WS6 or Mach 1
08-17-2007, 03:03 PM
#61
Teching In
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Denton (DFW)
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by CaMaRo67RS355
yeah but if the fbody came with a supercharger stock it would eat the "termi's" easy
08-17-2007, 06:49 PM
#62
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: CA
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ONEBADASSWS6
Well it doesn't look like anyone's going to give you an honest comparison around here, so let me do my best to help you out. I too have driven a Mach 1, and I own a T/A WS6.
Obviously, both have their pros and cons. I wouldn't say one is better than the other, its all a matter of preference. Appearance wise, both are great looking cars. The WS6 and Mach 1 packages really make each of them stand out from the regular models.
As engines go, both have great powerplants. The LS1 is probably one of the best engines ever designed, in both engineering and power output. It reponds very well to bolt ons, most guys with full bolt ons put down around 340-360WHP. A good cam will get you around 400WHP, and a high end H/C package can put you anywhere from 450-500WHP. It also achieves very good fuel economy for its size and power output. The Mach 1 engine is basically the 03-04 Cobra motor without the supercharger. Its DOHC, so its luxury car smooth and revs all the way to 7,000RPM's in stock form. However, its only a 4.6L, so the power comes on much later in the rev range than it does with the LS1. From what I've read, guys with full bolt ons put down 320-340WHP.
As for the transmissions and rear ends, its a trade off. The T/A has the much stronger transmission, and rarely do you hear of one breaking unless the car is pushing over 500WHP. The Mach 1 uses a Tremec 3650, which is hit and miss, some are fine with full bolt ons or F/I, some grenade with stock power. Such is the case with the F-Body rear (10 bolt), some give out with stock power, some guys are pushing 400WHP on the stock diff. The Mach 1 rear is a Ford 8.8, which is very strong and will support just about any amount of power.
Make your decision based on what you like, not what everyone tells you on the forums. Both are awesome cars, personally I like the LS1 engine better, but I like the way the Mach 1 drives and handles better.
Good luck.
Obviously, both have their pros and cons. I wouldn't say one is better than the other, its all a matter of preference. Appearance wise, both are great looking cars. The WS6 and Mach 1 packages really make each of them stand out from the regular models.
As engines go, both have great powerplants. The LS1 is probably one of the best engines ever designed, in both engineering and power output. It reponds very well to bolt ons, most guys with full bolt ons put down around 340-360WHP. A good cam will get you around 400WHP, and a high end H/C package can put you anywhere from 450-500WHP. It also achieves very good fuel economy for its size and power output. The Mach 1 engine is basically the 03-04 Cobra motor without the supercharger. Its DOHC, so its luxury car smooth and revs all the way to 7,000RPM's in stock form. However, its only a 4.6L, so the power comes on much later in the rev range than it does with the LS1. From what I've read, guys with full bolt ons put down 320-340WHP.
As for the transmissions and rear ends, its a trade off. The T/A has the much stronger transmission, and rarely do you hear of one breaking unless the car is pushing over 500WHP. The Mach 1 uses a Tremec 3650, which is hit and miss, some are fine with full bolt ons or F/I, some grenade with stock power. Such is the case with the F-Body rear (10 bolt), some give out with stock power, some guys are pushing 400WHP on the stock diff. The Mach 1 rear is a Ford 8.8, which is very strong and will support just about any amount of power.
Make your decision based on what you like, not what everyone tells you on the forums. Both are awesome cars, personally I like the LS1 engine better, but I like the way the Mach 1 drives and handles better.
Good luck.
Thanks for all the props to those that gave them. Nice to see some people are still open minded.
My answer....it just depends. Fbod is typically going to have more miles, changing the plugs are a PITA. HOWEVER...the cubes are great when it comes to N/A power, and bolt ons (already pointed out). I am not going to lie...power in a 4.6 is hard and expensive to get. THere are a few guys that are putting down almost or at 400, but that's with P/P intake, cams and head work...and it ain't cheap. Fbod's (especially the WS6) are nice, and the LS is a great powerplant to start with.
Basically, it really comes down to what you want. it's all personal opinion. TEst drive both and get the one that BEST SUITS YOU!
08-18-2007, 12:13 AM
#63
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well after looking into mach 1's a little more i found out that full bolton cars but down about 300 to 310 rwhp. a stock f-body can do that. so i decided to just wait it out until i find my WS6. plus i like the body style alot better. and you dont see a f-body every 3 miles like you do a mustang. and the thing that did it most for me was on the way to the gas station a SOM WS6 passed me 
then when i got there i got a compliment on my car.
then when i got there i got a compliment on my car.
