SS Camaro VS 04 Mach 1 Video

both cars are modifed, the video is dark, but is very clear to realize who's is the champion on this particular race

3 out of 3 races btw :)

http://home.comcast.net/~spapazian23/SLP_Camaro_vs_Mach_1.wmv

redcamaro your in h.b?
my buddy rolls around in a mystic saleen with a procharger and a plate that reads udreamin, have you seen it? hes crazy, he gets it washed at that hand carwash on beach and main st and he rips it HARD whenever he gos out of there everyone has there mouth open.

if i was you i would switch sides,so the camera man is not filming across the driver. just my opinion.

Too bad the mach1 driver is a cocky *******. He said some other things on another forum and he had his own kind against him. Its a nice vid though.

Ive seen that already. Someone posted this on the SCFYB which is our state F body board. I call BS on this. There is no way that SS Camaro had all those mods and got beat. I say it was stock and the Mach 1 had more than listed. Mach 1's dont normally rev up that fast. I think the guy was spraying.

Great video if you like videos where you can't see anything. Besides the Mach 1 has better mods done to it and steeper gears.

- Z28WannaB

Something's not right with that.

Could just be crappy Camaro driver, I guess.

But I have a hard time believing he beat the car, and not the driver.- Maybe it's the whole "He doesn't have a chance" thing. Since when has the LS1 never had a chance against the N/A 32V?

Like Garbage said, he's cocky bas****. BTW, What did he say on the forum that made him hated?

There's def. something weird with that Camaro, it just didnt seem to pull that hard even though the Mach was modded.

he pulled to hard, the SS prob had the street legal shortie headers thro the factory "SLP" cat back. Still i think there is some BS there, my buddie with a '00 WS6 M6 with lid, and a cut out. beat a Mach 1 with a OR H pipe, bassini exhuast, and K&N intake. And my buddies car doesn't even run that fast. But those 4.10 gears sure do help the stangs

redcamaro your in h.b?
my buddy rolls around in a mystic saleen with a procharger and a plate that reads udreamin, have you seen it? hes crazy, he gets it washed at that hand carwash on beach and main st and he rips it HARD whenever he gos out of there everyone has there mouth open.

if i was you i would switch sides,so the camera man is not filming across the driver. just my opinion.

i haven't seen the car yet :), and i'm not in that video. i just found it at svtperformance.

There is quite a lenghty discussion about this going on at svtperformance.


http://www.svtperformance.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=112796

why is so hard to believe???, both cars are close in power. i'd say the camaro is putting down 330rwhp with headers and 3.73 gears, the mach is putting at least 300rwhp + 4.10gears. auto or not, the mach was simply faster, the camaro may walk away in the long run, perhaps after 120-130mph, it does have more hp, but a mach 1 won't need a nos system or a supercharger to do what this one did to the any other similar powered ls1 fbody.

also, this is not a personal attack ok, just a little explanation :):
ltponykilla, a 32v mach 1 engine would rev faster in every gear specially with 4.10 gears (stock is 3.55),has a better tranny gear ratio than any ls1 fbody vehicle, has better bottom end power than a 99/01 cobra and also a 6800rpm redline, what made you say it won't rev that fast :)

cahill93z, just because your friend beat a mach 1 doesn't mean every ls1 fbody would beat mach's, one more time assuming similar power levels, most of the time is a driver race, we know the camaro has more power so eventually would walk away on the top end. but how many street races go higher than 120-130mph. check on ls1.com and svtperformance.com, do a search on user mach1dsg. he was able to beat a 2002 ss camaro by about half car going from a roll. the camaro was auto and had intake and exhaust done. my friend mach is 5 speed, he only has an slp catback. driver or not driver, i don't think you would need to much skills to go from a roll driving an automatic 2002 ss camaro with 3.42 gears.

There is quite a lenghty discussion about this going on at svtperformance.


http://www.svtperformance.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=112796

i know, is getting crazy right now :)

Im not gona start an arguement with the people calling bs. This is a camaro board, as far as theyre concered the ls1 is UNBEATABLE. Especially by a tiny 281.

thats a made up video everyone knows ls1's never lose :rolleyes: ;)

why is so hard to believe???

Because a gear swap doesn't make a car instantly leap out in front of a car that will normally outrun it like that...

...nice passes on the juice though. :rolleyes:

i smelled :D :confused: gas did you

haha, would you listem to that "GMKILLA" sound off.. he won the race and bragging rights, but labeling the car a "Slomaro" is bound to offend SOMEONE? this is why I get nervous driving next to a Cobra. or as the acronym goes, "Cars Owned By Retarded *******s".

This guys video is badluck. It turned out to be a flame fest on svt, and probably will do the same here. I like mach 1's , very respectable cars,i would like to have one in my driveway... but the guy is a tool. I was suprised the mach beat the LS1 that bad, but then again u cant see how many cars he is pulling all that well.

Not trying to start a fight, I'm honestly just curious; why is your name redcamaro? Did you use to own one?

After reading that site I really think the Mach driver is retarded. He's talking like he's 11 years old. And if you scroll down and look at the member by the name of "ReducedFat" what's up with his avator. He has a '94 formula, yet his picture is of Calvin peeing on a Bowtie. What is this world coming to?

Wow, that sure was a crap video. I love it when people race until 70 mph, then shut it down and call it a win.

Around here, an LS1 with those mods runs well into the 12's. However, I've yet to see a Mach I from around here run 12's period. Regardless, on the top end the Camaro SHOULD have pulled the Mach. But on the street anything can happen, as not all drivers are created equal.

the camaro should, the camaro will, the camaro did, bla,bla,bla,bla
it's on a video guys, face it, 3 out of 3 races :bow: and that mach was not spraying, come on, it would've been worst for that camaro. sorry, like the guy said on the video, better luck next time :)

Yep it is on video :rolleyes: :bow: :o

Wow, that sure was a crap video. I love it when people race until 70 mph, then shut it down and call it a win.

Around here, an LS1 with those mods runs well into the 12's. However, I've yet to see a Mach I from around here run 12's period. Regardless, on the top end the Camaro SHOULD have pulled the Mach. But on the street anything can happen, as not all drivers are created equal.

don't you know, Ghost? who cares about times, Crustangs are always faster on Ford boards - with or without the video to prove it... :o I GUESS the same could be said about the LS1 on our own boards, but I'm biased so I won't say it. :D

I could care less if it has 4.10's. Its not going to rev that fast and jump out on a car that SHOULD smoke its ass without some happy gas. If the cars were really that close in hp it wouldve been a slight pull but not damn 2-3 cars. Thats BS! Both cars are close in weight and hp so neither one shouldve really beat the other. I still say the Mach had some juice up its sleeve or something.

My buddy has a 2000 GT with cold air, pulley, x pipe, and mufflers. He ran a 2003 Mach 1 and pulled him on the HWY. This is a car with 260 hp stock and I know those few mods wont give him over 300hp. Im not just saying this because I think the LS1's are unbeatable or because this is a Camaro board. You must think logically and know that 2 cars that close in hp and weight wont just pull off like that.

Hmm...makes me wonder, I still can't decide whether the camaro driver sucks, or that was a 75 shot off the go.... :cool:

Blah blah blah...the Mustang won...lying or not about mods, he won. On that note...I'll race him! :D

[QUOTE=LT1ponykilla]I could care less if it has 4.10's. Its not going to rev that fast and jump out on a car that SHOULD smoke its ass without some happy gas. If the cars were really that close in hp it wouldve been a slight pull but not damn 2-3 cars. Thats BS! Both cars are close in weight and hp so neither one shouldve really beat the other. I still say the Mach had some juice up its sleeve or something.

QUOTE]

There's also another video you guys might wanna search on there an cry about. It's a guy with a bolt on 2v, no FI, taking a bolt on LS1.
Hell, GT's dont need any kind of power adder to run 12's, and people are doing it.
And this is a Mach..........I love both cars, but you LS1 worshippers are funny :bs:

I understand what you mean, but it seems a bit silly for a 5spd Mach1 to race an Automatic LS1 with less mods.

Its like racing a modified import versus a stock LS1, kinda pointless.

If they were to have the same mods, and equal drivers undoubtably the LS1 car would win.

I don't doubt a car with more modifications can beat my car, its just a ridiculous comparison in my opinion.

- Z28WannaB

[QUOTE=LT1ponykilla]I could care less if it has 4.10's. Its not going to rev that fast and jump out on a car that SHOULD smoke its ass without some happy gas. If the cars were really that close in hp it wouldve been a slight pull but not damn 2-3 cars. Thats BS! Both cars are close in weight and hp so neither one shouldve really beat the other. I still say the Mach had some juice up its sleeve or something.

QUOTE]

There's also another video you guys might wanna search on there an cry about. It's a guy with a bolt on 2v, no FI, taking a bolt on LS1.
Hell, GT's dont need any kind of power adder to run 12's, and people are doing it.
And this is a Mach..........I love both cars, but you LS1 worshippers are funny :bs:

Blah blah blah...the Mustang won...lying or not about mods, he won. On that note...I'll race him! :D

You car is begging for traction. You should run mid to low 12s with slicks.

I understand what you mean, but it seems a bit silly for a 5spd Mach1 to race an Automatic LS1 with less mods.

Its like racing a modified import versus a stock LS1, kinda pointless.

If they were to have the same mods, and equal drivers undoubtably the LS1 car would win.

I don't doubt a car with more modifications can beat my car, its just a ridiculous comparison in my opinion.

- Z28WannaB

Wtf? :confused: So no two cars can ever race unless they have the same exact mods? What a boring world that would be and we could predict the outcome 99% of the time. That's the fun of racing, seeing what mods it takes for a slower stock car to keep up with a faster stock or modded car.

[QUOTE=LT1ponykilla]I could care less if it has 4.10's. Its not going to rev that fast and jump out on a car that SHOULD smoke its ass without some happy gas. If the cars were really that close in hp it wouldve been a slight pull but not damn 2-3 cars. Thats BS! Both cars are close in weight and hp so neither one shouldve really beat the other. I still say the Mach had some juice up its sleeve or something.

QUOTE]

There's also another video you guys might wanna search on there an cry about. It's a guy with a bolt on 2v, no FI, taking a bolt on LS1.
Hell, GT's dont need any kind of power adder to run 12's, and people are doing it.
And this is a Mach..........I love both cars, but you LS1 worshippers are funny :bs:

There should be a rule that Crackheads should not post right after taking a hit. No mustang GT is getting anywhere near 12's without serious work or a power adder. The Mach SHOULD have won this. There no question in my mind that he should be at least .5 quicker the the SS if he SS did not hav a stall.

No mustang GT is getting anywhere near 12's without serious work or a power adder.


http://forums.modulardepot.com/showthread.php?threadid=1877

http://forums.modulardepot.com/showthread.php?threadid=1877

And? To that I say, where are they all at? Even your car with slicks does not hit 12's right? If that were possible, the ls1's should all be hitting deep 12's. The internet is full of stories, dont put faith in them all.

And? To that I say, where are they all at? Even your car with slicks does not hit 12's right? If that were possible, the ls1's should all be hitting deep 12's. The internet is full of stories, dont put faith in them all.

Read the whole thread, plenty of guys there with those mods hit 12s. Stock GTs have gone 13.6s. I don't know what my car with slicks would hit. The cars they were talking about had more mods than mine. I've seen LS1s with slicks, gears and bolt ons hitting deep 12s. I don't put faith in them all, but this one I do.

lol I'd love to run into that mach 1 guy on the street. In fact, a lot of the new mach 1 drivers are very cocky like that, I've been noticing--- but not so much after I race them.

Wtf? :confused: So no two cars can ever race unless they have the same exact mods? What a boring world that would be and we could predict the outcome 99% of the time. That's the fun of racing, seeing what mods it takes for a slower stock car to keep up with a faster stock or modded car.

Well obviously you feel this way, just the other day you posted about how you ripped a VW bug a new one :D

A lot of those Mustang times in the sigs seem awfully LOW.

There has to be some explanation at the video, cause I have destroyed mach 1's at the track and on the highway with equal more/less mods then the one in the video. This summer the 6+ times i have been to the track I have yet to see a mach 1 run less then .5 seconds behind me. I am not worried at all about the video, cause I know what the results are whit two properly running cars.

I'm getting really sick of hearing how the LS1 won't lose mod for mod to a mach 1 with shorter gears and an engine that loves to rev. Mach 1's are running LS1 times consistently, why don't some of you just accept it...the LS1 is no longer the unchallenged king of the street in stock-trim. Both are amazing engines, give credit where credit is due.

I'm getting really sick of hearing how the LS1 won't lose mod for mod to a mach 1 with shorter gears and an engine that loves to rev. Mach 1's are running LS1 times consistently, why don't some of you just accept it...the LS1 is no longer the unchallenged king of the street in stock-trim. Both are amazing engines, give credit where credit is due.

So let me get this straight, your sick of hearing people talk about how the LS1 f-body is superior to a mustang? Well I hate to break it to ya but this is a site for F-BODIES !!!!! Ya don't like it then leave. I however will give the guy props for beating the Camaro...however anybody with half a brain knows that the Camaro should not have lost that badly so driver error was probably a factor. However on the streets anything goes. I think the Camaro was an auto, and in that case the driver of the said Camaro is a dumbass. He dropped down almost instantly and I think it was from his car down shifting.

Well obviously you feel this way, just the other day you posted about how you ripped a VW bug a new one :D

Yep, and 3 months ago I posted how a CRX with a built 2.4 liter motor ripped me to shreds (to the tune of 20+ cars) w/o his nitrous. :eek:

So let me get this straight, your sick of hearing people talk about how the LS1 f-body is superior to a mustang? Well I hate to break it to ya but this is a site for F-BODIES !!!!! Ya don't like it then leave. I however will give the guy props for beating the Camaro...however anybody with half a brain knows that the Camaro should not have lost that badly so driver error was probably a factor. However on the streets anything goes. I think the Camaro was an auto, and in that case the driver of the said Camaro is a dumbass. He dropped down almost instantly and I think it was from his car down shifting.

Just because this is a site for F-bodies doesn't mean it's an escape from reality...well maybe for some of you :cool:

I'm getting really sick of hearing how the LS1 won't lose mod for mod to a mach 1 with shorter gears and an engine that loves to rev. Mach 1's are running LS1 times consistently, why don't some of you just accept it...the LS1 is no longer the unchallenged king of the street in stock-trim. Both are amazing engines, give credit where credit is due.

