2011 Mustang GT - GM better power up
02-14-2010, 06:34 PM
#62
***Repost Police***
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And you are one of those, "I can't do it so nobody can" guys. If PI GTs can run high 13s, only an idiot would think that a car with ~40rwhp more, more torque, 3.55s vs. 3.27s, and a much broader powerband cannot run atleast half a second faster in the 1/4 mile. But you owned one, so what you say goes 
02-14-2010, 06:52 PM
#63
***Repost Police***
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All that does is back up what I have been saying... if you can honestly say that a Mach 1 is not a low-mid 13s car with a good driver (not sure how we even got on this subject again), then you are an idiot. Plain and simple. I don't care what you have owned, you cannot dispute facts.
02-14-2010, 07:45 PM
#64
Teching In
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LOL Well according to motortrend a 2002 Camaro SS runs a 13.49. So based off your argument a Mach 1 and a Camaro are a drivers race right? 
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...ang_specs.html
But then again motor trend is a horrible source.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...ang_specs.html
But then again motor trend is a horrible source.
02-14-2010, 07:50 PM
#65
***Repost Police***
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No you are the idiot & this is not about what I have owned, a13.69 & 13.8 by professional magazine test drivers is high 13s. I bet you could get them to run a half second faster because you have driven then before & you know they can and you are a better driver than Motor Trend's driver.
Give it up already.
Give it up already.
02-14-2010, 08:00 PM
#66
Teching In
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Irunelevens, no dude. Clearly impeccable sources such as Motor Trend only run slower numbers in Camaros so that they can fool all the Mustang guys into thinking they have a chance. Seriously who would ever doubt the skills of journalists when it comes to driving.... or even reporting facts.
02-14-2010, 08:21 PM
#68
Teching In
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's genius.... And yes their awards have nothing to do with their driving ability. The often quoted 12s argument was driven by Evan Smith not some random magazine driver. Maybe you should read more of this site where people complain about the lack of accurate results in magazine testing.
02-14-2010, 09:43 PM
#69
11 Second Club
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 804
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My first 11sec pass. 304rwhp..at the time..
http://s174.photobucket.com/albums/w...s.flv&newest=1
02-15-2010, 04:13 AM
#71
TECH Regular
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: MOV
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You seem like an intelligent guy. You are just wrong in this instance. Notice, no one is taking up for your comment.
Mach1s are mid to low 13s cars. You can either accept it, or stay in denial.
The fact you've owned one and couldn't get mid 13s means nothing. Well other than you obviously need some seat time on the track, or your altitude just sucks. And I've been in northern ohio tracks, that's not the case. I've seen Mach1s with just drag radials get into the high 12s. There are people that have gotten the Mach1 times you listed with their stock 2v Mustang. So why would a faster/better car run the same times? It simply does not. I understand you like GM and are loyal to it now, but come on. If I were to come in here saying that stock LS1 fbodies run high 13s stock because of the idiots I've seen driving them, or the lame magazine runs I've read about, I'd get FLAMED the f out of here. Rightfully so.
Mach1s are mid to low 13s cars. You can either accept it, or stay in denial.
The fact you've owned one and couldn't get mid 13s means nothing. Well other than you obviously need some seat time on the track, or your altitude just sucks. And I've been in northern ohio tracks, that's not the case. I've seen Mach1s with just drag radials get into the high 12s. There are people that have gotten the Mach1 times you listed with their stock 2v Mustang. So why would a faster/better car run the same times? It simply does not. I understand you like GM and are loyal to it now, but come on. If I were to come in here saying that stock LS1 fbodies run high 13s stock because of the idiots I've seen driving them, or the lame magazine runs I've read about, I'd get FLAMED the f out of here. Rightfully so.
Last edited by Ke^in; 02-15-2010 at 04:19 AM.
02-15-2010, 04:14 AM
#72
TECH Regular
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: MOV
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
02-15-2010, 08:15 AM
#73
Oh look, arguing on the internet!
To all of you saying the new stang will beat up the Camaro - shut up. You don't know that, we don't have any tests yet.
To all of you saying the new stang will get beaten up by the Camaro - shut up. We don't know what the stang is capable of yet.
Instead of just seeing who can yell the loudest why not discuss the vehicles and then just wait and see what happens?
To all of you saying the new stang will beat up the Camaro - shut up. You don't know that, we don't have any tests yet.
To all of you saying the new stang will get beaten up by the Camaro - shut up. We don't know what the stang is capable of yet.
Instead of just seeing who can yell the loudest why not discuss the vehicles and then just wait and see what happens?
02-15-2010, 08:23 AM
#74
TECH Regular
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: MOV
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Instead of just seeing who can yell the loudest why not discuss the vehicles and then just wait and see what happens?
02-15-2010, 11:02 AM
#77
Teching In
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Delaware
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I have always been a stick shift guy & do ok. My brother saw a stock 03 run 13.20 @ Norwalk, a good track. Since they made less than 17,000 over 2 years comparing them to LS1 f bodies wouldnt mean that much, just because some run good as with most perf cars doesnt make it the rule.
Do some math weight=3465+ driver=3665 RWHP of 280=13.61 et
305=13.2
And you know they dont have 305 @ the wheel
So??????????????
They also had transmission issues, mine was hard to shift when racing & I had a Pro 5.0 shifter. I talked to a guy from Pro 5.0 & a tech guy @ Tremec, I got the same answer from both-short shift it.