08-18-2007, 12:24 AM
#64
Teching In
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Denton (DFW)
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 94 redbird
well after looking into mach 1's a little more i found out that full bolton cars but down about 300 to 310 rwhp. a stock f-body can do that. so i decided to just wait it out until i find my WS6. plus i like the body style alot better. and you dont see a f-body every 3 miles like you do a mustang. and the thing that did it most for me was on the way to the gas station a SOM WS6 passed me then when i got there i got a compliment on my car.
then when i got there i got a compliment on my car.
08-18-2007, 12:54 AM
#67
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Metairie, LA
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ONEBADASSWS6
Well it doesn't look like anyone's going to give you an honest comparison around here, so let me do my best to help you out. I too have driven a Mach 1, and I own a T/A WS6.
Obviously, both have their pros and cons. I wouldn't say one is better than the other, its all a matter of preference. Appearance wise, both are great looking cars. The WS6 and Mach 1 packages really make each of them stand out from the regular models.
As engines go, both have great powerplants. The LS1 is probably one of the best engines ever designed, in both engineering and power output. It reponds very well to bolt ons, most guys with full bolt ons put down around 340-360WHP. A good cam will get you around 400WHP, and a high end H/C package can put you anywhere from 450-500WHP. It also achieves very good fuel economy for its size and power output. The Mach 1 engine is basically the 03-04 Cobra motor without the supercharger. Its DOHC, so its luxury car smooth and revs all the way to 7,000RPM's in stock form. However, its only a 4.6L, so the power comes on much later in the rev range than it does with the LS1. From what I've read, guys with full bolt ons put down 320-340WHP.
As for the transmissions and rear ends, its a trade off. The T/A has the much stronger transmission, and rarely do you hear of one breaking unless the car is pushing over 500WHP. The Mach 1 uses a Tremec 3650, which is hit and miss, some are fine with full bolt ons or F/I, some grenade with stock power. Such is the case with the F-Body rear (10 bolt), some give out with stock power, some guys are pushing 400WHP on the stock diff. The Mach 1 rear is a Ford 8.8, which is very strong and will support just about any amount of power.
Make your decision based on what you like, not what everyone tells you on the forums. Both are awesome cars, personally I like the LS1 engine better, but I like the way the Mach 1 drives and handles better.
Good luck.
Obviously, both have their pros and cons. I wouldn't say one is better than the other, its all a matter of preference. Appearance wise, both are great looking cars. The WS6 and Mach 1 packages really make each of them stand out from the regular models.
As engines go, both have great powerplants. The LS1 is probably one of the best engines ever designed, in both engineering and power output. It reponds very well to bolt ons, most guys with full bolt ons put down around 340-360WHP. A good cam will get you around 400WHP, and a high end H/C package can put you anywhere from 450-500WHP. It also achieves very good fuel economy for its size and power output. The Mach 1 engine is basically the 03-04 Cobra motor without the supercharger. Its DOHC, so its luxury car smooth and revs all the way to 7,000RPM's in stock form. However, its only a 4.6L, so the power comes on much later in the rev range than it does with the LS1. From what I've read, guys with full bolt ons put down 320-340WHP.
As for the transmissions and rear ends, its a trade off. The T/A has the much stronger transmission, and rarely do you hear of one breaking unless the car is pushing over 500WHP. The Mach 1 uses a Tremec 3650, which is hit and miss, some are fine with full bolt ons or F/I, some grenade with stock power. Such is the case with the F-Body rear (10 bolt), some give out with stock power, some guys are pushing 400WHP on the stock diff. The Mach 1 rear is a Ford 8.8, which is very strong and will support just about any amount of power.
Make your decision based on what you like, not what everyone tells you on the forums. Both are awesome cars, personally I like the LS1 engine better, but I like the way the Mach 1 drives and handles better.
Good luck.
08-18-2007, 01:32 AM
#68
Launching!
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Baton Rouge
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've owned a 01 GT and now a 00 Trans Am. I also test drove a 04 Mach and was not very impressed with it performance wise, but still a clean car.
Each has the pros and cons, and don't think a Mach cannot be made fast. The 4v dohc motor responds well to mods, and is very durable. It is also underatted from the factory. Actual numbers are closer to ~325hp at the crank. Transmission is a different story, and is only a 5spd.