Where are the 108-109 mph BONE STOCK Mach 1s? We all know there have been a number of bone stock LS1s trapping 108-109 and I have yet to see a Mach 1 trap that high. That doesn't mean they haven't, I'm just not aware of any. :)

Mach 1s are very close to LS1s in performance, but I still think LS1s have an edge. 350-360 hp vs. 320 hp, better gearing and similar weight. I really like the Mach 1s and what Ford is doing in general.

Where are the 108-109 mph BONE STOCK Mach 1s? We all know there have been a number of bone stock LS1s trapping 108-109 and I have yet to see a Mach 1 trap that high. That doesn't mean they haven't, I'm just not aware of any. :)

Mach 1s are very close to LS1s in performance, but I still think LS1s have an edge. 350-360 hp vs. 320 hp, better gearing and similar weight. I really like the Mach 1s and what Ford is doing in general.

Those LS1's that trapped 108-109 "bone stock" were the 2000-2002's, show me a first or 2nd year LS1 with those numbers...give the mach 1 more than a few months in production to pull out some impressive numbers :rolleyes: The first year production models aren't even all out yet. :o

Those LS1's that trapped 108-109 "bone stock" were the 2000-2002's, show me a first or 2nd year LS1 with those numbers...give the mach 1 more than a few months in production to pull out some impressive numbers :rolleyes: The first year production models aren't even all out yet. :o

http://www.stangbangers.com/01_Bullitt_Article2.htm

Scroll down a little. Evan Smith ran a 12.8 @ 108 in a bone stock '99 Z28. That's a Mustang magazine...you gonna say they are biased and the times aren't real? 108 mph has been attained many times in stock LS1s. I was asking if any Mach 1s has trapped 108-109 bone stock. Can you provide ONE example? I don't want to see what they have done with an x-pipe, intake, etc. This was a showroom stock LS1. It has been proven many times that LS1s are capable of running these times stock.

I wasn't bashing the Mach 1s...read my post dumb****. :)

http://www.stangbangers.com/01_Bullitt_Article2.htm

Scroll down a little. Evan Smith ran a 12.8 @ 108 in a bone stock '99 Z28. 108 mph has been attained many times in stock LS1s. I was asking if any Mach 1s has trapped 108-109 bone stock. Can you provide ONE example? I don't want to see what they have done with an x-pipe, intake, etc. This was a showroom stock LS1. It has been proven many times that LS1s are capable of running these times stock.

I wasn't bashing the Mach 1s...read my post dumb****. :)

Well you just proved your intelligence level...so I'll just reiterate my last post, since you guys on this site fail miserably in comparison to the folks on LS1.com and I don't want to waste any more of my time. Give...the...(still with me here chief?)mach...1...some...time...at the track. There, I even typed it slow so you could keep up. I've seen mach 1 times at 13.1, and you're telling me a factory freak mach 1 won't break into the 12's? I think that bowtie around your neck is cutting off circulation to your brain...makes me want to re-think my next car because of moron owners like you.

Well you just proved your intelligence level...so I'll just reiterate my last post, since you guys on this site fail miserably in comparison to the folks on LS1.com and I don't want to waste any more of my time. Give...the...(still with me here chief?)mach...1...some...time...at the track. There, I even typed it slow so you could keep up. I've seen mach 1 times at 13.1, and you're telling me a factory freak mach 1 won't break into the 12's? I think that bowtie around your neck is cutting off circulation to your brain...makes me want to re-think my next car because of moron owners like you.

lol Thanks for the laugh. :) When did I say the Mach 1s weren't capable of running 12s and trapping 108 stock? You're making stuff up there big guy. In my first post, I asked if they have. That's it. All I said was I feel LS1s still have a slight edge on the Machs. I have a hard time believeing you're this retarded.

I said I like the cars and what Ford is doing. Pull your head out of your ass and stop being so defensive.

Oh well let me give you a big e-hug for the misunderstanding...

When most people say a car runs xx.xx@xxx, then asks if another car will run that time stock, it usually implies something else...quit trying to change your arguements, you look dumb.

Oh well let me give you a big e-hug for the misunderstanding...

When most people say a car runs xx.xx@xxx, then asks if another car will run that time stock, it usually implies something else...quit trying to change your arguements, you look dumb.

lol Man, you're delusional or just really stupid (I'm leaning towards the latter at this point). You classified me as a typical LS1 owner right when u saw I owned a LS1. I know the attitude you are speaking of, but that's not me. I couldn't care less what you think. Go to LS1tech if that's where u want to post (doh! I post there too).

Have a day. :)

Damn, this forum has really gone to hell :o :yuck: :tired:

Damn, this forum has really gone to hell :o :yuck: :tired:

I wasn't aware this forum had an origination other than hell..? :confused:

Damn, this forum has really gone to hell :o :yuck: :tired:

heaven forbid there should be open debate on a forum! :eek:

So, you're saying Mach 1s aren't that far off from Cobras? Which is stupid because they come with a supercharger.

The machs are faster than N/A cobras...lighter block, aluminum instead of forged. So yeah...I haven't seen any machs hit high 12's yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if they do since I have seen very low 13's out of them so far.

BTW just for the record, I would buy an LS1 over a Mach simply for the top-end...I am not biased towards fords or any other auto maker.

The machs are faster than N/A cobras...lighter block, aluminum instead of forged. So yeah...I haven't seen any machs hit high 12's yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if they do since I have seen very low 13's out of them so far.

Oh ok. You've seen very low 13s for BONE stock Mach 1s?

Go to thecorral.net or ls1.com and see what kind of times some of the quicker machs are running

dang, its rare a mach 1 pull an LS1 like that, if i had to make a guess i would say that looks like he has an extra 100-150hp leaking into that intake somehow to pull the Ls1 that hard when they had such comparable things done.
But then again, not every LS1 runs as good. Mabey due to driver or its just dont run good. I drove a buddies 2002 SS and it didnt feel like it pulled hard at all compared to alot of other LS1s. We ran him with another stock LS1 and he got walked pretty good. So i guess a good strong running mach 1 could pull an LS1 like that.
There was a guy around here with a 100 shot on a "1999" GT running 7.5s in the 1/8th. That is unheard of for newer GT. Not to mention the guy with the fastest stock cammed 306 in the world tuned it, but needless to say all that was done was a 100shot, higher gears, cold air and exhaust.

Any Ls1 w/ a few good mods would run you hard, especially a well driven 6spd...I attribute those defeats to a bad camaro driver

if anyone should be embarassed it should be mustang owners for absolutely being owned for about ten years in a row 199-2002 by the camaro.the v6 camaro was faster than the v6 stang ,the z28 was much faster than the gt and the ss edged out the cobra.i mean is there any doubt who was champ of the 4th gen.also, as far as aftermarket goes its obvious the ls1 responds to mods much better than the 4.6 mustang.it may sound biased but everything i typed is a fact.the camaro is to the 4th gen what mopar was to the muscle car era.

if anyone should be embarassed it should be mustang owners for absolutely being owned for about ten years in a row 199-2002 by the camaro.the v6 camaro was faster than the v6 stang ,the z28 was much faster than the gt and the ss edged out the cobra.i mean is there any doubt who was champ of the 4th gen.also, as far as aftermarket goes its obvious the ls1 responds to mods much better than the 4.6 mustang.it may sound biased but everything i typed is a fact.the camaro is to the 4th gen what mopar was to the muscle car era.

< yawn >. Yes I'm embarassed for sure. :D

if anyone should be embarassed it should be mustang owners for absolutely being owned for about ten years in a row 199-2002 by the camaro.the v6 camaro was faster than the v6 stang ,the z28 was much faster than the gt and the ss edged out the cobra.i mean is there any doubt who was champ of the 4th gen.also, as far as aftermarket goes its obvious the ls1 responds to mods much better than the 4.6 mustang.it may sound biased but everything i typed is a fact.the camaro is to the 4th gen what mopar was to the muscle car era.

In '93 the Cobra and the LX 5.0 was a great race with an LT1, there wasn't an SS. In '96-'97 the Cobra could tie or beat the SS. In '99 and '01 the Cobra was very close to the SS again. Chevy should be embarassed for worse build quality, a horrible time seeing out of the car, hard to work on car, hump in the passenger seat floor, leaky T-tops, crappy heating and a/c, a rattling and squeaking car and for killing the Camaro in '02 with no confirmed new one yet.

In '93 the Cobra and the LX 5.0 was a great race with an LT1, there wasn't an SS. In '96-'97 the Cobra could tie or beat the SS. In '99 and '01 the Cobra was very close to the SS again. Chevy should be embarassed for worse build quality, a horrible time seeing out of the car, hard to work on car, hump in the passenger seat floor, leaky T-tops, crappy heating and a/c, a rattling and squeaking car and for killing the Camaro in '02 with no confirmed new one yet.

Are you a midget? :P The cars are only hard to see out of if you're short. The cars aren't hard to work on, once you learn how to work on them (same with every car). The hump in the floor isn't noticeable, it's not a big deal. The t-tops on both my camaros have never leaked. The heater and A/C work great and the car has no squeak or rattles (yet :P). We could go on about Mustang's flaws but why bother. Neither are luxury cars. However, I'd give the build quality to the Mustang. GM definitely could have done a better job, but the reason most people buy f-bodies is for the power. I think GM went the right direction with the interior in the GTO....but the styling of the car is so plain. If GM brings back the f-body and gets it right, I may consider buying one. If not, It's a C5 or a german car.

Are you a midget? :P The cars are only hard to see out of if you're short. The cars aren't hard to work on, once you learn how to work on them (same with every car). The hump in the floor isn't noticeable, it's not a big deal. The t-tops on both my camaros have never leaked. The heater and A/C work great and the car has no squeak or rattles (yet :P). We could go on about Mustang's flaws but why bother. Neither are luxury cars. However, I'd give the build quality to the Mustang. GM definitely could have done a better job, but the reason most people buy f-bodies is for the power. I think GM went the right direction with the interior in the GTO....but the styling of the car is so plain. If GM brings back the f-body and gets it right, I may consider buying one. If not, It's a C5 or a german car.

My one and only complaint with GM with the 4th gens mechanically is the weak rear end. With as much power as the LS-1 is pushing they should have at least put in a 12 bolt with 31 spline axles stock.

Chevy should be embarassed for worse build quality, a horrible time seeing out of the car, hard to work on car, hump in the passenger seat floor, leaky T-tops, crappy heating and a/c, a rattling and squeaking car and for killing the Camaro in '02 with no confirmed new one yet.

You should be embarrassed about your GT running a 14.0.
btw, My a/c and heat is fine, Ttops dont leak. I do have a few rattles as all cars with a little age do, its nothing major at all though. but then again i would rather have a rattle then run a 14.0. :D

You should be embarrassed about your GT running a 14.0.
btw, My a/c and heat is fine, Ttops dont leak. I do have a few rattles as all cars with a little age do, its nothing major at all though. but then again i would rather have a rattle then run a 14.0. :DYea im not even gonna go into it w/ him.... I had three fbodys and the AC was great on each and every one of them, never had ttops, and the squeaks can be taken care of w/ a few structural mods or a SS/firehawk model. As far as not being able to see outta the car, I never understood that one...I test drove a 2003 5spd GT and the ONLY thing I saw better then a fbody was it felt more solid(less rattleing)....The poor excelleration and torque down low/mid quickly outweighed the fbodies structeral weaknesses...

Are you a midget? :P The cars are only hard to see out of if you're short. The cars aren't hard to work on, once you learn how to work on them (same with every car). The hump in the floor isn't noticeable, it's not a big deal. The t-tops on both my camaros have never leaked. The heater and A/C work great and the car has no squeak or rattles (yet :P). We could go on about Mustang's flaws but why bother. Neither are luxury cars. However, I'd give the build quality to the Mustang. GM definitely could have done a better job, but the reason most people buy f-bodies is for the power. I think GM went the right direction with the interior in the GTO....but the styling of the car is so plain. If GM brings back the f-body and gets it right, I may consider buying one. If not, It's a C5 or a german car.

I am 6' .5" tall w/o shoes. Too little room under the hood and the engine is under the dash. The plugs, wires and opti are a nightmare to change on an LT1. That hump is a pita when you are sitting on the passenger side. My fathers two Z28s, '93 and '94 both leaked like crazy. One was 2 years old with 4000 miles on it the other 6 years old with 40,000 miles when he got them. The a/c and heater sucks big time compared to my Stang. Yes the power is great in the F-bodies. The Stang is certainly no Japanese car as far as build quality is concerned but it is a lot better than the Camaro.

You should be embarrassed about your GT running a 14.0.
btw, My a/c and heat is fine, Ttops dont leak. I do have a few rattles as all cars with a little age do, its nothing major at all though. but then again i would rather have a rattle then run a 14.0. :D

My car ran a 14.0 before the last round of mods w/o powershifting. Most stock LS1 autos run mid to high 13s (only a little faster than a 14.0). I should run about what user name 1998GT4.6 runs:

Black 1998 Mustang GT- 2001 PI Motor, BBK Off Road X-Pipe, 2 Chamber Flows, CAI, K&N, Nitto Drag Radials

Best ET-13.463@102 w/1.921 60ft

In the fall, we will see.

In '93 the Cobra and the LX 5.0 was a great race with an LT1, there wasn't an SS. In '96-'97 the Cobra could tie or beat the SS. In '99 and '01 the Cobra was very close to the SS again. Chevy should be embarassed for worse build quality, a horrible time seeing out of the car, hard to work on car, hump in the passenger seat floor, leaky T-tops, crappy heating and a/c, a rattling and squeaking car and for killing the Camaro in '02 with no confirmed new one yet.isnt it sad from 93 to 97 and lt1 z28 was faster than a cobra,and how about that poorly located manual shifter on mustangs how stupid.i recall tsbs on the 99 and 00 mustang 4.6 for leaking oil at the head gasket.ls1 is more reliable than a 4.6 .

I have owned both and the build quality on the mustang is better and that is not really up for debate.

Yes the chevys are quicker in the years in question but, not by much.

Mustang lacks out of the box power but the aftermarket is usually stronger and it is a better drag racers platform.

GM screwed up by killing the F-Body. They should have condensed the line and kept some of the market share.

isnt it sad from 93 to 97 and lt1 z28 was faster than a cobra,and how about that poorly located manual shifter on mustangs how stupid.i recall tsbs on the 99 and 00 mustang 4.6 for leaking oil at the head gasket.ls1 is more reliable than a 4.6 .

You commenting on the reliabilty of those engines is out of school. Niether of them have been around nearly long enough to get a good overall impression of what breaks and how long they will last. Time will tell.

