bolt on ls1 vs bolt on 4.6 stang

[BlueZ06]

@bics56

I get your point…but I would consider myself as one of the slower f-bodies. And to sound ricer I did have a glazed ass clutch. BTW on that 13.7 run I spun like mad out of the hole with a 2.2 60’, spun like crazy on the 1-2 so bad I had to let off since I started to go sideways, then I hit the rev limiter at the top of 2nd…I know all this does is point out I suck at driveing (and I dont care) but it also shows the LS1 is pretty badass to do all that and still run a 13.7. Most LS1 f-bodies in stock form I see run 13.1-13.6 range for the most part. I somewhat agree on the Mach 1’s…I have seen a lot run low 13’s but it seems I see a lot more mach 1’s run high 13’s than I do f-bodies. I know this doesnt mean all that much but a LS1 typically traps about 2-3 more MPH than a mach1. But in the end you are right it is a driver’s race. I love Mach1’s…but the GT’s are a pathetic.

so whats to say those 14 second GT’s or those high 13 second mach 1’s didnt have a shitty 60’ time either?

LS1 and the Mach, make power differently, which is partly the reason for the higher traps.

Also your typical LS1 F-body dynos 300-310rwhp stock, and weighs 3550lbs
Mach 1, dynos 280-290, and weighs 3350

Last reason for the stangs to take a better driver to run better… ever look at the rear end setup on a SN95 mustang? kindve crappy, the F-body has the advantage for traction out of the hole