isnt mach 1 meant to be faster than gt?

Discussion in '2003 Ford Mustang Mach 1' started by FORDFORD, Feb 18, 2003.

  1. Re: isnt mach 1 meant to be faster than gt?

    of course if you are dumb enough to buy a car for 25 grand that has 170 some odd horses then i suppose you can have your unriced for the nonfunctional hood scoop....its called history....and i nver called u in particular ryce mr defensive.....i mean...if you can convince yourself to buy a car like that..which gets smoked by any mustang gt....for 3k more....yeah..the car handles well...but ask my friend who owns a 02 celica gts and has driven my 99 cobra convertible.....and ask him which one he likes to drive more....ask him why he completely regrets buying his car.....he like many others never gave the mustang a chance...and is paying the price when he gets eaten alive on the streets...and go back and argue the wrong points in my stupid debate...i took time to argue with americanhp ...personally i think you are just talking out of your ass
  2. Re: isnt mach 1 meant to be faster than gt?

    actually i was in japan (last year i left) for over 2 years and it never once topped my friend are just lying to make friends and look cool...if you want ill even post some pics of the yen rate on my ATM withdrawal fact while i was over was under 100 for quite a much in fact that our COLA was skyrocketing...and ok so i never thought to buy a mustang in japan...y would i...when i could buy a used japanese car for 3k and mod that..its not like i was keeping it...oh in those tech forums i was reading..i had also seen more than one person who had you on the most ignorant posters coming from you i take most of it as a compliment..i think u like many have a snobbery problem....i have driven a r33 many mustang cobra's have u driven??? i owned 2 performance cars while in japan..and was constantly up in the mountains(okutama) with japanese nationals riding in their skylines, glanza's/starlets, rx-7's, wrx's, and evo's..and they all had massive money in their car to get them as fast as they were...i mean in an economy where coilovers are going for 3k a forget how much money these people made...look at the gas prices...i was spending over 100 dollars a week keeping my car filled with off base high octane gas.....and yeah some turbo kits are cheaper....for my soarer(had a 1g-gte) i wanted a hks kit...which was a single setup and was made to put out 350 rear wheel....but cost 5 grand for a complete in average i find that their kits were very much the same as american kits...brand new single exhaust's cost more than my entire exhaust including headers...there is no excuse for that stuff....and as for the last thing...if the change in velocity and pressure doesnt affect the power...because thats the only fact pressure is what closes the inlet valve on the airbox...all mustangs draw from the fenderwells now..drawing in that wonderful cold for the fastest car under 50 k...possibly......but the mustang isnt in the 50 k price range....this is a 29 k car....the s2000 is a 32k car....the track edition z is 35 k...all have their inflation at the dealership..none worse than the friend paid 39 k for his..if you want some links ill show u a guy(nitrous pete) who is making 800 rear wheel horses on his stock blocked twin screw(kenne bell) supercharged cobra...he is running 9's and has all of 10 k invested..on top of the 34k orig cost of as we go back to dollar value..where would u rather spend your money???it all comes down to..u show me yours and ill show u mine....
  3. #78 27GTR, Apr 17, 2003
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Re: isnt mach 1 meant to be faster than gt?

    Two years (within the last three) and never topped 107? Really....

    You just labeled yourself a liar. 2001-124Yen/dollar...2002 133 Yen/dollar....So much for your post......
    Damn, if I wanted to buy an R34 in Feb last year, I could have picked up an N1 for 42k USD....that`s 450HP for about the same price as a standard C5. Or...if I wanted to go cheap...a 250hp Silvia Spec R for 18k...or go all out and fully load that bad boy for 21k USD. The Yen rate sucked for brief periods of time...mainly in 94-95. Since then it has been pretty damn good. It hasn`t dropped on average less than 115 this year!

    5k for a turbo kit? 3k for coil-overs? LOL....I paid less than 2200 for my GT2540`s, a COMPLETE 3037 kit will run you less than 5k.... both new. HKS Hyper-DamperII...124,000 Yen...that looks like 1/3 of what you claim coilovers cost! Exhaust?! My SuperDrager from Frontpipe to tail was less than 700 dollars. Front pipe was 400 dollars...probably could have done without it. It sounds like YOU are pulling stuff out of your ass to sound cool. Wanna try to argue Yen prices with me again? Nice job.
    By the way...I don`t think the R33 is all that great...

    You had also "seen" me on the ignorant posters list...interesting paradox.

    Why don`t you go ahead and name all those posters you SAW claiming I was ignorant....we`ll take a look at their posts shall we.

    No...the real difference is temperature. Educate yourself, take a course in fluids, and then look at the`ll realise how ridiculous you sound....
  4. Re: isnt mach 1 meant to be faster than gt?

    ....and now it would appear....obviously not.