Both engines have their faults and the LS1 makes great power for what people call old school technology :rolleyes:

If you want to pull TSBs...I think that you will find pretty consistent numbers between both. I have a F-150 with the 4.6L in it with over 150K running like a champ.

first of all,the aftermarket for the ls1 is much better than the 4.6 ,it is obvious also the ls1 reacts better to mods.camaro ruled the 4th gen.no debate.ever read car magazines?what gets more praise from phr,car craft,and hot rod,obviously the ls1,also called one of the greatest engines of the past decade by car craft 4.6 didnt even make the list.

first of all,the aftermarket for the ls1 is much better than the 4.6 ,it is obvious also the ls1 reacts better to mods.camaro ruled the 4th gen.no debate.ever read car magazines?what gets more praise from phr,car craft,and hot rod,obviously the ls1,also called one of the greatest engines of the past decade by car craft 4.6 didnt even make the list.

So if the LS-1 is so much better, how come the fastest 2V and 4V 4.6's are faster than the fastest LS-1's? Fastest 2V is in the low 8's, fastest 4V is in the 6's.

So if the LS-1 is so much better, how come the fastest 2V and 4V 4.6's are faster than the fastest LS-1's? Fastest 2V is in the low 8's, fastest 4V is in the 6's.

That has to be the most idiotic logic I've ever seen. :rolleyes:

So if the LS-1 is so much better, how come the fastest 2V and 4V 4.6's are faster than the fastest LS-1's? Fastest 2V is in the low 8's, fastest 4V is in the 6's.

better doesn't exactly mean fastest...

in the past decade mstang never had a factory mustang faster than a 4th gen camaro ss .i think its sad thatford had to supercharge the 4.6 to make it a faster car than a ls1 camaro.go to a mustang forum and they start talking about what mods do i need to run with the ls1s.here ls1 owners dont have that problem.

isnt it sad from 93 to 97 and lt1 z28 was faster than a cobra,and how about that poorly located manual shifter on mustangs how stupid.i recall tsbs on the 99 and 00 mustang 4.6 for leaking oil at the head gasket.ls1 is more reliable than a 4.6 .

The LT1 was not faster than the '96 and '97 Cobras, and they were very close in '93. The manual shifter is better for me on Stangs than Camaros, but I have long arms and am over 6' tall. How about the leaking intake on LT1s? :D How about the ring slapping, pushrod bending LS1s? :D The LS1 is not more reliable than the 4.6.

in the past decade mstang never had a factory mustang faster than a 4th gen camaro ss .i think its sad thatford had to supercharge the 4.6 to make it a faster car than a ls1 camaro.go to a mustang forum and they start talking about what mods do i need to run with the ls1s.here ls1 owners dont have that problem.

Yet another idiotic newbie. Ford didn't "have" to supercharge the 4.6 to beat the LS1, they chose to. They could have done a n/a 5.4 DOHC, a 6.8, a 4.6 DOHC etc. and beat the LS1 if they wanted to bad enough. And Camaro never had a factory car that was faster than an '03 Cobra, your point? The LS1 guys have the problem of what mods do they need to run with the '03 Cobra. :D

first of all,the aftermarket for the ls1 is much better than the 4.6 ,it is obvious also the ls1 reacts better to mods.camaro ruled the 4th gen.no debate.ever read car magazines?what gets more praise from phr,car craft,and hot rod,obviously the ls1,also called one of the greatest engines of the past decade by car craft 4.6 didnt even make the list.

Yeah, the '03 Cobra motor is a weak, unreliable POS. :rolleyes:

well the ls1 guys dont have to worry about what mods do i need to beat a 03 cobra,lol,its called supercharging the ls1.lol.bye bye cobra.1993 being a close race between the cobra and z28?yes it was fairly close with the cobras normally running high 14s and the earlty lt1s like mine running low 14s on average,but it dont matter if the z28 was faster by only 5 tenths.it was faster.by the way,the cobra also cost about two more grand back then than a z.how about that head gasket leaking,lean condition running,2nd to 3rd problemshifting tsb plaqued 4.6 now.pushrod power.camaro owned the 4th gen ask anyone with knowledge.

well the ls1 guys dont have to worry about what mods do i need to beat a 03 cobra,lol,its called supercharging the ls1.lol.bye bye cobra.1993 being a close race between the cobra and z28?yes it was fairly close with the cobras normally running high 14s and the earlty lt1s like mine running low 14s on average,but it dont matter if the z28 was faster by only 5 tenths.it was faster.by the way,the cobra also cost about two more grand back then than a z.how about that head gasket leaking,lean condition running,2nd to 3rd problemshifting tsb plaqued 4.6 now.pushrod power.camaro owned the 4th gen ask anyone with knowledge.

Yeah, it's a great idea to supercharge an engine with 10.1 to 1 compression and hyperpathetic pistions. :rolleyes: The '93 Cobra and LT1 had more like 1 to 2 tenths seperating them, not 5. I've never heard of the 4.6 problems you describe and I own one! Yes the 4th gen Camaro had great power until you pulled up to an '03 Cobra. :D

well the ls1 guys dont have to worry about what mods do i need to beat a 03 cobra,lol,its called supercharging the ls1.lol.bye bye cobra.

Oh, if it were only that simple. Ever hear of forged internals? The Cobra has them, the LS1 doesn't. More boost for the Cobra. Another weak link for the Camaro is the 10-bolt rear. Yes, the Cobra has the IRS problem of getting good traction and not hopping all over the place, but AFAIK, the rear end won't break without MUCH more abuse than the stock Camaro rear-end can handle.

look up mustang tsbs on the net youll find the problems with the 4.6.dont be surprised if you see an all new camaro for 2007 that will continue the tradition of whooping mustangs.only time will tell.looks like the 05 mustang is already in trouble.the 05 gto is getting the ls2 with 400 ponies.

come on guys, we know we are on the camaro forums, but i don't think some american competition would damage anything, besides i don't think we have to remember fbodies are death already, and mustang won the war with 03/04 cobra's, let alone the latest ford GT. also no need to remember you guys again, mach'1s are the closest N/A competition that an ls1 powered fbody can have. i think everybody knows the ls1 has the edge on top end because of displacement, but nobody can argue about the capabilities of the latest N/A 32v 4.6L Mach 1 engine, simply the most powerfull N/A 4.6L engine ford offered on an mustang platform, it would smoke lt1's and run side by side with ls1's. period, wheather some of you like this idea or not, is a fact, is documented, is proven, you have a video here right now :)
stop this crap about what car was more powerful or not, because it was, but the fbody era is gone, too bad gm killed such a wonderful car to bring their gto pos and think they could replace their muscle icons with this kind of import garbage. i said this before but i'd say it again, you guys has a lot more competition now days than ever before, you saw a mach1 smoking an ss camaro and half of you guys are crying because of this ???? come on, at least it was a mach 1, it wasn't an srt-4 or a 350z, or an evo8 or ans sti , stop moaning and bitching, ls1's are not that almighty anymore :p

I just find it funny that it took Ford 5 years to come out with a Mustang that was any competition for the LS1.

I dont care what kind of car beat it, if it's faster; it's faster. But the fact is that the LS1 has proven to be an amazing engine, so I would still consider it pretty "almighty." I'm glad to see that the LS1 finally has something to play with. Like I said, it took Ford long enough. And it's even more funny now because F-Bodies arent even made any more.

I just find it funny that it took Ford 5 years to come out with a Mustang that was any competition for the LS1.

Do you guys not realize Ford could have introduced a Mustang that would have beat the f-bodies all those years? It was a matter of choice, not ability...and look which car is still being produced. I love the power of the 4th gen f-bodies and wouldn't buy a Mustang (they just don't appeal to me)...but to think Ford COULDN'T produce a f-body killer all those years is ridiculous.

The 03 cobra came after the Fbodies time, only then did it win stock for stock becaus the Fbody wasent around in 03. But that only leaves it to contend with the Z06, which is faster then an 03 cobra.


However, to make it fair, if someone wants to say "what if GM put some forced induction on the LS1s in 2003 like the cobras have, we can still put a little shot of nitrous preferably, or some other forced induction on our little outdated LS1s and cause the 03/04 cobras to have to modify away to keep up. Godforbid we get fordged internals like the cobra or there is NO COMPETATION for an LS1 once that happens.

I completly understand that it was a choice, I'm just saying, they didnt produce a Mustang that was any competition to the LS1. Like you said, they didnt have to because everyone was buying Stangs instead of F-Bodies. But looking at it in a pure performance way, the Stang was the weaker car.

The 03 cobra came after the Fbodies time, only then did it win stock for stock becaus the Fbody wasent around in 03. But that only leaves it to contend with the Z06, which is faster then an 03 cobra.


However, to make it fair, if someone wants to say "what if GM put some forced induction on the LS1s in 2003 like the cobras have, we can still put a little shot of nitrous preferably, or some other forced induction on our little outdated LS1s and cause the 03/04 cobras to have to modify away to keep up. Godforbid we get fordged internals like the cobra or there is NO COMPETATION for an LS1 once that happens.

Once again, look at prior post. Fastest 4.6's in both 2V and 4V configuration are faster than the fastest LS-1's, and that is a fact. Maybe that other newbie tard (not you) will see where the argument was aimed at now, if he has any intelligence at all that is :)

I completly understand that it was a choice, I'm just saying, they didnt produce a Mustang that was any competition to the LS1. Like you said, they didnt have to because everyone was buying Stangs instead of F-Bodies. But looking at it in a pure performance way, the Stang was the weaker car.
99 and '01 Cobras were a hair behind the LS-1 with fastest ones running in the 13.3 range at 106. I've witnessed more than one on stock rubber dead ass stock do it, in 3 different states to boot. The Cobra R (though limited in production) was quite a bit faster than the fastest LS-1 F-body stock :)

That has to be the most idiotic logic I've ever seen. :rolleyes:

And how do you figure? The argument was made that LS-1's respond to mods better than the Modular Ford family of engines. These cars are simply having head work done, replacing the rods and pistons and adding a power adder. Last time I checked these were mods and were within my realm of argument. LS-1's with the same internal work with the same power adders are running slower. Again, these cars are modded, but are still running slower times. Everything I stated was a direct and factual rebuttal to said argument and made perfect sense.

look up mustang tsbs on the net youll find the problems with the 4.6.dont be surprised if you see an all new camaro for 2007 that will continue the tradition of whooping mustangs.only time will tell.looks like the 05 mustang is already in trouble.the 05 gto is getting the ls2 with 400 ponies.

But we won't find any tsbs on any Chevy, right? :rolleyes: You are speculating on the '07 Camaro. I will then speculate that the new Cobra will whip the '07 Camaro. The '05 Gto also costs $10K+ dollars more than the new Stang and is a lot heavier.

The 03 cobra came after the Fbodies time, only then did it win stock for stock becaus the Fbody wasent around in 03. But that only leaves it to contend with the Z06, which is faster then an 03 cobra.


However, to make it fair, if someone wants to say "what if GM put some forced induction on the LS1s in 2003 like the cobras have, we can still put a little shot of nitrous preferably, or some other forced induction on our little outdated LS1s and cause the 03/04 cobras to have to modify away to keep up. Godforbid we get fordged internals like the cobra or there is NO COMPETATION for an LS1 once that happens.

:cry: Well they didn't. They bowed out of the war and lost. Coulda, shoulda woulda.

Maybe that other newbie tard (not you) will see where the argument was aimed at now, if he has any intelligence at all that is :)

Was that comment aimed at me? Just because I dont have 15,000 posts doesnt mean I'm a newbie. I didnt say anything to offend anyone, I was typing what I thought. I'm on this Forum a lot and have seen a lot of these arguments, I just wish I never responded.

Was that comment aimed at me? Just because I dont have 15,000 posts doesnt mean I'm a newbie. I didnt say anything to offend anyone, I was typing what I thought. I'm on this Forum a lot and have seen a lot of these arguments, I just wish I never responded.

I'm pretty sure he was talking about lovescamaros25.

look up mustang tsbs on the net youll find the problems with the 4.6.dont be surprised if you see an all new camaro for 2007 that will continue the tradition of whooping mustangs.only time will tell.looks like the 05 mustang is already in trouble.the 05 gto is getting the ls2 with 400 ponies.

too bad for you there won't be a 2007 camaro :(, and what was that about the 05 mustang having troubles, people are getting lined up to buy one, is not like the gto (grand am clone POS) that is not selling according to what pontiac was expecting, the 05 gto is getting the ls2 with 400 ponies, still the 03/04 cobra would kick its azz, you have mach1's and new mustang gt's that are running / would run side by side with ls1's.
so i don't know about that tradition you're talking about:)
the only thing gm has left is the forever almighty CORVETTE :bow: and would see what the next cobra would do to a z06 :)

Why must people always use the best in their situation versus the weakest in the "arguers" situation.

'Yeah, well an automatic LS1 has run a high 13 so they must ALL do that. 'Never mind that many people can break 13s with LT1 autos.

And look, look at this 5spd swapped Mustang with modifications, it runs faster than the worst representation of an automatic LS1.

See See! I'm right!

Steve Y you have just presented the most obvious logical fallacies.

My favorite one is when they go run on the track and leave themself a "handicap" so later they can blame a few tenths on that. Oh well, my air filter was dirty, oh I didn't have new tires, oh I didn't POWERSHIFT. Give me a break. Who doesn't "powershift" when they drag race, you are already raping your car might as well see what time it can pull. :rolleyes:



My car ran a 14.0 before the last round of mods w/o powershifting. Most stock LS1 autos run mid to high 13s (only a little faster than a 14.0). I should run about what user name 1998GT4.6 runs:

Black 1998 Mustang GT- 2001 PI Motor, BBK Off Road X-Pipe, 2 Chamber Flows, CAI, K&N, Nitto Drag Radials

Best ET-13.463@102 w/1.921 60ft

In the fall, we will see.

Was that comment aimed at me? Just because I dont have 15,000 posts doesnt mean I'm a newbie. I didnt say anything to offend anyone, I was typing what I thought. I'm on this Forum a lot and have seen a lot of these arguments, I just wish I never responded.

Not you, the person who said my argument was "Idiotic"

Im just curious, do F-Body guys go on mustang forums and talk mess? like these mustang guys?

I love fast cars, Chevy, Ford, or Dodge.... if its fast, i like it

they come on these forums and talk trash because last year was the first year they could actually contend with the lt1 and ls1 yr for yr with the intro of the 03 cobra.lets see that 03 cobra vs a 4th gen zl1 camaro.hmmmmm.the reason i said the mustang is in troble for 05 is there is not going to be an 05 cobra,and im pretty damn sure the new ls2 gto will smack it around,and really give the artificially aspirated 03-04 cobra a run for its money if not blow it away with.if its anywhere near as fast as the 05 vette it will run 12s all day long.

ive seen plenty for the lt1 and ls1,but has anyone seen any car mags other than mustangs and fast fords and 5.0,use the 4.6 engine for articles?not me.oppen up popular hot rodding,car craft,hot rod and what do you see ls1 the engine that was made by gods own hand.

