front suspension. Double wishbone and unequal length A-arm own them every day of the week. Macpherson strut suspensions, while compact and light, allow for very little camber gain during the compression arc, very little droop but a lot of rise. This leads to tons of natural body roll and a tendency to lift the inside rear under hard braking during cornering, while lifting the inside front under acceleration.

The rear multi-link/strut combo isn't much better. It's softly sprung so the 3000 tends to squat on its hind end and spin its front tires while bogging the engine as the rears hook hard. The power take off on the transaxle doesn't transmit enough torque to make full use of the available grip at the rear. Most of the power of the engine, under acceleration, is lost in the driveline, the axles, and the movement of the body.

Couple that with their idiotic and unreliable electronic suspension control, and you've got one piss-poor suspension. The Mustang's four link solid rear end tends to bind and allows a lot of side to side motion, plus wheel hop if you can put enough power to it, but wheel hop is far preferable to bogging the engine and halfshaft wrap up.


hmmm yea...........Oh yea see who wins in a twisty road. Mustang would get owned