Not much needs to be said about the ls1, its about as perfect of a engine you can have both stock and modded. Also underatted on f-bodies, about 345 crank, great gas mileage. Cons are CHEAPASS interior, crappy rear, looongggg body (For any gurus, i don't know exact dimensions so don't chime in
, i'm going by looks alone).
Owning both a ford and now a GM my personal outlook on the two companies is GM gives the best bang for your buck for hp/tq; While Fords are a step behind in the performance, but provide a good looking vehicle, while paying attention to the details a little better.
The pros/cons for each could go on but what it comes down to is what best fits you.
Each has the pros and cons, and don't think a Mach cannot be made fast. The 4v dohc motor responds well to mods, and is very durable. It is also underatted from the factory. Actual numbers are closer to ~325hp at the crank. Transmission is a different story, and is only a 5spd.
Not much needs to be said about the ls1, its about as perfect of a engine you can have both stock and modded. Also underatted on f-bodies, about 345 crank, great gas mileage. Cons are CHEAPASS interior, crappy rear, looongggg body (For any gurus, i don't know exact dimensions so don't chime in
, i'm going by looks alone).Owning both a ford and now a GM my personal outlook on the two companies is GM gives the best bang for your buck for hp/tq; While Fords are a step behind in the performance, but provide a good looking vehicle, while paying attention to the details a little better.
The pros/cons for each could go on but what it comes down to is what best fits you.
08-18-2007, 02:22 AM
#69
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you want to be like everyone else get the mustang. If you want to have something a little bit more unique and be part of the greatest car community ever, get the trans am.
08-18-2007, 12:55 PM
#72
Staging Lane
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I never used to have any brand loyalty (I just ended up accumulating a bunch of Trans Ams because I really like the cars, as well as Camaros due to the family ties). However, some really bad experiences with Ford products of the 2003 vintage left me hating a car company for the first time in my life, in my mid 30s on top of it.
I owned two 2003 Ford vehicles with exactly the same motor as found in the Mach I albeit equipped with a different crankshaft due to the automatic-only application and the intake pointing the opposite way. Otherwise, as far as I know it's the same motor.
I got to learn a lot about these motors. You can tune the Ford PCM within an inch of its life. There are lots of gains to be had from bolt-ons, since the market for those motors is HUGE (they are very close to the pre-2003 Cobra motors as it is). They are very smooth and will pull very strongly at higher RPMs... I'd say above 3000 RPM maybe 3500 RPM to be safe (depends on what people define as pulling "hard"). For sure it's a visceral thrill to hear a small V8 pulling THAT hard at THAT high an RPM.
I also got to learn a lot about the motor's weaknesses. For one, the driver's side head tends to run hotter due to coolant passage deficiencies. I think the Mustang application actually has some sort of heater connection back there at the rear of the head which helps keep the coolant flow going but there is some stagnation... on some applications where the heater connection doesn't fit, it's murder on the valves and valve guides, and in many cases the pistons themselves. Modified cars usually cook those rear driver's side pistons first, I don't know if this is the same for the Mach I.
There was a really bad batch of valve guides and seals in those motors in 2003. First it was the seals, affecting passenger's side heads. Puff of oil smoke at startup. Eventually this started happening on the driver's side heads too. Worse: a bad run of heads with supposedly faulty valve guides, which resulted in munched valve stems and seals to the point where the valves would rock side-to-side in their seats. The recall was announced for only the Cobras, and I was told by Ford HQ that I was SOL with my model. A little more research on my motors showed EXACTLY the same head casting/camshafts/valves/etc. as what's on the 2003-2004 Cobra. Nice. A little more fighting with Ford and I finally got the revised casting.
Of course, the revised casting started ticking after another year or so of use. Last I heard Ford had not figured out what caused these problems. Ironically, the initial run of 2005 Mustang GTs was held back at the plant due to faulty valve guides (this is on the new 3 valve head). Seems to me Ford can't design heads very well.
I had the dealer start up a brand NEW untitled 2004 Mach I in the showroom just for comparison... it was ticking loudly from the same side of the engine. Go figure.
These heads are huge... Boss 429 huge. When you look deep into the engine bay you get a feel for how cute and small the engine block looks as compared to those gigantor heads. And that's the other point brought up... it's only 4.6l and needs revs to make power. Anyone bitching about the "drop" in low end torque going from an LT1 to an LS1... go try a 4.6L DOHC and get back to me.