Not you, the person who said my argument was "Idiotic"

Ok, sorry for blaming you.

The lunacy of some of the stuff said in this forum is incredibly funny. However, it also means that there is no chance what-so-ever of having a reasonable discussion. However, I pulled one comment that made me so curious that I just had to ask a question about it...

i recall tsbs on the 99 and 00 mustang 4.6 for leaking oil at the head gasket.
I would really like to see that TSB. You see, I have a 99 4.6, and it used a bit of oil up until recently (engine rebuild) - about a quart every 2500 miles or so. Do you think it could be a leaky head gasket?

Thanks.

its very likely it was leaking from the head gasket,thats what the 99-00 4.6 was bad for.i will admit it has less problems than the ls1 though not a better engine in my opinion.

its very likely it was leaking from the head gasket,thats what the 99-00 4.6 was bad for.i will admit it has less problems than the ls1 though not a better engine in my opinion.
LOL. Thank you.

Hook.

Line.

Sinker.

Have a nice day. :)

And how do you figure? The argument was made that LS-1's respond to mods better than the Modular Ford family of engines. These cars are simply having head work done, replacing the rods and pistons and adding a power adder. Last time I checked these were mods and were within my realm of argument. LS-1's with the same internal work with the same power adders are running slower. Again, these cars are modded, but are still running slower times. Everything I stated was a direct and factual rebuttal to said argument and made perfect sense.

Um..There's more to a car than just the engine.

Um..There's more to a car than just the engine.
You know what? You are absolutely correct. Please explain the non-engine, mechanically-relevant differences between a fast Mustang and a fast F-body. As this is obviously in reference to the fastest 4.6 vs the fastest LS1, I suggest using those as examples for you to base your explanation on.

Thanks.

i don't know why the lt1 guys are crying this much about this topic. i don't see too many ls1's owners complaining here and as far as i know, those are the fast ones.

stop complaining about mustangs, after all, is just competition :D , more competition mean gm should think better and bring the fbody again, instead of putting more power into their australian grand am POS. even with an ls2 engine, a 03/04 cobra would kick their azzes, you know this already.... :D

Im just curious, do F-Body guys go on mustang forums and talk mess? like these mustang guys?



Generalizing aren't we? I have owned 3 f-bodies including one in the time I have been here (5 1/2 years) and have just as much right to be here as anyone else.

Um..There's more to a car than just the engine.

I know that perfectly well. Shall we talk rear ends? Seems that the Ford 8.8, which is almost the same design as the G.M. 12 bolt, is superior to the 10 bolt G.M. Everyone I have talked to and have heard from says that the Mustang was put together better than the F-body. Everyone usually agrees that the Mustang is easier to live with on a daily basis than the f-body. You are right, there is more to a car than just the engine :)

I know that perfectly well. Shall we talk rear ends? Seems that the Ford 8.8, which is almost the same design as the G.M. 12 bolt, is superior to the 10 bolt G.M. Everyone I have talked to and have heard from says that the Mustang was put together better than the F-body. Everyone usually agrees that the Mustang is easier to live with on a daily basis than the f-body. You are right, there is more to a car than just the engine :)

Dude, I'm just saying I don't think the 4.6L is a better engine than the LS1 EVEN though a car that has a 4.6L in it is quicker.

stop complaining about mustangs, after all, is just competition :D , more competition mean gm should think better and bring the fbody again, instead of putting more power into their australian grand am POS. even with an ls2 engine, a 03/04 cobra would kick their azzes, you know this already.... :D


I agree with that, lol. The current gto sucks, even with the LS1 power plant. I dont think an LS2 would help it alot enough to content with some strong 03/04 cobras. That brings back the statement, its not just the motor that makes the car great. So the LS1 isnt the only good thing about fbodies. I dont think the 4.6 is a better motor then the Ls1, it was jsut to easy to get my car to run awsome times i havent seen any 4.6s accomplish as easy as some of the Ls1s.

Dude, I'm just saying I don't think the 4.6L is a better engine than the LS1 EVEN though a car that has a 4.6L in it is quicker.

Better is in the eyes of the beholder. I would honestly put the top iterations of both on equal footing.

OMG lol you guys are STILL argueing. God, the ls1 got pulled on by an n/a 4.6. GET OVER IT. That video should be in the riply's believe or not museam. "Watch as this ls1 actually LOSES to a slower car!!!"


Off topic, redcamaro, how does the LM sound with that xpipe?

Damn, this forum has really gone to hell :o :yuck: :tired:

Ya, it wears me out sometimes :cry:

Why must people always use the best in their situation versus the weakest in the "arguers" situation.

'Yeah, well an automatic LS1 has run a high 13 so they must ALL do that. 'Never mind that many people can break 13s with LT1 autos.

And look, look at this 5spd swapped Mustang with modifications, it runs faster than the worst representation of an automatic LS1.

See See! I'm right!

Steve Y you have just presented the most obvious logical fallacies.

My favorite one is when they go run on the track and leave themself a "handicap" so later they can blame a few tenths on that. Oh well, my air filter was dirty, oh I didn't have new tires, oh I didn't POWERSHIFT. Give me a break. Who doesn't "powershift" when they drag race, you are already raping your car might as well see what time it can pull. :rolleyes:

I was talking about Kamaro98's car. He has an automatic LS1. I was referring to a stock car like his because he was bashing me. I know 6-speeds have more potential. I didn't leave myself a "handicap." I just haven't made it to a track with timeslips yet with my current mods. It is 85 miles each way to a 4000' track and 140 miles each way to a sea level track for me. I will run the car in the cool fall weather at sea level and give times with no excuses. Wait and see. I don't powershift because this is my only daily driver and it's not worth breaking it for .1 or .2.

Im just curious, do F-Body guys go on mustang forums and talk mess? like these mustang guys?

I love fast cars, Chevy, Ford, or Dodge.... if its fast, i like it

We don't talk mess. We just try to keep some of these bs spewing idiotic Chevy guys from posting so much nonsense.

they come on these forums and talk trash because last year was the first year they could actually contend with the lt1 and ls1 yr for yr with the intro of the 03 cobra.lets see that 03 cobra vs a 4th gen zl1 camaro.hmmmmm.the reason i said the mustang is in troble for 05 is there is not going to be an 05 cobra,and im pretty damn sure the new ls2 gto will smack it around,and really give the artificially aspirated 03-04 cobra a run for its money if not blow it away with.if its anywhere near as fast as the 05 vette it will run 12s all day long.

Dumbass, in '93, '96, '97, '99, and '01 the LT1 and LS1 more than had it's hands full with those year Cobras. The '03 Cobra more than contends with the LS1, it whips it's ass. The '05 Vette was just tested in Motor Trend. It ran 12.7 at 112.3. They got an '03 Cobra to go 12.8 at 112ish. The GTO will have the same motor and be a lot heavier than the Vette. The '03 Cobra will smack the Gto down, stock for stock.

ive seen plenty for the lt1 and ls1,but has anyone seen any car mags other than mustangs and fast fords and 5.0,use the 4.6 engine for articles?not me.oppen up popular hot rodding,car craft,hot rod and what do you see ls1 the engine that was made by gods own hand.

:rolleyes: The LS6 and the '03 Cobra motor are better than the LS1 and they don't say much about them. They must have low standards. :D Kind of like the white trash dude that looks at a skinny, drugged out crooked toothed whore and thinks she's hot.

[QUOTE=Steve Y]I was talking about Kamaro98's car. He has an automatic LS1. QUOTE]

its very likely it was leaking from the head gasket,thats what the 99-00 4.6 was bad for.i will admit it has less problems than the ls1 though not a better engine in my opinion.

You are a retarded troll! Before you said the 4.6 was a POS compared to the LS1 in terms of reliability! Changing your story is the mark of a lier.

I have a 99 4.6, and it used a bit of oil up until recently (engine rebuild) - about a quart every 2500 miles or so.

That is very much in the realm of normal oil use. I seriously doubt you have a leak.

I was talking about Kamaro98's car. He has an automatic LS1.


When it was bone stock it ran 12.9s-13.1s at 106-107mph w/ a 1.8-2.0 60ft. It did have a lid and a cutout. Then i got bored and added 125 dry shot, lakewood LCAs, it ran an 11.50 at 120, back in 2001 when i first got it. On Nitto drag radials. Not bad for a lil' A4, whats wrong with them?.

Posted by KamaroL98:
When it was bone stock it ran 12.9s-13.1s at 106-107mph w/ a 1.8-2.0 60ft. It did have a lid and a cutout. Then i got bored and added 125 dry shot, lakewood LCAs, it ran an 11.50 at 120, back in 2001 when i first got it. On Nitto drag radials. Not bad for a lil' A4, whats wrong with them?.


Great times from a NEAR stock LS1 automatic! :bow: Most of the bone stock ones run mid to high 13s from what I have seen.

Posted by KamaroL98:
When it was bone stock it ran 12.9s-13.1s at 106-107mph w/ a 1.8-2.0 60ft. It did have a lid and a cutout. Then i got bored and added 125 dry shot, lakewood LCAs, it ran an 11.50 at 120, back in 2001 when i first got it. On Nitto drag radials. Not bad for a lil' A4, whats wrong with them?.


Great times from a NEAR stock LS1 automatic! :bow: Most of the bone stock ones run mid to high 13s from what I have seen.

Yes, its all in the 60ft with LS1s. I did break my stock ten bolt like a twig though. :) I got a moser 12 bolt now. Thats one sorry thing about the camaro, along with the 460le transmission, how my transmissions still ticking, only the camaro gods know the answer to that.

Yes, its all in the 60ft with LS1s. I did break my stock ten bolt like a twig though. :) I got a moser 12 bolt now. Thats one sorry thing about the camaro, along with the 460le transmission, how my transmissions still ticking, only the camaro gods know the answer to that.


Hey, the Mustang has weak axles and a weak trans. It's too bad they can't set these cars up from the factory to take abuse.

:rolleyes: The LS6 and the '03 Cobra motor are better than the LS1 and they don't say much about them. They must have low standards. :D Kind of like the white trash dude that looks at a skinny, drugged out crooked toothed whore and thinks she's hot.

The '03 Cobra motor isn't better than the LS1. Someone said the Mach 1 is quicker than N/A Cobra. And the Mach 1 isn't quicker than the LS1. Anyway, take the supercharger away from the '03 Cobra motor.

Hey, the Mustang has weak axles and a weak trans. It's too bad they can't set these cars up from the factory to take abuse.


Camaros have weak rear ends and transmissions to, lol. I already broke my 10 bolt a long time ago and have a moser 12 bolt now. I dont why my transmission hasent broke yet. Everything behind my transmission has broken, torque arm ripped off the rear end houseing, transmission mount shredded. It gets expensive.

You know what's funny about this post? It's the attitude. The tone. Talk like this doesn't happen face to face.

In my "car circle" there are some imports, 'stangs, old school muscle, even a FWD SC'ed Pontiac GTP. I went to Florida State, and there are a lot of Miami fans here in South Florida. We argue about football. We criticize each other's cars. We ridicule the guy who's team lost. But we do it face to face, and the personal insults stay out. Why? Because if you start that crap 5' from somebody, you're likely to get monkey stomped. If some tool walked up to me and started talking crap, we could debate it. There are a ton of misinformed people out there, and I'm here to help. But if they started insulting me personally with comments like we see in these types of posts, I'd tap-dance on their head. Not because his words offended, but just for the lack of good manners.

Debate me about bearing clearances, the thermodynamic advantages of running M-85, or why an auto is better than a stick. Fine! Great topics! But don't tell me how I do or don't suck.

You'd think people'd have better home training.

I was talking about Kamaro98's car. He has an automatic LS1. I was referring to a stock car like his because he was bashing me. I know 6-speeds have more potential. I didn't leave myself a "handicap." I just haven't made it to a track with timeslips yet with my current mods. It is 85 miles each way to a 4000' track and 140 miles each way to a sea level track for me. I will run the car in the cool fall weather at sea level and give times with no excuses. Wait and see. I don't powershift because this is my only daily driver and it's not worth breaking it for .1 or .2.


I could have sworn that it was you telling everyone in an earlier post how you murder LS1's at the drag strip out of the hole by 4-5 car lengths (something about 4000 rpm launches on drag radials), but heaven forbid you powershift, might break something ;) .
Also, i never seemed to have any trouble with a 93 cobra in my old 95 Z28, as a matter of fact i didnt have too much trouble with the 96-98 cobra crowd either. Maybe i was just a great driver, and every one of the numerous cars i raced were ****ty drivers.

"limited production" Cobra R's dont hold a candle to the "limited production" ZL1's, so why dont we talk about regular production cars, instead of "limited production" cars.

I just wonder to myself sometimes, where all these :eek: :bow: ungodly fast :bow: :eek: Mach 1's are at in my area. They are all pretty much a walk in the park every time i run one. Go ahead, my flame suit is on, its the truth.

Mach 1 this 03 Cobra that, here's a quarter, call someone who cares. I am more then happy with my car, the mustangs just dont impress me.

I find it funny that these guys dont even know mustang history. Ford made a choice with the 4.6 mod motor. They wanted to go high tech instead of brute force. Its been a struggle to get Hp out of it while keeping it emmisions legal. Make no mistake if they could have economically released a 300hp motor beofre this year they would have. 5 years ago HP was hard to come by. Its just recently we are seeing things heat up again. The ls1 was amazing for it's time because of it's simple approach to making big power.

The truth is that even with the realitively low power that the 4.6 motor produces, the sn chasis has a BIG problem putting it to the ground. I could always produce much more wheel spin in my mustang then my camaro. The 05 mustang is a diffrent story. It and the mach should be about equal with the ls1. We will see.

It really irritates me to see the statements about how the "fastest 4.6 is faster then the fastest ls1". If we are talking pro race motors, anything is possible with the right amount of money. If we are talking street, the ls1 starts much faster and dollar for dollar will be MUCH faster then the 4.6.

The '03 Cobra motor isn't better than the LS1. Someone said the Mach 1 is quicker than N/A Cobra. And the Mach 1 isn't quicker than the LS1. Anyway, take the supercharger away from the '03 Cobra motor.

Yes it is. It puts out more power, is more durable, is modded easier, cheaper and more reliably. I never said the Mach 1 is quicker stock for stock than an LS1. Take away 3 cylinders from an LS1 and what do you have? :D

You know what's funny about this post? It's the attitude. The tone. Talk like this doesn't happen face to face.

