Firehawk vs. Mach1???
07-29-2005, 04:51 PM
#22
Originally Posted by dan03mach
Your about right on, on the hp and tq numbers.. Mine put down 289rwhp and 311rwtq bone stock.. The LS1's weight about 200lbs + more then the Machs and that plays a big part in racing..
Yikes!!
Where are you guys getting your information?
Curb weight:
2003 Mustang Mach 1 : 3465 lbs. (manual) 3475 lbs. (automatic)
Linkage: http://www.canadiandriver.com/previews/03mach1.htm
Curb weight:
2000 WS6 Trans Am : 3495-3517 lbs(coupe), 3605-3627 lbs(convertible)
Linkage:
http://modernracer.com/pontiacfirebirdtransamws6.html
Geez, unless the LS1 is a convertible, it is at the most about 50lbs heavier. My SS weighs about 100lbs less than a Mach 1 at 3386lbs.
07-29-2005, 05:47 PM
#23
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Dragging 408's
Posts: 1,790
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Angus66
There's more to racing than just dyno numbers.
RWHP/RWTQ, gearing (both rear & trans), available traction, weight & driving skill (or lack thereof) all come into play.
If racing was as simple as "My dyno sheet is better than yours", then everyone would just stay home & compare dyno runs to determine who's faster.
RWHP/RWTQ, gearing (both rear & trans), available traction, weight & driving skill (or lack thereof) all come into play.
If racing was as simple as "My dyno sheet is better than yours", then everyone would just stay home & compare dyno runs to determine who's faster.
07-29-2005, 05:54 PM
#24
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Killa Cali
Posts: 1,220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
my friend took his 05' stang bone stock to the 1/8 mile track last night.
Automatic
He said he didnt spin the tires on any of the launches.
His best run was 9.3x at 75mph ,, this should help you out on how much you should beat him by.
In my stock Gold T/A, on the freeway it wasnt even close
Automatic
He said he didnt spin the tires on any of the launches.
His best run was 9.3x at 75mph ,, this should help you out on how much you should beat him by.
In my stock Gold T/A, on the freeway it wasnt even close
07-29-2005, 05:59 PM
#25
Staging Lane
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by WicketMike
my friend took his 05' stang bone stock to the 1/8 mile track last night.
Automatic
He said he didnt spin the tires on any of the launches.
His best run was 9.3x at 75mph ,, this should help you out on how much you should beat him by.
In my stock Gold T/A, on the freeway it wasnt even close
Automatic
He said he didnt spin the tires on any of the launches.
His best run was 9.3x at 75mph ,, this should help you out on how much you should beat him by.
In my stock Gold T/A, on the freeway it wasnt even close
Besides having the same rear gear ratio (3.55) & a similar factory hp rating (300 for the '05 GT & 305 for the Mach - both of which are under rated BTW
), they are completely different cars. 
Also, my Mach ran pretty much the EXACT SAME ET as your Gold T/A did when stock - 13.40 @ 104+ mph
My 2.19 60' time could've been better too on that run...
07-29-2005, 06:35 PM
#26
TECH Addict
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AS STATED ALREADY...
The 2002 Firehawk rated a higher HP than a WS6 so if a WS6 is about equal to a Mach 1 in stock trim at the 1/4 then I give a definate edge to the Firehawk.
With equal drivers and no mistakes I give it to the Firehawk (period). This is a generalization and the rest is just a 'pissing contest' IMO.
I say race a Mach 1 and then post the results.
The 2002 Firehawk rated a higher HP than a WS6 so if a WS6 is about equal to a Mach 1 in stock trim at the 1/4 then I give a definate edge to the Firehawk.
With equal drivers and no mistakes I give it to the Firehawk (period). This is a generalization and the rest is just a 'pissing contest' IMO.
I say race a Mach 1 and then post the results.
07-29-2005, 11:27 PM
#29
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Killa Cali
Posts: 1,220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Angus66
WTF does an '05 Mustang have to do with racing a Mach 1?
Besides having the same rear gear ratio (3.55) & a similar factory hp rating (300 for the '05 GT & 305 for the Mach - both of which are under rated BTW ), they are completely different cars.
Also, my Mach ran pretty much the EXACT SAME ET as your Gold T/A did when stock - 13.40 @ 104+ mph
My 2.19 60' time could've been better too on that run...
Besides having the same rear gear ratio (3.55) & a similar factory hp rating (300 for the '05 GT & 305 for the Mach - both of which are under rated BTW
), they are completely different cars. Also, my Mach ran pretty much the EXACT SAME ET as your Gold T/A did when stock - 13.40 @ 104+ mph
My 2.19 60' time could've been better too on that run...
lmao, nothing!
i read this post and another one just before it, about racing an 05' stang and mixed up
07-30-2005, 12:27 AM
#32
TECH Apprentice
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mach 1s are fast, ls1s are fast, you are banned for starting another one of these threads 
we've had like a million ls1 vs. mach 1 threads they just turn into dumb arguing
we've had like a million ls1 vs. mach 1 threads they just turn into dumb arguing
07-30-2005, 02:27 AM
#33
agreed with your point angus. im just saying that it gives the firehawk owner a slight advantage if his car is obviously putting down more hp. but still im not too impressed with the machs. its just a glorified mustang gt. and thats not saying much.
07-30-2005, 02:39 AM
#34
I must say the mach 1 is a great 4.6l. I like the mach's alot. I would have to agree with most that it's a drivers race, with the advantage going to the LS1. The machs are great launchers and that somewhat makes up for a not as good power to weight ratio.
07-30-2005, 02:50 AM
#35
9 Sec. Club!!!
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: HEB TX
Posts: 1,492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TXZ28LS1
agreed with your point angus. im just saying that it gives the firehawk owner a slight advantage if his car is obviously putting down more hp. but still im not too impressed with the machs. its just a glorified mustang gt. and thats not saying much.
07-30-2005, 02:55 AM
#37
9 Sec. Club!!!
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: HEB TX
Posts: 1,492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Hawk312
Yikes!!
Where are you guys getting your information?
Curb weight:
2003 Mustang Mach 1 : 3465 lbs. (manual) 3475 lbs. (automatic)
Linkage: http://www.canadiandriver.com/previews/03mach1.htm
Curb weight:
2000 WS6 Trans Am : 3495-3517 lbs(coupe), 3605-3627 lbs(convertible)
Linkage:
http://modernracer.com/pontiacfirebirdtransamws6.html
Geez, unless the LS1 is a convertible, it is at the most about 50lbs heavier. My SS weighs about 100lbs less than a Mach 1 at 3386lbs.
Where are you guys getting your information?
Curb weight:
2003 Mustang Mach 1 : 3465 lbs. (manual) 3475 lbs. (automatic)
Linkage: http://www.canadiandriver.com/previews/03mach1.htm
Curb weight:
2000 WS6 Trans Am : 3495-3517 lbs(coupe), 3605-3627 lbs(convertible)
Linkage:
http://modernracer.com/pontiacfirebirdtransamws6.html
Geez, unless the LS1 is a convertible, it is at the most about 50lbs heavier. My SS weighs about 100lbs less than a Mach 1 at 3386lbs.
07-30-2005, 03:07 AM
#39
9 Sec. Club!!!
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: HEB TX
Posts: 1,492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Redneck Z
How much did both drivers weigh? How full was your gas tank? Other cars gas tank? Did the other car have heavy subframes on? etc?