And about all that efficiency and small engine size... for such a small engine, that little lump guzzled an enormous amount of fuel. Perhaps a result of the poor factory engine calibrations on my particular model, but DAMN it I just couldn't leave that motor idling without seeing a huge hit on my fuel bill. My much-larger LS1 can idle all afternoon and I'll hardly notice the difference in my consumption. I don't buy the high-tech OHC versus dinosaur OHV argument... I'm betting all that complex valvetrain crap adds weight and makes it harder for such a motor to idle properly without becoming inefficient.
I've seen cheap shattered oil pumps that can't handle aftermarket pullies, beat up bearings and rods from poor tuning, etc... summary: it's far from a bulletproof motor.
And judging by the parts quality on my cars, I wouldn't have much faith in the car's longevity although perhaps the Mustang's higher sales volume means parts suppliers don't have to be as cheap on quality for these cars as they've had to be for lower-volume limited edition vehicles.
Lastly: do you really want to put your life in the hands of a product coming from the company that's been involved in the most fire-related litigations? From flaming diesel trucks (PCM tuning) to exploding SUVs (brake switches) to underhood fires in the big cars (fuse box) to fuel tank-splitting Mustangs... I'll take bent pushrods on a very f***ed-up missed shift any day of the week.
PS: to the one who mentioned plug changes as being a pain in the *** for LS1s (it's still way better than on an LT1), try dealing with poor sealing coil-pack covers on the valvecovers that allow water into the plug wells. Or pull plugs to find them coated with oil from poor sealing of the valve cover against the heads. Or find that your plugs-with-too-short-threads have self-backed-out of their holes and you've been blasting a mixture of hot exhaust and air/fuel out of the gaping hole, worse if the self-removing plug managed to tear the threads clear out of the heads! LOL! I'll gladly take the occasional scrape on my forearm from one maybe two cylinders on an LS1 that are harder to get to.
I owned two 2003 Ford vehicles with exactly the same motor as found in the Mach I albeit equipped with a different crankshaft due to the automatic-only application and the intake pointing the opposite way. Otherwise, as far as I know it's the same motor.
I got to learn a lot about these motors. You can tune the Ford PCM within an inch of its life. There are lots of gains to be had from bolt-ons, since the market for those motors is HUGE (they are very close to the pre-2003 Cobra motors as it is). They are very smooth and will pull very strongly at higher RPMs... I'd say above 3000 RPM maybe 3500 RPM to be safe (depends on what people define as pulling "hard"). For sure it's a visceral thrill to hear a small V8 pulling THAT hard at THAT high an RPM.
I also got to learn a lot about the motor's weaknesses. For one, the driver's side head tends to run hotter due to coolant passage deficiencies. I think the Mustang application actually has some sort of heater connection back there at the rear of the head which helps keep the coolant flow going but there is some stagnation... on some applications where the heater connection doesn't fit, it's murder on the valves and valve guides, and in many cases the pistons themselves. Modified cars usually cook those rear driver's side pistons first, I don't know if this is the same for the Mach I.
There was a really bad batch of valve guides and seals in those motors in 2003. First it was the seals, affecting passenger's side heads. Puff of oil smoke at startup. Eventually this started happening on the driver's side heads too. Worse: a bad run of heads with supposedly faulty valve guides, which resulted in munched valve stems and seals to the point where the valves would rock side-to-side in their seats. The recall was announced for only the Cobras, and I was told by Ford HQ that I was SOL with my model. A little more research on my motors showed EXACTLY the same head casting/camshafts/valves/etc. as what's on the 2003-2004 Cobra. Nice. A little more fighting with Ford and I finally got the revised casting.
Of course, the revised casting started ticking after another year or so of use. Last I heard Ford had not figured out what caused these problems. Ironically, the initial run of 2005 Mustang GTs was held back at the plant due to faulty valve guides (this is on the new 3 valve head). Seems to me Ford can't design heads very well.
I had the dealer start up a brand NEW untitled 2004 Mach I in the showroom just for comparison... it was ticking loudly from the same side of the engine. Go figure.
These heads are huge... Boss 429 huge. When you look deep into the engine bay you get a feel for how cute and small the engine block looks as compared to those gigantor heads. And that's the other point brought up... it's only 4.6l and needs revs to make power. Anyone bitching about the "drop" in low end torque going from an LT1 to an LS1... go try a 4.6L DOHC and get back to me.