In my "car circle" there are some imports, 'stangs, old school muscle, even a FWD SC'ed Pontiac GTP. I went to Florida State, and there are a lot of Miami fans here in South Florida. We argue about football. We criticize each other's cars. We ridicule the guy who's team lost. But we do it face to face, and the personal insults stay out. Why? Because if you start that crap 5' from somebody, you're likely to get monkey stomped. If some tool walked up to me and started talking crap, we could debate it. There are a ton of misinformed people out there, and I'm here to help. But if they started insulting me personally with comments like we see in these types of posts, I'd tap-dance on their head. Not because his words offended, but just for the lack of good manners.

Debate me about bearing clearances, the thermodynamic advantages of running M-85, or why an auto is better than a stick. Fine! Great topics! But don't tell me how I do or don't suck.

You'd think people'd have better home training.

That's because weak little boys on the internet can act tough because there is no accountability.

That's because weak little boys on the internet can act tough because there is no accountability.

Thats right, and they can also say funky things that they would be called on. They know if they said these things in the real world, informed people would laugh at them.

Yes, its all in the 60ft with LS1s. I did break my stock ten bolt like a twig though. :) I got a moser 12 bolt now. Thats one sorry thing about the camaro, along with the 460le transmission, how my transmissions still ticking, only the camaro gods know the answer to that.

The 4L60E seems to be a hit or miss deal. I've seen 4th gens in magazines that run tens with the stock 4L60E, possibly with a shift kit, and then others that break in the thirteens over and over. I find it confusing that some can handle several hundred horsepower over their rating, and some can't even handle stock. I guess it's just like anything else though, some of them are just built better. Kind of like an LS1 doing high 13s stock and another one doing high twelves stock- although the high 13 may be from a lack of traction, etc, I think you see the point.

Yes it is. It puts out more power, is more durable, is modded easier, cheaper and more reliably. I never said the Mach 1 is quicker stock for stock than an LS1. Take away 3 cylinders from an LS1 and what do you have? :D

Gah, the LS1 puts more power than a N/A Cobra motor. Right?

I guess I should have stated I was referring to the 2v heads. But just so you know, there is an after market package called "Wolf (something)" that puts a supercharger on the mach and takes it to over 400hp. I have seen nothing higher. What I said though is that dollar for dollar, the ls1 will be much faster.

:rolleyes: The LS6 and the '03 Cobra motor are better than the LS1 and they don't say much about them. They must have low standards. :D Kind of like the white trash dude that looks at a skinny, drugged out crooked toothed whore and thinks she's hot.first of all,the 03 cobra motor is no different than a 01 cobra motor except it has a supercharger.secondly the z28 was faster than the cobra in the early 4th gen.i got road test comparisons

first of all,the 03 cobra motor is no different than a 01 cobra motor except it has a supercharger.secondly the z28 was faster than the cobra in the early 4th gen.i got road test comparisons

Ya, and DOHC 4.6s leak oil through headgaskets. No no, really they do! There's a TSB on it! i got internet that sayz sew

first of all,the 03 cobra motor is no different than a 01 cobra motor except it has a supercharger.secondly the z28 was faster than the cobra in the early 4th gen.i got road test comparisons

Yep, the same. Only different heads, block, pistons, crank, intake etc etc etc :rolleyes:

I could have sworn that it was you telling everyone in an earlier post how you murder LS1's at the drag strip out of the hole by 4-5 car lengths (something about 4000 rpm launches on drag radials), but heaven forbid you powershift, might break something ;) .
Also, i never seemed to have any trouble with a 93 cobra in my old 95 Z28, as a matter of fact i didnt have too much trouble with the 96-98 cobra crowd either. Maybe i was just a great driver, and every one of the numerous cars i raced were ****ty drivers.

"limited production" Cobra R's dont hold a candle to the "limited production" ZL1's, so why dont we talk about regular production cars, instead of "limited production" cars.

I just wonder to myself sometimes, where all these :eek: :bow: ungodly fast :bow: :eek: Mach 1's are at in my area. They are all pretty much a walk in the park every time i run one. Go ahead, my flame suit is on, its the truth.

Mach 1 this 03 Cobra that, here's a quarter, call someone who cares. I am more then happy with my car, the mustangs just dont impress me.

Yes I launch at 3-4K rpm on drag radials and don't powershift, sue me. I launch smoothly and easily, I don't side step the clutch. What were your mods? If an '03 Cobra doesn't impress you, not much will.

Gah, the LS1 puts more power than a N/A Cobra motor. Right?

I was talking about the '03 Cobra motor, it is blown.

first of all,the 03 cobra motor is no different than a 01 cobra motor except it has a supercharger.secondly the z28 was faster than the cobra in the early 4th gen.i got road test comparisons

:bs:

The '03 and '01 Cobra motors are way different. Iron block in the '03, alum. block in the '01. Different heads, cams, pistons, rods, crank?, etc. They vary a lot, besides the supercharger. The Z28 was not faster than the Cobra in '96 and '97.

Those LS1's that trapped 108-109 "bone stock" were the 2000-2002's, show me a first or 2nd year LS1 with those numbers...give the mach 1 more than a few months in production to pull out some impressive numbers :rolleyes: The first year production models aren't even all out yet. :o


I've gone 13.20's @ 108 in my 1998 with a catback and street tires.

12.88 @ 106 with lid, K&N, & catback on street tires.

:bs:

The Z28 was not faster than the Cobra in '96 and '97.


I dont know man, magazine times i think for Lt1 Z28s were low 14s to high 13s. What were the cobras running in 1997?

The machs are faster than N/A cobras...lighter block, aluminum instead of forged. So yeah...I haven't seen any machs hit high 12's yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if they do since I have seen very low 13's out of them so far.


I've seen 13.20's out of a MOSTLY stock mach 1 (it's very hard to find a mustang without exhaust mods).

But then again, not every LS1 runs as good. Mabey due to driver or its just dont run good. I drove a buddies 2002 SS and it didnt feel like it pulled hard at all compared to alot of other LS1s. We ran him with another stock LS1 and he got walked pretty good. So i guess a good strong running mach 1 could pull an LS1 like that.
.

I've dynod 02+ corvettes at less than 280rwhp and 290rwtq. There are freaks, and then there are average performers.

My mods? I dont have any. I already raced an 03 convertible Cobra, didnt impress me, went with my buddy to the strip last week, seen about 4 03's (hardtops) running 13.0's to 13.3's trapping 105-107, didnt impress me. I am by no means saying that the Cobra's/Mach's are slow, i am saying they dont impress me. What does impress me? Z06's running low 12's, and now someone clicking off a high 11 second pass with an 04 BONE STOCK!!. No power adder, no bitching about the IRS (common among 03 cobra owners). I also never said my 95 Z28 was faster then a 96-97-98 cobra, i simply stated that the numerous 96-97-98 Cobra's that i ran against were not a problem to beat. On a side note the 96-97 z28 had 285 hp, 10 more then mine due to the dual cats, and there was also an SS, WS6, and firehawk in 96-97 too which are faster then the 96-97-98 Cobra's stock for stock. Then if you got a 97 SS with an LT4, well then they were quite a bit faster then a cobra if i remember correctly. So lets compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges.
96 SS is faster then a 96 cobra
96 WS6 is faster then a 96 cobra
96 firehawk is faster then a 96 cobra
same scenario for 97 with one exception
97 LT4 SS is one hell of a lot faster then a 97 Cobra
96 Z28 to 96 GT----wow
97 z28 to 97 GT----wow

Oh by the way, i have an old 5.0 mustangs and fast fords mag here (bought it because i was considering a mustang, drove a 01 cobra, and my 00 SS, and really didnt have to think about it much more). Its the issue where they race the 03 Cobra vs The 03 Mach with the vortec on it. Here we go
03 Cobra specs
319 HP @6400 RPMs rear wheel
309 FT LBS @3800 RPMS rear wheel
1/4 mile :13.09@110.82 0-60 4.9 seconds
The mach ran the 1/4 in 11.96@121.16 0-60 in 3.88 seconds.

I believe the same mag (or one of those mustang mags) Ran an 02SS 12.9 at 109 something. Like i said the 03's dont impress me.

cool but poorly done vid... nice to see a freak stang (or he's sprayin), either way he dusted the other car, doesn't matter how...

My mods? I dont have any.
But I bet your car impresses you, right? You've obviously been to the track...what did you run?

I already raced an 03 convertible Cobra, didnt impress me, went with my buddy to the strip last week, seen about 4 03's (hardtops) running 13.0's to 13.3's trapping 105-107, didnt impress me. I am by no means saying that the Cobra's/Mach's are slow, i am saying they dont impress me.
Read: Doesn't say GM, so it don't impress me (how much faster it is than my car is quite irrelevant).

What does impress me? Z06's running low 12's, and now someone clicking off a high 11 second pass with an 04 BONE STOCK!!.
They impress me too - regardless of who makes them. But stock 11's are old news for those of us that have been around a while and keep up with such things.

No power adder, no bitching about the IRS (common among 03 cobra owners).
Cool.

I also never said my 95 Z28 was faster then a 96-97-98 cobra, i simply stated that the numerous 96-97-98 Cobra's that i ran against were not a problem to beat.
Isn't it amazing that most folks never lose (on the internet) to cars that are supposed to be their direct competitors? And of course, they have always run "serveral" or "numerous" examples.

So what did your 95Z run? As an FYI, my 98 Cobra went 13.6 @ 104 mph in 100% bone stock trim - including the factory air filter. Ok, I had Mobil 1 oil. Some people consider that a mod.

On a side note the 96-97 z28 had 285 hp, 10 more then mine due to the dual cats, and there was also an SS, WS6, and firehawk in 96-97 too which are faster then the 96-97-98 Cobra's stock for stock.
SS's and WS6's were typically no quicker than their "normal" counterparts. That is especially true of "stripper" Z28s and Formulas. But don't take my word for it - go ask F-body owners who are real drag racers.

Then if you got a 97 SS with an LT4, well then they were quite a bit faster then a cobra if i remember correctly.
Ya. And how many LT4 97 SS's were made? Please look it up for us.

So lets compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges.
By your interpretation. Ok.

96 SS is faster then a 96 cobra
96 WS6 is faster then a 96 cobra
By implication, this means that a regular Z28 and Formula were also quicker? I disagree - at the limit, it was pretty much a driver's race.

96 firehawk is faster then a 96 cobra
All 41 of them made, right? Wow. There were more Cobra R's made in 95. Should we count those too in this discussion? The 96 Firehawk had a whopping 5 HP more than a WS6 (gotta love that catback, I guess).

same scenario for 97 with one exception
97 LT4 SS is one hell of a lot faster then a 97 Cobra
See comment above about how many were made. But you're right - they were quicker.

96 Z28 to 96 GT----wow
97 z28 to 97 GT----wow
Indeed.

Oh by the way, i have an old 5.0 mustangs and fast fords mag here (bought it because i was considering a mustang, drove a 01 cobra, and my 00 SS, and really didnt have to think about it much more). Its the issue where they race the 03 Cobra vs The 03 Mach with the vortec on it.
"Vortec"? Isn't that GM's designation for some of their engines?

Anyways....

Here we go
03 Cobra specs
319 HP @6400 RPMs rear wheel
309 FT LBS @3800 RPMS rear wheel
You might want to go read that again. Really.

1/4 mile :13.09@110.82 0-60 4.9 seconds
That's about right for a bone stock 03 Cobra - though MM&FF has gone as quick as 12.4 in a bone stock 03 Cobra. I know that wouldn't even sort of impress you. Damn glad they weren't trying to.

The mach ran the 1/4 in 11.96@121.16 0-60 in 3.88 seconds.
Quick car. So a modified Mach 1 beat a stock Cobra? Imagine that.

I believe the same mag (or one of those mustang mags) Ran an 02SS 12.9 at 109 something. Like i said the 03's dont impress me.
That is correct - though it was an 01SS, and they ran a 99 Z28 to a 12.89 a couple of years ealier (in stellar air). Regardles, see 12.4 second 03 Cobra comment above.

hahaha the Stang did win..

but that cannot be the whoole truth on what each car had...

can a modded mach 1 beat a ls1, most definitely but on every run but that last one, the mach 1 pulled too hard. Tha wasn't a I edged him out that was a full kill... And not sure mods being what they were said to be the outcome woudl be like that. BUt I do think the mach1 would be able to beat it.

But I bet your car impresses you, right? You've obviously been to the track...what did you run?


Read: Doesn't say GM, so it don't impress me (how much faster it is than my car is quite irrelevant).


They impress me too - regardless of who makes them. But stock 11's are old news for those of us that have been around a while and keep up with such things.


Cool.


Isn't it amazing that most folks never lose (on the internet) to cars that are supposed to be their direct competitors? And of course, they have always run "serveral" or "numerous" examples.

So what did your 95Z run? As an FYI, my 98 Cobra went 13.6 @ 104 mph in 100% bone stock trim - including the factory air filter. Ok, I had Mobil 1 oil. Some people consider that a mod.


SS's and WS6's were typically no quicker than their "normal" counterparts. That is especially true of "stripper" Z28s and Formulas. But don't take my word for it - go ask F-body owners who are real drag racers.


Ya. And how many LT4 97 SS's were made? Please look it up for us.


By your interpretation. Ok.


By implication, this means that a regular Z28 and Formula were also quicker? I disagree - at the limit, it was pretty much a driver's race.


All 41 of them made, right? Wow. There were more Cobra R's made in 95. Should we count those too in this discussion? The 96 Firehawk had a whopping 5 HP more than a WS6 (gotta love that catback, I guess).


See comment above about how many were made. But you're right - they were quicker.


Indeed.


"Vortec"? Isn't that GM's designation for some of their engines?

Anyways....


You might want to go read that again. Really.


That's about right for a bone stock 03 Cobra - though MM&FF has gone as quick as 12.4 in a bone stock 03 Cobra. I know that wouldn't even sort of impress you. Damn glad they weren't trying to.


Quick car. So a modified Mach 1 beat a stock Cobra? Imagine that.


That is correct - though it was an 01SS, and they ran a 99 Z28 to a 12.89 a couple of years ealier (in stellar air). Regardles, see 12.4 second 03 Cobra comment above.

:bow: :lol: :lol: Black00SS is :Owned: big time!

I dont know man, magazine times i think for Lt1 Z28s were low 14s to high 13s. What were the cobras running in 1997?

Wine and cheese rag times for them were low 14s, high 13s as well.

