Originally Posted by Bob Cosby

"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."

Originally Posted by Bob Cosby

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 from another site. I think it is appropriate.

Originally Posted by 97bowtie

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****.

Originally Posted by BirchMan98z

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... 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.

Originally Posted by 1BadAzzGT

Hey BirchMan98z,
Check out this article it might help you understand a little more

Originally Posted by MY91Y84

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

Originally Posted by Bob Cosby

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. 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...

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.

Originally Posted by BirchMan98z

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... 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.

Originally Posted by lovescamaros25

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 *** beating all the way to where you belong in the land of defeated mustangs.

Originally Posted by Black00SS

Right back at you with your 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.