I was told that a 3650 wont shift good @ the higher rpm of that 4 valve, they said that transmission was the wrong choice for that motor.
My car was an 03 and in storage for 2 years, it didnt see the road until April 05 and by then there were plenty of threads all over the place with Mach problems.
But you guys are right, I dont know what I am talking about & cant drive but all you that never owned/drove one of them know it all.
Do some math weight=3465+ driver=3665 RWHP of 280=13.61 et
305=13.2
And you know they dont have 305 @ the wheel
So??????????????
They also had transmission issues, mine was hard to shift when racing & I had a Pro 5.0 shifter. I talked to a guy from Pro 5.0 & a tech guy @ Tremec, I got the same answer from both-short shift it.
I was told that a 3650 wont shift good @ the higher rpm of that 4 valve, they said that transmission was the wrong choice for that motor.
My car was an 03 and in storage for 2 years, it didnt see the road until April 05 and by then there were plenty of threads all over the place with Mach problems.
But you guys are right, I dont know what I am talking about & cant drive but all you that never owned/drove one of them know it all.
You can put all the math up here you want, but these formulas are not absolutes, merely suggestions, and numbers can be manipulated to produce a desired outcome, just ask Bernie Madoff how that works.
Here's what I know to be fact. My car, dealership stock, with a full tank of gas, ran a 13.19 @105 and change, at Cecil County Dragway in April 2003 on my third run of the day, that's a fact. The same day, a friend of mine with a catback only 03 Mach 1, ran a 13.02 @107.
That transmission that you seem to think is junk, is the only stock piece of my drivetrain still in the car! It has endured everything I've thrown at it, including over 500 lb. ft. of torque from a 100+ shot of nitrous for over four years, and now 600+ horsepower and torque from a supercharger! I will concede that some people have had issues with the TR3650 tranny, and I even had a couple of 3rd gear "lockouts" happen to me, but it was a relatively easy problem to fix.
02-15-2010, 11:34 AM
#78
***Repost Police***
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I do own one. In fact mine was the 92nd '03 Mach 1 produced in November 2002.
You can put all the math up here you want, but these formulas are not absolutes, merely suggestions, and numbers can be manipulated to produce a desired outcome, just ask Bernie Madoff how that works.
Here's what I know to be fact. My car, dealership stock, with a full tank of gas, ran a 13.19 @105 and change, at Cecil County Dragway in April 2003 on my third run of the day, that's a fact. The same day, a friend of mine with a catback only 03 Mach 1, ran a 13.02 @107.
That transmission that you seem to think is junk, is the only stock piece of my drivetrain still in the car! It has endured everything I've thrown at it, including over 500 lb. ft. of torque from a 100+ shot of nitrous for over four years, and now 600+ horsepower and torque from a supercharger! I will concede that some people have had issues with the TR3650 tranny, and I even had a couple of 3rd gear "lockouts" happen to me, but it was a relatively easy problem to fix.
You can put all the math up here you want, but these formulas are not absolutes, merely suggestions, and numbers can be manipulated to produce a desired outcome, just ask Bernie Madoff how that works.
Here's what I know to be fact. My car, dealership stock, with a full tank of gas, ran a 13.19 @105 and change, at Cecil County Dragway in April 2003 on my third run of the day, that's a fact. The same day, a friend of mine with a catback only 03 Mach 1, ran a 13.02 @107.
That transmission that you seem to think is junk, is the only stock piece of my drivetrain still in the car! It has endured everything I've thrown at it, including over 500 lb. ft. of torque from a 100+ shot of nitrous for over four years, and now 600+ horsepower and torque from a supercharger! I will concede that some people have had issues with the TR3650 tranny, and I even had a couple of 3rd gear "lockouts" happen to me, but it was a relatively easy problem to fix.
Tell me about your Mach & ets you ran, but I bet you never even drove one.
Machs were far from being well engineered, they put to much motor in front of a GT drive train on an old out dated platform.
But you run 11s so you know everything & I guess if one ran fast they all did.
So math doesnt apply to the Mach 1?
Why dont you blue oval experts go read some of the old posts on these cars or show some kind of proof to back up your postings.
Machs were far from being well engineered, they put to much motor in front of a GT drive train on an old out dated platform.
But you run 11s so you know everything & I guess if one ran fast they all did.
So math doesnt apply to the Mach 1?
Why dont you blue oval experts go read some of the old posts on these cars or show some kind of proof to back up your postings.
02-15-2010, 12:05 PM
#79
Teching In
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since you love the magazines... "It blistered the Old Bridge Township Raceway Park quarter-mile in 13.13-seconds at 105.5 mph in bone-stock trim (with a 2.07 60-foot time)."
It was driven by Evan Smith.
http://www.musclemustangfastfords.co...ch1/index.html
It was driven by Evan Smith.
http://www.musclemustangfastfords.co...ch1/index.html
02-15-2010, 01:41 PM
#80
TECH Regular
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: MOV
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
*sigh*
Since you love the magazines... "It blistered the Old Bridge Township Raceway Park quarter-mile in 13.13-seconds at 105.5 mph in bone-stock trim (with a 2.07 60-foot time)."
It was driven by Evan Smith.
http://www.musclemustangfastfords.co...ch1/index.html
It was driven by Evan Smith.
http://www.musclemustangfastfords.co...ch1/index.html