My mods? I dont have any. I already raced an 03 convertible Cobra, didnt impress me, went with my buddy to the strip last week, seen about 4 03's (hardtops) running 13.0's to 13.3's trapping 105-107, didnt impress me. I am by no means saying that the Cobra's/Mach's are slow, i am saying they dont impress me. What does impress me? Z06's running low 12's, and now someone clicking off a high 11 second pass with an 04 BONE STOCK!!. No power adder, no bitching about the IRS (common among 03 cobra owners). I also never said my 95 Z28 was faster then a 96-97-98 cobra, i simply stated that the numerous 96-97-98 Cobra's that i ran against were not a problem to beat. On a side note the 96-97 z28 had 285 hp, 10 more then mine due to the dual cats, and there was also an SS, WS6, and firehawk in 96-97 too which are faster then the 96-97-98 Cobra's stock for stock. Then if you got a 97 SS with an LT4, well then they were quite a bit faster then a cobra if i remember correctly. So lets compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges.
96 SS is faster then a 96 cobra
96 WS6 is faster then a 96 cobra
96 firehawk is faster then a 96 cobra
same scenario for 97 with one exception
97 LT4 SS is one hell of a lot faster then a 97 Cobra
96 Z28 to 96 GT----wow
97 z28 to 97 GT----wow

Oh by the way, i have an old 5.0 mustangs and fast fords mag here (bought it because i was considering a mustang, drove a 01 cobra, and my 00 SS, and really didnt have to think about it much more). Its the issue where they race the 03 Cobra vs The 03 Mach with the vortec on it. Here we go
03 Cobra specs
319 HP @6400 RPMs rear wheel
309 FT LBS @3800 RPMS rear wheel
1/4 mile :13.09@110.82 0-60 4.9 seconds
The mach ran the 1/4 in 11.96@121.16 0-60 in 3.88 seconds.

I believe the same mag (or one of those mustang mags) Ran an 02SS 12.9 at 109 something. Like i said the 03's dont impress me.

If an '03 Cobra doesn't impress you then your car surely doesn't impress you right? Because it is a half second slower on average stock for stock. Z06s might not have a power adder, but they have 1.1 liters on the Cobra and 500+ lbs. less to lug around. Your '96 SS is faster than a '96 Cobra, yada yada is just plain wrong.

Looks like Bob Cosby is kicking some ass in factory stock:

http://www.nmraracing.com/points-records/points/

No i have not been to the track, with my car, obviously i have no times posted yet. I thought that rather then lie about it like a number of people do, i would actually go to the track before i post times.

Dosent impress me because its not gm? No, didnt impress me because it didnt beat me.

Stock 11's is old news for the z06, funny, i thought the 04 in that mag, was one of the first ones to hit the 11's, stock, but maybe i do need to keep up to snuff with things like that. Perhaps next, i will not go to work, leave all of my bills pile up, and do nothing but sit around get up to snuff on what is the fastest times for every car made bone stock.

My 95z, the best time i could get out of it bone stock was a 14.0@98.

13.6@106, nice time for a 98, thats about the same time a Mach 1 runs around here, which are supposed to be faster then the 96-01's, interesting.

96-98 cobra's in this area are running 13.9-14.4's, never seen one faster.

Did i compare anything from 95, no, so therefore the 1995 Cobra R, is not in this discussion.

I read the magazine again, the RWHP, and RWTQ is still the same as i posted last night, dont know what you were getting at there......

Vortec oops i left the H off, wow......

12.4 in an 03 eh? Yep you are right, still dosent impress me. Not when the 99 Z ran a 12.89, 4 tenths of a second slower, and that car was made 4 years ago.

Your knowledge impreses me, really, it does :o :rolleyes:

Still, even though the 03/04 cobras make hp easy off a few simple things liek chip, pullies and exhaust, i dont think it they can be made faster, easier and cheaper then an LS1. :D

(Just an attempt to make people stop compareing 100% stock cars since noone who actually goes out and races leaves them stock anyway.)

Your knowledge impreses me, really, it does :o :rolleyes:

You obviously do not know who Bob Cosby is :rolleyes: :p :D

No i have not been to the track, with my car, obviously i have no times posted yet. I thought that rather then lie about it like a number of people do, i would actually go to the track before i post times.
Nothing is obvious. Some folks don't post their ETs - even good ones.

Good on you for not lying, though.

Dosent impress me because its not gm? No, didnt impress me because it didnt beat me.
Of course. No doubt stock Black 2000 SSs are beating stock (insert color here) 2003 Cobras on a regular basis. So one can assume that when that one-in-a-million Cobra actually beats you, you then become impressed?

I think not. Why? Says Mustang. Doesn't say GM. End of story. Hey, no big deal to me - but remember that part above about not lying?

Stock 11's is old news for the z06, funny, i thought the 04 in that mag, was one of the first ones to hit the 11's, stock,
Oh well. I was done well over a year ago - perhaps 2 years ago by now. Go look up J-Rod on www.Z06vette.com.

but maybe i do need to keep up to snuff with things like that. Perhaps next, i will not go to work, leave all of my bills pile up, and do nothing but sit around get up to snuff on what is the fastest times for every car made bone stock.
Whatever curdles your milk, dude.

My 95z, the best time i could get out of it bone stock was a 14.0@98.
Pretty decent.

13.6@106, nice time for a 98, thats about the same time a Mach 1 runs around here, which are supposed to be faster then the 96-01's, interesting.
Thanks - though it was at 104, not 106. As you obviously are having a hard time believing it, that run was made at Atco, NJ in Feb of 1999. It ran 13.7 @ 103 at E-town in Oct of 2003 (even won the street bracket that night).

Mach's are quite a bit quicker, given the same conditions. Some have fun very, very low 13s, and even a few are supposed to have gone high 12's in stock trim. Check out www.mach1registry.org if interested. If not, no big deal.

96-98 cobra's in this area are running 13.9-14.4's, never seen one faster.
That's pretty common, actually. But let me ask you something....if you've never seen one faster, does that mean it hasn't been done? I've never actually seen a stock Z06 run 11's - but even before the mag hit, I knew it had happened.

Did i compare anything from 95, no, so therefore the 1995 Cobra R, is not in this discussion.
ROFLOL. Oh. I guess you missed the simile, eh?

BTW...there were 100 1997 LT4 SS's made.

I read the magazine again, the RWHP, and RWTQ is still the same as i posted last night, dont know what you were getting at there......
What issue? I have them all. Stock 03/04 Cobra's put down 350 RWHP minimum, and some upwards of 370 RWHP.

Vortec oops i left the H off, wow......
We all screw up, from time to time. :)

12.4 in an 03 eh? Yep you are right, still dosent impress me. Not when the 99 Z ran a 12.89, 4 tenths of a second slower, and that car was made 4 years ago.
Of course it doesn't impress you. However, we've already determined why that is. Scroll up.

Your knowledge impreses me, really, it does :o :rolleyes:
I'm not out to impress you or anybody else with my knowledge. I am out to set some stories straight - at least from my perspective. :)

Dosent impress me because its not gm? No, didnt impress me because it didnt beat me.


You will get spanked sooner or later by a bone stock '03 Cobra. Just because the driver sucks don't blame the car.


96-98 cobra's in this area are running 13.9-14.4's, never seen one faster.


I've never seen a stock LS1 run better than 15.5 at 98. Does that mean they don't run faster? Hell no!


I read the magazine again, the RWHP, and RWTQ is still the same as i posted last night, dont know what you were getting at there......

I think that was tested on a Mustang dyno which gives results about 60 rwhp less than a dynojet.


12.4 in an 03 eh? Yep you are right, still dosent impress me. Not when the 99 Z ran a 12.89, 4 tenths of a second slower, and that car was made 4 years ago.


And your lack on knowledge and bs slinging doesn't impress me.



Your knowledge impreses me, really, it does :o :rolleyes:

You can't even spell "impress" and you are dissing his knowledge. :eek: Bob knows more about drag racing and cars in general than you will ever know. Back to 2nd grade little troll.

the camaro ss has actually been faster than the cobra from 1996 to 02 if you go by magazine comparisons.i remember the the ss being faster than a roush stage 3 mustang also.that just goes to show you mustangs arent that great when compared to 5.7 liters of displacement.i should know ive outran a 99+ mustang gt on the street before.it happened to be a woman too.

You will get spanked sooner or later by a bone stock '03 Cobra. Just because the driver sucks don't blame the car.



I've never seen a stock LS1 run better than 15.5 at 98. Does that mean they don't run faster? Hell no!


I think that was tested on a Mustang dyno which gives results about 60 rwhp less than a dynojet.



And your lack on knowledge and bs slinging doesn't impress me.




You can't even spell "impress" and you are dissing his knowledge. :eek: Bob knows more about drag racing and cars in general than you will ever know. Back to 2nd grade little troll.what a dumbass.if anyone has no knowledge it is you steve y.tell me do you even know what the four strokes of an automotive engine is?first of all if you never seen a ls1 camaro run faster than a 15.5 in the 1/4 mile then obviously you dont go to the digs enough (aka drag track).secondly.lola mustang dyno results arent going to be 60 hp less than a dynojet.say my camaro lt1 is making 255 hp at the rollers on a dynojet if i dynoed my car on a mustang dyno your saying i would lose 60 more hp which would put me at 195 hp .lol.you have no idea what your talking about.the difference would be around 10 to 15 hp between the dynos.

the camaro ss has actually been faster than the cobra from 1996 to 02 if you go by magazine comparisons.i remember the the ss being faster than a roush stage 3 mustang also.that just goes to show you mustangs arent that great when compared to 5.7 liters of displacement.i should know ive outran a 99+ mustang gt on the street before.it happened to be a woman too.

Cobras and LT1s were about equal in '96 and '97. Yes bigger displacement engines are better, duh.

what a dumbass.if anyone has no knowledge it is you steve y.tell me do you even know what the four strokes of an automotive engine is?first of all if you never seen a ls1 camaro run faster than a 15.5 in the 1/4 mile then obviously you dont go to the digs enough (aka drag track).secondly.lola mustang dyno results arent going to be 60 hp less than a dynojet.say my camaro lt1 is making 255 hp at the rollers on a dynojet if i dynoed my car on a mustang dyno your saying i would lose 60 more hp which would put me at 195 hp .lol.you have no idea what your talking about.the difference would be around 10 to 15 hp between the dynos.

You call me a dumbass and you can't even type correctly? :eek: Back to grammar school troll boy. The strokes are intake, compression, power and exhaust. I have been racing once a month for 10 years. I don't see stock LS1s hardly ever. Even modded ones are rare around here. The dynos are a lot different than 10-15 horsepower. God why do I waste time argueing with 13 year old pimple faced retarded trolls? :barf:

i think im pretty accurate with the dyno differences.i know im alot closer than you 60 hp difference lol.took you long enough to reply.what did you do find the sour strokes on the net somewhere.as far as calling people dumbasses you couldnt hold a candle to the amount of auto knowledge that i have.do you know why they call the four stroke engine the otto cycle?typically m6 lt1s dyno around 250 to 260 rear wheel hp on a dynojet and about 10 to 15 less on a mustang dyno.autos usually dyno about 10 hp less than a m6 due to the gearing and hp loss through the tranny on a standard.

If anyones a troll its you steve y.Don't you have any thing better to do than come on f-body forums and talk trash?I think your out of your environment.Trolls live under bridges(aka mustang forums land of the trolls)so I think I can help you find your way home.I believe its called stangnet.com.If you need directions its easy.Just go through the path known as im just another victim of a 4th gen camaro ass beating all the way to where you belong in the land of defeated mustangs.

as far as calling people dumbasses you couldnt hold a candle to the amount of auto knowledge that i have.do you know why they call the four stroke engine the otto cycle?

The correct term is the four stroke cycle engine. Nikolaus Otto demonstrated this engine first in 1876. It's pretty common and easy automotive knowledge.

Bob cosby:
Let me clarify myself a bit if i could. No it is not that it isnt GM. If you read an earlier post of mine, in this thread, i was actually considering a mustang before i bought my SS. I do not like them, not because they are not GM, i just dont personally care for them. I dont like sitting in a sports car, that feels like you are sitting in a pick-up. I dont like having to tie a rope to the shifter to reach it. I dont like how they ride, etc. etc. Most importantly, comparing the 2 (01 Cobra, and 00 SS) The SS, in my opinion was just an all out better performer. I am not biased by any means, accusing me of being so is wrong.

That Magazine is the April 2004 issue of 5.0 mustangs and fast fords.

I never said i dont believe your track times for your car, i simply stated that is what Mach's are running in my area. Also never stated that since the best run i have seen a 96-98 cobra make was a 13.9, that they have never ran faster. Altitudes, Track conditions, Driver, temp, humidity, etc. will change numbers by up to a full second in some cases, sometimes more then a full second if the driver really sux. I undesrtand this. You dont have to tell me, however, it is fair to state what these cars run in my area, in comparison with other cars in my area (same track, temp, etc.).

You will get spanked sooner or later by a bone stock '03 Cobra. Just because the driver sucks don't blame the car.
Right back at you with your :bs: stories about beating LS1's by 2-3 car lengths with your 210 RWHP GT, which were mysteriously just grudge matches with "no time slips",of course.

I've never seen a stock LS1 run better than 15.5 at 98. Does that mean they don't run faster? Hell no!
I dont recall ever saying because i have not witnessed one run faster, that they havent, so maybe you should quit assuming you know what i mean, when you honestly dont have a clue.

I think that was tested on a Mustang dyno which gives results about 60 rwhp less than a dynojet.
60 RWHP difference, i think not, any fool knows there is a little difference, but not 60 RWHP. If that were the case, a 3 cylinder Geo Metro should register about....2-3 FWHP on a mustang dyno.

And your lack on knowledge and bs slinging doesn't impress me.

Its lack of knowledge, you seem to be Mr. Grammar, and punctuation around here, ridiculing anyone who dares to leave an S out of a word, or mis-types something, maybe you need to heed your own advice, Ass. Bs slinging?? What have i said that is BS, i am curious?

You can't even spell "impress" and you are dissing his knowledge. Bob knows more about drag racing and cars in general than you will ever know. Back to 2nd grade little troll.
See above post about correcting my spelling. I am glad Bob knows more about about Drag Racing, and cars in general then i do. Let me ask you this, if i may, though::::HOW IN THE **** WOULD YOU KNOW??!?! Do you even know who i am?? For all you know, i could be John Force sitting at this computer right now. Second grade, Troll? Good, maybe personal slams make you feel better, while you sit there at your little computer, and beat your little ding-dong. Or maybe ridiculing people on this board time and time again, is to compensate for all the stress you have at work pushing around the mop bucket. Perhaps it is to compensate for a Small pecker as well.

