Exactly....Nice times.......4v's

 

You trapped 112 on pump gas?..Stock cam? ..>WOW...I have never ever heard of that. 112 is a damn good trap speed indicating nearly 400 crank HP. That is very very hard to beleive man. Not to call you a lier but I dont see how your 4.6 could possibly have 400HP as is. When I say unstopable I mean mod for mod.
112 is extremely impressive.

 

Thanks for the compliment(s).

Yep - 112.35 mph on 93 Octane pump gas. Stock cam(s) and all.

Time Slips from 04/16/05

I'm actually a little disappointed in the trap speed - I was expecting 113 - 114 mph.
I set my shift light to 6200 by mistake instead of 6700 like I should have & didn't notice it until I was done racing.

 

first of all a STOCK 03 mach 1 does not have 330hp! it comes 305hp from the factory and that is not dyno! it is 305hp at the flywheel. i advise u to look n read this information and faqs about the mach 1 before saying anything!
http://www.mach1registry.com/FAQ.htm
that site has all the information u need about a mach 1.
it don't matter whether a mach 1 is manual or automatic, it will still come with 305hp stock! so your saying a mach 1 with automatic has 305hp and a mach 1 with manual has 330hp? are u stupid? u need to read your faqs!!

 

hey buddy i was talking about coming straight from the factory stock! i wasn't talking about dyno. ofcourse if u dyno your car u will get low number and that is because your stock from the factory comes at the fly wheel.

 

HOLY COW!!!!!now I know why you trapped so high. You pulled a 1.6 sixty...I was confused fro a minute. But apparently you made good use of the power you have so it all makes since. I wouldnt know what its like to pull such a good sixty. My rear end would snap like a twig If I even attempted a 1.9.

Nice times!!!

 

Man...This is uncalled for. Pipe down. Name calling is rediculous and not necassary.

 

Angus understands you where not talking about dyno. I think youn are the one not understanding. If you do the math assuming drivetrain loss with his dyno numbers he is pushing nearly 330 crank HP.

Just like LS1's they have been underated. LS1's are supposed to have 305 at the flywheel as well but have more like 350+ using dyno numbers and percentages to calculate the Amount of power.

Coming frmo a LS1 man thrue and thrue I can tell you the Mach1 is an underated car.

 

That information was/is provided by Ford Motor Company.

It's a well-known fact that the '03/'04 Mach 1 4V's were under-rated by just a bit.

I owned an '01 Cobra - rated at 320 crank hp/320 crank torque - right before my Mach.
I had both cars dynoed when they were completely stock - right down to the paper air filter.

Here's what the '01 Cobra vs the '03 Mach dyno looked like.

Funny how the '03 Mach power & torque curve are ABOVE the (officially) higher rated Cobra 4V...

Also, divide the Cobra's 273.3 rwhp by .85 (for 15% driveline loss) & it equals ~ 321 crank hp, which is pretty close to the 320 hp that Ford rated the 4V in '01.

Now divide the 281.6 rwhp by .85 & it equals ~ 331 crank hp.

That's about 25 hp higher than Ford rated the 4V in '03.



Just as an FYI - I've been a member of Mach1registry.com since August of '03 (the month before I bought my Mach ) & I have almost 1000 posts on that fine site.

I think I know a little about what information is posted and/or available there...

Another FYI - don't believe EVERYTHING you read on the internet.

MANY internet sites still state that all Mach 1's had/have a cast-iron engine block - probably because Ford's own press release stated so & has never been corrected.

I know for a fact that ALL Mach 1's have aluminum engine blocks, not cast iron though.

So much for "Internet-Accuracy"...

 

im just proving my point and correcting what he said was wrong

 

Guys,
Not really any sence in dragging this discussion on and getting bitter, but to add...
I dont believe the Mach has 330 fwhp , but it should have a touch more than 305 as it IS underrated like the LS1. Im thinking somewhere in the ballpark of 312 fwhp. Take away the driveline loss percentages and it would about equal on average 280-285 to the wheels(STOCK).

 

Damn,
After re- reading Angus' link.... Maybe they do have 330...lol

 

I think they are pretty close. Im sure some have more power then others.
But Numbers dont lie.

 

Seems to me like all you have is your OPINION which is based on little/no verifiable and/or accurate data.

I provided measurable/quantifiable/verifiable FACTS however to prove that I'm right...

 

As far as I've seen, the lowest manual-trans dyno has been ~ 273 rwhp & the highest has been 291 rwhp.

Considering how much cars and dynos can (& do) vary, the power range seems pretty much within the norm for a production vehicle these days...