    With the EVO running neck and neck with the 03 Cobra, the Mustang Mach doesn`t stand much of a chance....on the track OR the strip...
  5. Re: isnt mach 1 meant to be faster than gt?

    Around a track...yes. At the The mach 1 and the evo are almost at a dead tie when it comes to straight line performance.

    I'll give the evo some major props though, great car, and great price. Only thing I don't's interior looks just like the interior in my neon...?!? But for all the performance you're getting with that car, I could easily over look that.
    Another has 30hp less then the WRX sti, and yet it's faster...? Is is a lot lighter, better gearing, what's the deal? I'm starting to love this car.
  6. Re: isnt mach 1 meant to be faster than gt?

    LOL.... so you it's completely fair to compare the Mach 1's "best time" of 13.1 in MMFF where, as you put it, they REALLY drive the car, to, also as you put it, the inexperienced drivers of the major publications?

    Why don't we compare times from the same magazine at least...LOL.
    The Mach 1 must be as fast as the Cobra! After all....SAME DAY, SAME DRIVERS, SAME TEST SITUATION, the Cobra ran a 13.01 vs the EVO's 13.08.

    It's amazing how you selectively forget all these little facts when it suits you.

    By the way....the MotorTrend test was at a FORD test facility.

    ...and if you ask me, the Mustang's interior looks a bit like a what's your point? LOL.....

    How long have I been saying it?....Forever.....the EVO IS a great car....unfortunately it's not as good as the V....but it'll work.
  7. Re: isnt mach 1 meant to be faster than gt?

    What the f^ck are a=you rambling on about dipshit? Is that all you can do, just run off at the mouth no matter what the situation?

    "LOL.... so you it's completely fair to compare the Mach 1's "best time" of 13.1 in MMFF where, as you put it, they REALLY drive the car, to, also as you put it, the inexperienced drivers of the major publications?"
    It's the best time I have seen thus far for the evo. Until I see something better that's what it is. And as it stands the best overall time for the evo is almost identical as the best overall time for the mach 1. It's really that simple.

    "By the way....the MotorTrend test was at a FORD test facility."
    No shit moron. And so what moron? A tracks a track, who cares who's it is?

    "...and if you ask me, the Mustang's interior looks a bit like a what's your point? LOL....."
    If you ask me your a tool. The mustangs interior looks nothing like the focuses. The focus uses very angular designs, while the mustang uses curves. The focuses interior has more of a moderen feel to it, while the mustang has something of a retro feel to it, not even close. Try again. Not that I wouldn't mind having the interior of the mustang look like the one out of the focus, it's very well done.

  8. Re: isnt mach 1 meant to be faster than gt?

    Seems pictures don't want to upload right now...crappy
  9. Re: isnt mach 1 meant to be faster than gt?

    Back to name calling? LOL

    No, it's not that simple.

    A Ford magazine comes up with an off the wall time for a Mach 1, using every trick in the book to make it go as fast as they can.

    A non-brand affiliated publication tests the Cobra and EVO on the same day, same conditions, same track, same driver, and they run practically equal times. So you're saying the Mach 1 is as fast as the Cobra?

    Same day, same test. For all we know, under the conditions the Cobra ran a 12.6 or 12.4, the Evo might do the same thing?!

    Like I said....same everything, the EVO is as fast as the Cobra in 1/4, and faster on the track......for less....
  10. Re: isnt mach 1 meant to be faster than gt?

    he doesnt have a clue
  11. Re: isnt mach 1 meant to be faster than gt?

    Thatg what i thought because in the 60's and 70's, the Mach 1 was the king of Mustang. Now its too close to a stock Mustang.
  12. Re: isnt mach 1 meant to be faster than gt?

    Too close to a stock stang...WTF are you talking about? Please explain?!? It is a stock stang, a stock Mach 1...
  13. Re: isnt mach 1 meant to be faster than gt?

    Why would anyone care about the 350Z It's butt ugly and looks nothing like how a Z should. The older 300Zs were much cooler in style and performace. The new 350Z is an insult to the Z series as a whole! The new brake lights and headlights make it look hideously ugly! Yeah sure the interior looks sharp but the exterior is ugly as hell! The car resemble's a 5yr old's toy in appearance! Atleast the Mustang looks like a car.
  14. Re: isnt mach 1 meant to be faster than gt?

    What r u smoking
    the Mach 1 has 305 hp
    the GT has 260
  15. #90 03Mach1, Feb 16, 2004
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
  16. Re: isnt mach 1 meant to be faster than gt?

    well, what he might mean is that the MACH 1 is no longer king of the stable, the Cobra is. I LOVE all MACH 1's, but long live the Cobra.
  17. #92 04azuremach1, Apr 27, 2004
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Re: isnt mach 1 meant to be faster than gt?