So lets recap:
1) You are just as illiterate as everyone on this board "Captain Spelling Bee"
2) Your car sucks (well all except the "massive" tire-spin between 1 and 2)
3) You assume waaaaaay too much, dont put words into other people's mouth.
4) And last but not least you have proven, time and time again, you are a wad that should have been swallowed.

Goodnight, remember to put your "caution wet floor" signs up while you are mopping out the ****house.

Bob cosby:
Let me clarify myself a bit if i could. No it is not that it isnt GM. If you read an earlier post of mine, in this thread, i was actually considering a mustang before i bought my SS. I do not like them, not because they are not GM, i just dont personally care for them.
While I still perceive it differently, I have no issues with anyone that likes one particular car over another - or one particular brand over another. I only have issues when said folks won't admit their bias - and even try to convice us otherwise.

I dont like sitting in a sports car, that feels like you are sitting in a pick-up.
LOL. You know, I never get that feeling when I sit in my 99 Cobra. To each their own, I suppose. Personally, I didn't like falling in and climbing out of my 99 T/A (http://members.cox.net/rdcosby1/ta). Rather, I like to get in and get out. Again, to each their own.

I dont like having to tie a rope to the shifter to reach it.
No stretching of the point there, huh? (pun intended). Shifter location was one of the nice things about the F-body. Then again, I have no trouble shifting my Cobra either. Perhaps you just have shorter-than-normal arms?

I dont like how they ride, etc. etc.
Ok. I had no issues with the ride of either. Personally, I didn't like the perceived bulk of the T/A, which is one of the main reasons I traded it for the Cobra. But again - those are all personal preferences.

Most importantly, comparing the 2 (01 Cobra, and 00 SS) The SS, in my opinion was just an all out better performer.
For you, it likely was - and that's ok with me. Under most conditions, stock to stock, a 00 SS is certainly quicker and faster than a 01 Cobra.

I am not biased by any means, accusing me of being so is wrong.
Well, I guess I'll just have to go on being "wrong", cause I'm accusing. You're welcome to do the same. :)

That Magazine is the April 2004 issue of 5.0 mustangs and fast fords.
I am going to to assume (dangerous) that you meant Muscle Mustangs and Fast Fords (MM&FF) vice 5.0 Mustang and Super Fords (5.0). If that is incorrect, tell me and I'll dig up the April 04 version of the latter and take a look at it, too.

Anyways, the Apr 04 issue of MM&FF did indeed dyno a 2004 Cobra as part of their article "the Ultimate Mustang Shootout". The article starts on page 60. To recap what you said...

03 Cobra specs
319 HP @6400 RPMs rear wheel
309 FT LBS @3800 RPMS rear wheel

The article in question says, and I quote from page 64...

"At D&D Performance, it shamed its brethren - 386 rwhp and 387 lb-ft of torque. Ooo-fa. The scary thing is this isn't uncommon. We can't remember testing any 2003-up serpent that didn't make at least 370 to the tires."

Their words - not mine. However, after pulling your quote from a couple of pages back, I see it is likely you meant the April 5.0 mag and not MM&FF. I'll go grab that one this evening. Perhaps they did indeed use a Mustang (load-bearing) dyno vice a dynojet? If they did, there is no accurate conversion from one to the other.

Wait - Mr lovescamaro25 is a dyno expert. We'll ask him to convert it.

Also, and just for refrence, here are the numbers from each of the cars they tested that day:

A4 GT.
Weight w/driver: 3590 lbs
ET: 14.095 @ 96.64 (Ford A4s kinda suck.....understatment, IMHO)

M5 Mach 1
Weight w/driver: 3660 lbs
ET: 13.156 @ 105.35

M6 Cobra Convertable (ie....heavy)
Weight w/driver: 3930 lbs (ouch!!!)
ET: 12.77 @ 111.00 (not impressive at all - damn)

I never said i dont believe your track times for your car, i simply stated that is what Mach's are running in my area.
Ok. Your implication was different - especially the "interesting" comment at the end of your sentence. But I'll take your word for it. It is quite irrelevant anyways. 13.6 for a Mach isn't uncommon.

Also never stated that since the best run i have seen a 96-98 cobra make was a 13.9, that they have never ran faster. Altitudes, Track conditions, Driver, temp, humidity, etc. will change numbers by up to a full second in some cases, sometimes more then a full second if the driver really sux. I undesrtand this. ]
No issues with that.

You dont have to tell me, however, it is fair to state what these cars run in my area, in comparison with other cars in my area (same track, temp, etc.).
Perhaps. Perhaps not.

Now lets play with Mr. "you couldnt hold a candle to the amount of auto knowledge that i have."

Hello. You said the following, earlier in this thread:

...i recall tsbs on the 99 and 00 mustang 4.6 for leaking oil at the head gasket.
....how about that head gasket leaking,lean condition running,2nd to 3rd problemshifting tsb plaqued 4.6 now.
its very likely it was leaking from the head gasket,thats what the 99-00 4.6 was bad for.
first of all,the 03 cobra motor is no different than a 01 cobra motor except it has a supercharger.
A knowledgeable person reads that, then is supposed to believe that we "couldn't hold a candle to the amount of auto knowledge" that you have? Are you trying to be serious? So tell me - how do we get an oil leak from a head gasket? Do you even know what a head gasket does, or what it seals? And there's a tsb on "powershifting"? Really. Could you look that up for us - along with the oil leaking from the headgasket tsb? Thanks. And you know, I was thinking Ford used different pistons, rods, heads, intake, cams, block, etc on the 2003/2004 Cobra vice what they had in ealier years. That's not true? Damn - Ford's printing lies. What a bummer.

Got stupid?

Further, you also contridicted yourself in this same thread....to wit...you said...
....ls1 is more reliable than a 4.6 .

Followed not long afterwards by...
...i will admit it has less problems than the ls1 though not a better engine in my opinion.
:think: So which is it? You said the LS1 is more reliable in one quote, but that the 4.6 has less problems in another.

Wow. Your breadth of "automotive knowledge" is overwhelming. Dude - quit now. You'll look better later. Really.

Bob, quit picking on the mental midgets of the kill forum!

:lol:

Footnote.

Black00SS. When I got home this afternoon, I pulled out the April 04 issue of 5.0 Mustang and Super Fords (5.0), and there was the article you referenced - apologies for my bad assumption. The numbers were as you stated: 319/306. Also, as I suspected, it was on a Mustang dyno. Reading further, the article stated:

"If these numbers seem low, they are. That's because the Mustang dynos - which load the car to replicate its weight going down the road - religiously read substantially lower than the more widely known inertial Dynojets - as much as 40 HP less sometimes."

Pages 52 & 54.

Of note, the MM&FF tests were done on a Dynojet, as are the vast majority of dyno numbers you hear about on this and other forums.

All of this is a great lead in to something I like to preach - the dyno is a tuning tool, and does not go down the racetrack. :)

here mach1 haters :), j/k :)
here is an example of a lighty modified mach 1 running at the track
mods:
SLP Catted X Pipe, Magnaflow catback, K&N filter, Motive 4.10 gears, Moser 31 spline axles, Ford 31 spline Tracklock, DM SpeedCal..,in other words, exhaust/gears/tires. the k&n filter is not doing too much on our cars anyways.
he's not running nos or any kind of f/i, just a regular car like mine with some bolt ons, nothing fancy
i think i saw some ls1's in there even a corvette (c5 i guess) getting beaten by a mach1 :bow:, again is up to you to believe this or not, as i said is proven,documented, and is on video, fbodies ls1 powered equipped cars are not almighty anymore :)

the file is 41mb so i would recommend to do a right click instead of trying to stream it.

http://mysite.verizon.net/res7f4ol/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/dansmall.mpg

here mach1 haters :), j/k :)
here is an example of a lighty modified mach 1 running at the track
mods:
SLP Catted X Pipe, Magnaflow catback, K&N filter, Motive 4.10 gears, Moser 31 spline axles, Ford 31 spline Tracklock, DM SpeedCal..,in other words, exhaust/gears/tires. the k&n filter is not doing too much on our cars anyways.
he's not running nos or any kind of f/i, just a regular car like mine with some bolt ons, nothing fancy
i think i saw some ls1's in there even a corvette (c5 i guess) getting beaten by a mach1 :bow:, again is up to you to believe this or not, as i said is proven,documented, and is on video, fbodies ls1 powered equipped cars are not almighty anymore :)

the file is 41mb so i would recommend to do a right click instead of trying to stream it.

http://mysite.verizon.net/res7f4ol/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/dansmall.mpg

That's more than "lightly" modified.

Wow so many words and such little time. Bob C, nice to see you're still hanging out :D

That's more than "lightly" modified.
You've got to be kidding. Internet-raceritis in action. It's got exhaust, gears, and tires. The rear end parts are for strength - and in fact, because they are heavier, would actually slow the car down (if only very slightly).

What is your idea of "lightly modified"? Let me guess - Synthetic Oil, K&N Filter, shifter, Neon lights, and couple of stickers?

I'd hate to see what you think "heavily modified" is.

That's more than "lightly" modified.

i would like to hear the definition of "lightly mod" according to you :)

What is the stock rearend ratio for a Mach 1?

What is the stock rearend ratio for a Mach 1?
8.8" ... 3.27 gear I believe.

Oh, ok. That's what I was referring to. The 4.10 ratio doesn't seem like a "light modification". I agree everything else is though.

"If these numbers seem low, they are. That's because the Mustang dynos - which load the car to replicate its weight going down the road - religiously read substantially lower than the more widely known inertial Dynojets - as much as 40 HP less sometimes."


That's interesting... only dyno I ever tested my car on was a mustang dyno.
98z28 w/ K&N: 316rwhp, 326 rwtq. Makes me wonder what it would have put down on a dynojet... :eek: Unfortunately, the only real accessible dyno around town is a mustang dyno, closest dynojet facility is a good hour and a half away. Maybe this weekend I'll have my car dyno'd on both and post results. :thumb:

I'm more interested in the "mustang dyno" vs "dynojet" since I just got dyno'd on a DynoJet and from my understanding, the dynojet also simulates "load". Bob Cosby, this is your time to shine with a thesis on mustang dyno vs dynojet j/k :D

Mach 1 comes with 3.55 stock, not 3.27s.

LOL. I couldn't write a thesis on the subject if I had too. However, I can tell you that you cannot convert one to the other, mainly because you can vary the load on the Mustang dyno - which would throw off any set conversion factor.

However, I will get back on my soapbox about a dyno being a tuning tool and usefull for little else. Different dyno's read differently, and even the same dyno can read different on a different day - even though it can correct to a standard (SAE) atmosphere. The real value in the dyno is tuning, and comparing one mod to the next.

Just for giggles....here is my Avatar (http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/customavatars/avatar267_3.gif) from another site. I think it is appropriate. :)

Bob thanks. I had no idea that the Mach comes with 3.55 gear. That's interesting. I've been doing a lot of reading on Mustang Dyno vs Dynojet and the concsensus from reading is that the Mustang dyno will always read lower. When I was on the dynojet, they do have the ability to put a load on it and I believe from reading, folks have the impression that the mustang dyno is the only dyno that does that which isn't true. Matter of fact, I purposely wanted to put load on while I was dyno'ing since I drive my turd on the street.

You're right though, the dyno doesn't make it down the track. I use the dyno for tuning only.

Mach 1 comes with 3.55 stock, not 3.27s.

LOL. I couldn't write a thesis on the subject if I had too. However, I can tell you that you cannot convert one to the other, mainly because you can vary the load on the Mustang dyno - which would throw off any set conversion factor.

However, I will get back on my soapbox about a dyno being a tuning tool and usefull for little else. Different dyno's read differently, and even the same dyno can read different on a different day - even though it can correct to a standard (SAE) atmosphere. The real value in the dyno is tuning, and comparing one mod to the next.

Just for giggles....here is my Avatar (http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/customavatars/avatar267_3.gif) from another site. I think it is appropriate. :)

http://www.stangbangers.com/01_Bullitt_Article2.htm

Scroll down a little. Evan Smith ran a 12.8 @ 108 in a bone stock '99 Z28. That's a Mustang magazine...you gonna say they are biased and the times aren't real? 108 mph has been attained many times in stock LS1s. I was asking if any Mach 1s has trapped 108-109 bone stock. Can you provide ONE example? I don't want to see what they have done with an x-pipe, intake, etc. This was a showroom stock LS1. It has been proven many times that LS1s are capable of running these times stock.

I wasn't bashing the Mach 1s...read my post dumb****. :)Thats a classic article, remember readin that issue years ago when i was living in florida

That's interesting... only dyno I ever tested my car on was a mustang dyno.
98z28 w/ K&N: 316rwhp, 326 rwtq. Makes me wonder what it would have put down on a dynojet... :eek: Unfortunately, the only real accessible dyno around town is a mustang dyno, closest dynojet facility is a good hour and a half away. Maybe this weekend I'll have my car dyno'd on both and post results. :thumb:

Hey BirchMan98z,
Check out this article it might help you understand a little more (http://www.mustangdyne.com/Articles/CHP0603-article-01.htm)

Hey BirchMan98z,
Check out this article it might help you understand a little more (http://www.mustangdyne.com/Articles/CHP0603-article-01.htm)

Good article. I wasn't aware the differences could be that high. I personally don't care what my car dynos, but it would be a fun experiment for a weekend.

notice from the 25 roll it was alot tighter....go from 45-50 and it would be the other way around

notice from the 25 roll it was alot tighter....go from 45-50 and it would be the other way around

if that camaro was automatic like most of your friends are using as an excuse for the lost of the almighty ss camaro, it would only get worst for our camaro friend on the video. you should know better than me :) 40-45mph rolls are really bad for a4 ss's or z28's

thats why i wont play that card lol....

While I still perceive it differently, I have no issues with anyone that likes one particular car over another - or one particular brand over another. I only have issues when said folks won't admit their bias - and even try to convice us otherwise.


LOL. You know, I never get that feeling when I sit in my 99 Cobra. To each their own, I suppose. Personally, I didn't like falling in and climbing out of my 99 T/A (http://members.cox.net/rdcosby1/ta). Rather, I like to get in and get out. Again, to each their own.


No stretching of the point there, huh? (pun intended). Shifter location was one of the nice things about the F-body. Then again, I have no trouble shifting my Cobra either. Perhaps you just have shorter-than-normal arms?


Ok. I had no issues with the ride of either. Personally, I didn't like the perceived bulk of the T/A, which is one of the main reasons I traded it for the Cobra. But again - those are all personal preferences.


For you, it likely was - and that's ok with me. Under most conditions, stock to stock, a 00 SS is certainly quicker and faster than a 01 Cobra.