And about all that efficiency and small engine size... for such a small engine, that little lump guzzled an enormous amount of fuel. Perhaps a result of the poor factory engine calibrations on my particular model, but DAMN it I just couldn't leave that motor idling without seeing a huge hit on my fuel bill. My much-larger LS1 can idle all afternoon and I'll hardly notice the difference in my consumption. I don't buy the high-tech OHC versus dinosaur OHV argument... I'm betting all that complex valvetrain crap adds weight and makes it harder for such a motor to idle properly without becoming inefficient.
I've seen cheap shattered oil pumps that can't handle aftermarket pullies, beat up bearings and rods from poor tuning, etc... summary: it's far from a bulletproof motor.
And judging by the parts quality on my cars, I wouldn't have much faith in the car's longevity although perhaps the Mustang's higher sales volume means parts suppliers don't have to be as cheap on quality for these cars as they've had to be for lower-volume limited edition vehicles.
Lastly: do you really want to put your life in the hands of a product coming from the company that's been involved in the most fire-related litigations? From flaming diesel trucks (PCM tuning) to exploding SUVs (brake switches) to underhood fires in the big cars (fuse box) to fuel tank-splitting Mustangs... I'll take bent pushrods on a very f***ed-up missed shift any day of the week.
PS: to the one who mentioned plug changes as being a pain in the *** for LS1s (it's still way better than on an LT1), try dealing with poor sealing coil-pack covers on the valvecovers that allow water into the plug wells. Or pull plugs to find them coated with oil from poor sealing of the valve cover against the heads. Or find that your plugs-with-too-short-threads have self-backed-out of their holes and you've been blasting a mixture of hot exhaust and air/fuel out of the gaping hole, worse if the self-removing plug managed to tear the threads clear out of the heads! LOL! I'll gladly take the occasional scrape on my forearm from one maybe two cylinders on an LS1 that are harder to get to.
)
08-18-2007, 01:01 PM
#74
Staging Lane
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beyond the above-mentioned potential drivetrain woes, have a good drive behind the wheel of either car. Sure, the Mustang is a HOOT to drive hard, because it's REALLY exciting! Even more excitement when the pavement's wet.
Maybe I'm getting old but I like to keep my car pointed where I want it to be going, regardless if I'm under power or not. No surprises wanted. My insurance company is no doubt glad I feel this way as well.
While I'd never refer to an F-body as a well balanced (front-to-rear) vehicle, it's a totally different ball game as compared to a Mustang.
Maybe I'm getting old but I like to keep my car pointed where I want it to be going, regardless if I'm under power or not. No surprises wanted. My insurance company is no doubt glad I feel this way as well.
While I'd never refer to an F-body as a well balanced (front-to-rear) vehicle, it's a totally different ball game as compared to a Mustang.
08-18-2007, 01:15 PM
#75
i was there at one time when i sold my 5.0 i was looking at a 04 mach 1 and the LS1 car I have now. I liked both alot, but when it came down to it, the LS1 was the better choice, and was easier to make power with, and alot easier to work on for me anyways. but it all comes down to what YOU want. explore your options, maybe check out some mustang forums and learn up on the Mach 1s a bit, thats what I did when i couldnt decide.
08-18-2007, 06:09 PM
#78
TECH Addict
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Simi Valley, CA.
Posts: 2,727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you can't wait and can afford it get the mach 1. Almost guaranteed it will be in better shape alround than any WS6 you will find. Mach's do respond well to mods and they can do very well at keeping up with LS1's even in N/A form.
If you are willing to wait, just for the simple fact that i'd want another good person added to the brotherhood. i'd say WS6.
If you are willing to wait, just for the simple fact that i'd want another good person added to the brotherhood. i'd say WS6.
08-18-2007, 06:19 PM
#79
Launching!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by capn smokey
Obviously everyone is going to say go with the trans-am and i say the same. But I dont know why people worship the 03-04 cobra. Why would you want a car that weighs 3800lbs and has the aerodynamics of a brick wall? who cares if its supercharged from the factory? With the extra money you spend on one you can easily mod the f-body to handle better, accelerate faster, and get much better gas mileage in the process. And btw stock for stock the termi isnt much faster if any at all in some cases.
08-18-2007, 06:44 PM
#80
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 560SL
This statment just proves how little you know about either car. 3800 pounds for a Terminator? What are you smoking?