    Well shouldn't you guys consult a Mach 1 owner before all this nonsense? Ford rated the '04 Mach at 310 HP and 335 lb-ft of torque. Dyno tests have proven it's more like 320 HP and 345-350 lb-ft at the crank. Good drivers have gotten the Mach down to 12.9's at the track stock and 12.7-8's with drag radials. I've seen it done in person. My best time is a 13.3 now, but I've only had the car a little over a month and it's my first stick shift so I'm not exactly a professional driver. At any rate, I've still beaten an Evo 7 at the track. Their AWD gives them a good hole shot, but my extra 50... yeah 50 (let's get that straight right now) horsepower ran it down faster than you might think it would. This crap about Evo's running 13 flat is BS. The best I've seen one do is 13.8. I also beat an STi in ET, but it actually won because of it's reaction time. It was my best run of 13.31 and it ran a 13.46. But my reaction time was shitty so I still lost. Anyway, most people who race their Mach or Evo or STi don't leave them stock long. I'm going to tell you right now the Mach has a hell of a lot more potential for drag racing (people who buy Mach's don't give a shit about tracks, that's not why we buy them). People have gotten Mach's deep into the 11's with only bolt ons and drag radials. What are you going to do with an Evo or STi? add a little boost? It'll take quite a bit to get deep into the 11's, and sure you'll get a few runs, but it'll last 2 years if you're lucky. Us Mach owners can achieve 11's and still be under warranty; there's food for thought. Also, the red line of the Mach is 1k higher than the GT so it's top end is a lot more than you'd expect from a Mustang (especially when the incredibly restrictive stock exhaust is replaced). Notice the Mach's trap speed in the quarter is higher than both the STi and the Evo. This means it has a lot better potential if it had more traction out of the hole. Check out this video of a Mach 1 with almost no engine mods running a high 11 with ET slicks.
    Put on Vortech's supercharger that should be out soon and the Mach will have about 500 rwhp. And remember that Mach in the video only had about 310-315 rwhp. The Mach's chassis was made for drag racing, not the track, hell the GT did better on the skid pad than the Mach and the Mach is lower and has a better suspension. Face it, the more cubes the more potential. I'll admit a GM LS1 or LS2 has more potential but there's no more firebirds or camaros and the 'vette is a little too expensive. Plus parts for Mustangs are cheap as hell. Here's my prediction, even though there's more Evo's and STi's combined than there are Mach 1's on the road, in 3 years there will be more Mach's running in Sub 12's than there are Evo's and STi's combined... go to any track and you'll see. Why? because the Mach has more potential, just face it.

    And to respond to the original post of this, it's a hell of a lot faster than the GT. It has the DOHC 4.6. The GT has a SOHC 4.6. The Mach has the '99 Cobra engine with better heads, crank, gears, intake (obviously) and a HELL of a lot better cams. The mach is faster than the pre-'03 Cobras (can't beat a supercharged 4.6). You can talk to me all day about how the Evo's are better handling. Fact is I don't give a shit. I bought it for the quarter. And trying to get back on topic again, I beat an '02 GT by 7 car lengths and yes it was a manaul GT. My friend has a '97 GT with ported manifolds, ported heads, ported headers, straight through exhaust, weight reduction and drag radials and I beat him too. Face it, the Mach isn't a GT with neat badging, it's got motor to back it up.
  18. Re: isnt mach 1 meant to be faster than gt?

    One more thing. You don't special order a Mach you dumb ass. I went straight to the dealer and there were 2 Mach 1's on the lot along with 3 Saleens. The hood was on it when I got it. Obviously if it didn't come with the hood then the shaker scoop wouldn't fit under the other GT hood which means they'd have the engine without the shaker when it's shipped to the dealer. Please show me a picture of a Mustang (non Cobra) with a 4.6 DOHC (NOT the GT SOHC) engine without a shaker hood. And how the hell is it R!ce when it's hood is completely functional? At least it isn't a Mitsubishi Lancer with a Turbo! At least it isn't a car that also has a wagon model! Give me a break.
  19. Re: isnt mach 1 meant to be faster than gt?

    A stock Mustang would be a V-6... I assume that's what you mean? Well, the Mach only has 60% more horsepower and torque so yeah I guess it's close... wait not even close. Actually the new Mach is faster in the quarter than the original Mach... Fastest '69-'71 Mach ran 13.8'-14's. Even the Shelby GT 500 is slower than the new Mach... No, I'm not talking about Eleanor in "Gone in 60 Seconds" that had nitrous. Ford aimed to disapoint no one with the new Mach, and it's faster than the old one, so I don't see how anyone can complain.
  20. Re: isnt mach 1 meant to be faster than gt?

Share This Page