It’s really not worth the effort to argue with someone so universally regarded as being a dumbass. Congratulations, you’ve achieved immunity through worthlessness.
ya, an 04 mach 1 will shit all over an 04 GT
From what I have seen at the track…most GT’s with those mods run low to mid 14’s(steelcity had a 03 GT with full exhaust and gears and his best was 14.0) …and for a LS1 with full exhaust high 12’s. That is a huge difference…to me the SOHC 4.6 doesnt even compare to a LS1. So I don’t think the video was a fix.
The Mach’s were WAY faster than the GTs were…the Mach’s are a decent bit faster than the latest GT as well, regardless of what the magazines say.
When it comes down to it, the 99-04 GTs were not a match for the LS1 Fbodies, period. GM scored big performance wise with the LS1 Fbodies. Generally, bolt-ons get the SOHC GTs into the 13s, bolt-ons get the LS1’s into the 12s.
I remember the first time at the track I saw a cam+gears+drag radials LS1 SS run…he put down 12.2 with from the factory stock heads, stock manifold, stock bottom end, and no power adder. At the time it blew my mind.
Those are pretty much the best times people run in those cars…for those times it had to be perfect weather and track prep. I know I heard of some 12.6 stock cobra’s but most are 12.8-13.1…mach 1’s I see a ton are 13.8 or so…but I have seen a few run low 13’s, for the 01 GT most I see stock (I guess you can call them stock since everyone I have seen has flowmaster) run around 14.0-14.5. But is your times are legit I give props that is getting everything out of those cars for the most part. (in pgh)
I’ve also seen a certain red ws6, only run a 13.7… so i guess that means ws6’s can’t run faster than 13.7 stock?
The 2003-2004 Mach 1, and the LS1 F-body is a dead heat race… both have actually run high 12’s bone stock, but in the hands of a good driver, typically run low 13s all day long
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.
Dodge does not build the Cummins diesel…they buy them from cummins and put them into there trucks.
which ford has stock in :gives:
The Mustang is not gods gift to the autmobile world and neither is anything with an LSwhatever
/ thread
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