Well, I guess I'll just have to go on being "wrong", cause I'm accusing. You're welcome to do the same. :)


I am going to to assume (dangerous) that you meant Muscle Mustangs and Fast Fords (MM&FF) vice 5.0 Mustang and Super Fords (5.0). If that is incorrect, tell me and I'll dig up the April 04 version of the latter and take a look at it, too.

Anyways, the Apr 04 issue of MM&FF did indeed dyno a 2004 Cobra as part of their article "the Ultimate Mustang Shootout". The article starts on page 60. To recap what you said...



The article in question says, and I quote from page 64...

"At D&D Performance, it shamed its brethren - 386 rwhp and 387 lb-ft of torque. Ooo-fa. The scary thing is this isn't uncommon. We can't remember testing any 2003-up serpent that didn't make at least 370 to the tires."

Their words - not mine. However, after pulling your quote from a couple of pages back, I see it is likely you meant the April 5.0 mag and not MM&FF. I'll go grab that one this evening. Perhaps they did indeed use a Mustang (load-bearing) dyno vice a dynojet? If they did, there is no accurate conversion from one to the other.

Wait - Mr lovescamaro25 is a dyno expert. We'll ask him to convert it.

Also, and just for refrence, here are the numbers from each of the cars they tested that day:

A4 GT.
Weight w/driver: 3590 lbs
ET: 14.095 @ 96.64 (Ford A4s kinda suck.....understatment, IMHO)

M5 Mach 1
Weight w/driver: 3660 lbs
ET: 13.156 @ 105.35

M6 Cobra Convertable (ie....heavy)
Weight w/driver: 3930 lbs (ouch!!!)
ET: 12.77 @ 111.00 (not impressive at all - damn)


Ok. Your implication was different - especially the "interesting" comment at the end of your sentence. But I'll take your word for it. It is quite irrelevant anyways. 13.6 for a Mach isn't uncommon.


No issues with that.


Perhaps. Perhaps not.

Now lets play with Mr. "you couldnt hold a candle to the amount of auto knowledge that i have."

Hello. You said the following, earlier in this thread:





A knowledgeable person reads that, then is supposed to believe that we "couldn't hold a candle to the amount of auto knowledge" that you have? Are you trying to be serious? So tell me - how do we get an oil leak from a head gasket? Do you even know what a head gasket does, or what it seals? And there's a tsb on "powershifting"? Really. Could you look that up for us - along with the oil leaking from the headgasket tsb? Thanks. And you know, I was thinking Ford used different pistons, rods, heads, intake, cams, block, etc on the 2003/2004 Cobra vice what they had in ealier years. That's not true? Damn - Ford's printing lies. What a bummer.

Got stupid?

Further, you also contridicted yourself in this same thread....to wit...you said...


Followed not long afterwards by...

:think: So which is it? You said the LS1 is more reliable in one quote, but that the 4.6 has less problems in another.

Wow. Your breadth of "automotive knowledge" is overwhelming. Dude - quit now. You'll look better later. Really.First of all I didnt say everone when i said steve y could not hold a candle to my knowledge.Secondl why should i even answer this a head gasket seals compression,prevents leaks,etc...wow. :rolleyes:.I didnt say anything about a tsb on powershifting.I said there is a tsb on a shifting problem from 2nd to 3rd on mustangs which doesnt mean its all that common just because theres a tsb on it.Use yahoo search/ type in technical service bulletins /find a site /look em up.Im not an expert on the 4.6.I just assumed they were the same engine from 99-04.The later 4.6 engines are also rated at 260 hp arent they?Yes this is the one that made me look bad by contradicting myself.Truthfully I dont know which is more reliable does anyone?I mean yes the ls1 has more tsbs such as piston slap on cold mornings and more than normal oil consumption,but that doesnt mean the engine isnt going to last you 200,000 miles I mean they designed this motor originally for the vette.Mr Bill Cosby I do agree with you about the 01 ss having a slight performance advantage over the 00 cobra.I figure there are some things i could learn from you that I dont know,But i think there are some things i could give you some insight to also.That what makes a good tech is actually listening to what other people have to say,and being willing to learn new things everyday.

That's interesting... only dyno I ever tested my car on was a mustang dyno.
98z28 w/ K&N: 316rwhp, 326 rwtq. Makes me wonder what it would have put down on a dynojet... :eek: Unfortunately, the only real accessible dyno around town is a mustang dyno, closest dynojet facility is a good hour and a half away. Maybe this weekend I'll have my car dyno'd on both and post results. :thumb:

The highest i've ever heard of for a bone stock LS1 was 321 rwhp on a dynojet. It was an '01 SS 6-speed. I doubt your car would do better than that bone stock.

If anyones a troll its you steve y.Don't you have any thing better to do than come on f-body forums and talk trash?I think your out of your environment.Trolls live under bridges(aka mustang forums land of the trolls)so I think I can help you find your way home.I believe its called stangnet.com.If you need directions its easy.Just go through the path known as im just another victim of a 4th gen camaro ass beating all the way to where you belong in the land of defeated mustangs.

Defeated Mustangs? I personally guarantee I could spank your Z (as it sits) in the 1/4 mile with my "defeated" Stang. You are just one of many trolls that come through this site on a yearly basis that knows very little and blabs a lot, with a big attitude and chip on his shoulder. Back under your rock.

Right back at you with your :bs: stories about beating LS1's by 2-3 car lengths with your 210 RWHP GT, which were mysteriously just grudge matches with "no time slips",of course.



60 RWHP difference, i think not, any fool knows there is a little difference, but not 60 RWHP. If that were the case, a 3 cylinder Geo Metro should register about....2-3 FWHP on a mustang dyno.


See above post about correcting my spelling. I am glad Bob knows more about about Drag Racing, and cars in general then i do. Let me ask you this, if i may, though::::HOW IN THE **** WOULD YOU KNOW??!?! Do you even know who i am?? For all you know, i could be John Force sitting at this computer right now. Second grade, Troll? Good, maybe personal slams make you feel better, while you sit there at your little computer, and beat your little ding-dong. Or maybe ridiculing people on this board time and time again, is to compensate for all the stress you have at work pushing around the mop bucket. Perhaps it is to compensate for a Small pecker as well.

So lets recap:
1) You are just as illiterate as everyone on this board "Captain Spelling Bee"
2) Your car sucks (well all except the "massive" tire-spin between 1 and 2)
3) You assume waaaaaay too much, dont put words into other people's mouth.
4) And last but not least you have proven, time and time again, you are a wad that should have been swallowed.

Goodnight, remember to put your "caution wet floor" signs up while you are mopping out the ****house.

I never post bs. I have about 250 rwhp, 200 lbs. less than stock and great traction. The 60 horsepower difference was a % of loss, not an absolute #. If you are John Force, then you are the dumbest drag racer alive! :D How do you know the size of my dong? Are you spying on me? Perverted homo! See my profile for what I do for a living. I have a bachelors degree in Pre-med, a business minor, am an Eagle boy scout, and run a manufacturing company. Do you really think I have average intelligence in here? I bet my "sucky" car would probably beat you in the 1/4 mile.

What do you manufacture?

What do you manufacture?

Wood and plastic products for wholesale distribution.

Chill out guys! None of you will ever be able to run each other liveing so far away.

Thank you bob cosby, smart man.

"See my profile for what I do for a living. I have a bachelors degree in Pre-med, a business minor, am an Eagle boy scout, and run a manufacturing company. Do you really think I have average intelligence in here?"

OMFG only losers brag about that on the internet. Guess what? WHO GIVES A ****.

I never post bs. I have about 250 rwhp, 200 lbs. less than stock and great traction.

Ok, great traction, but i thought you had to baby it in between 1-2 to avoid "massive wheelspin"? So let me get this straight, you have great traction right off the line, where it is like a sheet of ice, you launch at, what, 3-4K (cant remember, you keep changing your story), but you have to "grandpa" it into second with drag radials?? Ok there goes your never posting BS credibility right out the window.

The 60 horsepower difference was a % of loss, not an absolute #. If you are John Force, then you are the dumbest drag racer alive!

No, if i were John Force, i would be the "best" drag racer alive. I am sure you knew that though :rolleyes:

How do you know the size of my dong? Are you spying on me? Perverted homo!

Never said i did, again please follow these steps:
1) Read the post
2) Comprehend the post
3) Respond accordingly, or in your case, keep quiet to avoid making an ass out of yourself.

I have a bachelors degree in Pre-med, a business minor, am an Eagle boy scout, and run a manufacturing company.

Wood and plastic products for wholesale distribution.

Thats cool. Let me guess, the wood is the mop handle, and plastic is the bucket, and "caution wet floor" signs.

Do you really think I have average intelligence in here? I bet my "sucky" car would probably beat you in the 1/4 mile.

Well, intelligence is not the subject i would get on if i were you. Obviously you arent the sharpest tool in the shed, claiming your mustang would beat me. The fastest time you have ran is a 14.0 (I know you cant go to the track that often because its 700 miles one way to the 7000 feet above sea level track, and 1400 miles one way to the nearest sea-level track). That run was at sea level, am i correct? That is the same time i ran in my 95 (mph may be different, mine was 98) and the strip here is not at sea level. Again, please think before responding to avoid looking like an idiot.

And on a side note, where do you get off calling camaro enthusiasts "trolls"?
To second an earlier opinion, if anyone is a troll, its you. You are the one stirring **** up everywhere.

Back to the bathroom Steve Y, i think the urinals need a good scrubbing, and dont forget to mop behind the toilets in the ****-house.
:bow: :bow: :bow: Steve Y!!!!!! :bow: :bow: :bow: :rolleyes:

Why don't Steve Y and Black00SS just run at the track and video tape it? :D

wow, definitely not a clean debate going on in here. :) I'm guessing 18 pages on this one.

btw Garage, don't add flames. if my intelligence was insulted I'd start trying to pull every reason/credential I have to prove otherwise. if he really wanted to brag he would mention how his achievements reinforce his arguments. :)

And on a side note, where do you get off calling camaro enthusiasts "trolls"?
To second an earlier opinion, if anyone is a troll, its you. You are the one stirring **** up everywhere.

SteveY isn't a troll, just a bit enthusiastic at times, like most of us. He's been here a long time and my guess is he'll be on this forum long after you're gone. That's not the mark of a troll.

Thank you bob cosby, smart man.

"See my profile for what I do for a living. I have a bachelors degree in Pre-med, a business minor, am an Eagle boy scout, and run a manufacturing company. Do you really think I have average intelligence in here?"

OMFG only losers brag about that on the internet. Guess what? WHO GIVES A ****.

I was not bragging. He said I push a mop bucket, I told him otherwise. I catch too much crap for having that stuff in my profile. People can't handle it in here so I will delete it.

Ok, great traction, but i thought you had to baby it in between 1-2 to avoid "massive wheelspin"? So let me get this straight, you have great traction right off the line, where it is like a sheet of ice, you launch at, what, 3-4K (cant remember, you keep changing your story), but you have to "grandpa" it into second with drag radials?? Ok there goes your never posting BS credibility right out the window.



No, if i were John Force, i would be the "best" drag racer alive. I am sure you knew that though :rolleyes:



Never said i did, again please follow these steps:
1) Read the post
2) Comprehend the post
3) Respond accordingly, or in your case, keep quiet to avoid making an ass out of yourself.





Thats cool. Let me guess, the wood is the mop handle, and plastic is the bucket, and "caution wet floor" signs.


Well, intelligence is not the subject i would get on if i were you. Obviously you arent the sharpest tool in the shed, claiming your mustang would beat me. The fastest time you have ran is a 14.0 (I know you cant go to the track that often because its 700 miles one way to the 7000 feet above sea level track, and 1400 miles one way to the nearest sea-level track). That run was at sea level, am i correct? That is the same time i ran in my 95 (mph may be different, mine was 98) and the strip here is not at sea level. Again, please think before responding to avoid looking like an idiot.

And on a side note, where do you get off calling camaro enthusiasts "trolls"?
To second an earlier opinion, if anyone is a troll, its you. You are the one stirring **** up everywhere.

Back to the bathroom Steve Y, i think the urinals need a good scrubbing, and dont forget to mop behind the toilets in the ****-house.
:bow: :bow: :bow: Steve Y!!!!!! :bow: :bow: :bow: :rolleyes:

Read the sig. dumbass! The traction problem was with street tires, BEFORE the DRs! My sig. has been the same for months, ask anybody around here. I am very aware of what John Force has done. How do you know I have a little dong? Yep, i'm a mop bucket pusher. :)

Again, read the sig. I ran that time before the last round of mods. I bet I could give you a serious run for your $$ in the 1/4 mile. Yep, i'm the troll. :rolleyes: Who has been here longer? Who can't handle the truth and read and understand sigs? You.

SteveY isn't a troll, just a bit enthusiastic at times, like most of us. He's been here a long time and my guess is he'll be on this forum long after you're gone. That's not the mark of a troll.

Thank you! :bow:

Meh......... I'm late getting into this. I didn't bother reading the mudslinging fest, if this has been hashed out before, sorry. That Mach is too fast for what mods he's claiming! I'm by no means discounting Mustangs, Mach 1's etc. but There's no way a simple bolt on Mach 1 is going to put it on a simple bolt on LS1 like that..... If they did that, I'd be saving my money up for a Mach 1 now :cool:

Steve y arent you the same guy that claims he never lost to a stock ls1?As far as intelligence goes i think i know about working on cars way more than you.Your also the guy who said a mustang dynos results are about 60 hp less than a dynojet.lol.So if my lt1 which is probably faster than your stang dynoed 255 hp at the rear wheels that means on a mustang dyno it would be 195.dont think so steve y.Tell me what a typical procedure would be for testing a tps on my camaro would be steve y/mr knowledge whatever.Ive beat a 99+ gt before dont think i would have that many problems with you.On the highway i know my lt1 would kill your gt.

Mustang dyno's do usually read significantly less than a dynojet.

You comments about leaking oil via head gaskets do not do anything to help your "working on cars" credibility. At all.

Steve y arent you the same guy that claims he never lost to a stock ls1?As far as intelligence goes i think i know about working on cars way more than you.Your also the guy who said a mustang dynos results are about 60 hp less than a dynojet.lol.So if my lt1 which is probably faster than your stang dynoed 255 hp at the rear wheels that means on a mustang dyno it would be 195.dont think so steve y.Tell me what a typical procedure would be for testing a tps on my camaro would be steve y/mr knowledge whatever.Ive beat a 99+ gt before dont think i would have that many problems with you.On the highway i know my lt1 would kill your gt.

Are you bench racing again? What does your car run? Mind sharing some wealth of knowledge with me? I'm very interested so I can sit back and learn something.