What rear wheel hp stock?

Discussion in '2005 - 2009 Specific Tech' started by Gregor111, Sep 24, 2008.


  1. Gearbanger 101

    Gearbanger 101 Straight Outta Locash Super Mod

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2002
    Messages:
    14,415
    Likes Received:
    919
    Trophy Points:
    164
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    What's your point? My POS Cougar would slap your GT around like a Red Headed Stepchild on the street and at the track.....but you don't see me throwing that in your face. Come talk to me again when you Mustangs running in the 410hp/465lbs ft/tq range like my POS Cougar is. ;)
     
    #21
  2. NastyStang113

    NastyStang113 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,591
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Florida
    ~290 rwhp with a VMP 93 octane tune, C&L Racer with 88mm maf tube, and axleback.

    [​IMG]

    Sorry for the quality.

    Plus the UDPs and CMCVs.

    [​IMG]
     
    #22
  3. Five Oh Brian

    Five Oh Brian New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    553
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest
    I live in the Seattle area, and have been to nearby Vancouver BC enough times during the Fox body years to remember seeing brand new Mustang Cobras on the Ford lots there. At the time, I owned a brand new '89 Mustang 5.0L LX Sport hatchback. 5 speed, 2.73 factory gears (replaced w/ 3.73's when the car was just a couple months old). Great cars regardless of whether they were badged as GT's or Cobras.
     
    #23
  4. Five Oh Brian

    Five Oh Brian New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    553
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest
    Your friend's Mach 1 was running worse than average compared to most Mach 1's out there. Could be the catback was leaning out the a/f ratio just enough to slow down the car? Could be some other culprit hurting his power. Again, bone stock (except w/ drag radials) I knocked off a 13.01 @ 105+ with my '03 Mach 1. Trap speeds are almost always between 104-106 mph for most stock manual Mach 1's, so high 90's to 102 for your buddy's car tells me he was down on power for some reason.

    More importantly, your buddy sounds like he doesn't know how to maximize the performance of his car as you were able to just jump into his car and better his times. And, since you weren't familiar with his car, I seriously doubt you jumped into it and knocked off the best ET's that the car would be capable of with a good driver who was familiar with the car. With some practice and familiarity with his Mach 1, I bet you could make that Mach 1 run much quicker than you did.

    Again, I have personally owned both cars. Put 30K miles on the Mach 1 in the 3 years I owned it. Met up with lots of other Mach 1's at the track. Made dozens of 1/4 miles passes in my car when it was all stock. And now I've had the '07 for 2 years and made dozens of 1/4 mile passes in it, as well. There are plenty of S197's at our local track, I know more than a few of these guys, and I have followed their progress from stock through the mods as we compare notes on what works and what doesn't. Being totally unbiased and having owned and raced both models gives me clarity and perspective that you just plain do not have.
     
    #24
  5. 69mach1-409

    69mach1-409 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    140
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    South Jersey
    Yup, 93oct. :nice:

    Just as a side note: I've read that Axleback / Catback do nothing (power wise) for the S197's. I know I didn't feel any difference after I had added the Stingers.
     
    #25
  6. Mach1nut

    Mach1nut New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2006
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have a 2003 Mach1 that I have owned since new. I have dropped my times from a 13.86 @ 102 with a 2.16 60' bone stock at 900 miles on the clock down to a 12.60 @ 107 with a 1.65 60' time.

    Here's a pass


    I weigh over 260lbs so I am sure a featherweight could go even faster with my car but here's a run I video'd with this same set-up a few months ago. This was a different run than my best time. There are guys running 12.0's with not much more done than mine. I have yet to see a S197 run a 7.99 or better at my local 1/8th mile track without the use of Nitrous or Forced Induction.

    I love the new 05-up bodystyle and can't wait to see the full views of the 2010 so I am not putting down the newer body style. They are a huge leap forward from the previous gen GT's.
     
    #26
  7. rich1

    rich1 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    10 Reasons I bought a mach and not an S197

    1) Stupid Handbrake placement
    2) Fake gas cap
    3) Cartoon Dash cant see the Guages
    4) Lousy Brakes
    5) Biggy -size body
    6) 2 piece Driveshaft
    7) Heavy car
    8) Dealer mark-up a joke
    9) Drive by wire throttle Nanny
    10) Slower than a Mach Sotck or Mod for mod

    Those were my reasons in 05 and still are . Btw My Mach is an Auto...all #s rwhp/tq... Stock Dyno-260hp/301 tq mild.... Mods and Sct tune 297hp/311tq....Compucar 90 shot 358hp/385 tq ....mild Nos tune.12.5 @110 1/4 .
     

    Attached Files:

    #27
  8. NastyStang113

    NastyStang113 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,591
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Florida
    I could tell you what I really think about all this but I don't think I'll waste my time. :shrug:
     
    #28
  9. rich1

    rich1 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    OK...and...I wont waste my time looking for you in the rear Mirror either !:rlaugh:
     
    #29
  10. NastyStang113

    NastyStang113 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,591
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Florida
    I wouldn't either. It'd be hard to see something that isn't there. I'm assuming you're going off of my numbers in my signature? I'll let you in on a little secret ... those are old numbers. :rlaugh::rlaugh:

    However, what I find really funny is you were the guy just talking about mod for mod. The power number in my signature is just bolt ons, not even full bolt ons, compared to your 297hp/311tq. I ran a 12.80 with those mods. Add all of my stuff and see ya !! .. especially since we're not talking about mod for mod, right?
     
    #30
  11. rich1

    rich1 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Yep!.... mod for mod n/a mild bolt ons too..:rolleyes:.. but your 318 hp is with a Manual my 297hp is with an Auto you do the FWHP math ! See ya in the Rear !::lol:
     
    #31
  12. Gearbanger 101

    Gearbanger 101 Straight Outta Locash Super Mod

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2002
    Messages:
    14,415
    Likes Received:
    919
    Trophy Points:
    164
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    If you weren't so new, I'd consider this a new CT for you. ;)
     
    #32
  13. NastyStang113

    NastyStang113 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,591
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Florida
    :stupid:
     
    #33
  14. rich1

    rich1 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Since you picked out that part of the post to read you2 must be .:stupid:buddies !:nice:
     
    #34
  15. Gearbanger 101

    Gearbanger 101 Straight Outta Locash Super Mod

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2002
    Messages:
    14,415
    Likes Received:
    919
    Trophy Points:
    164
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    Not at all.....I read the whole thing, but what do I care to be apart of your ****ing match with NastyStang113? That being said, when you say something so off the cuff they way you did, it could be interpreted in so many different ways and as a result gets noticed. And that's my job here....to notice things! ;)

    Oh.....and if you'll read back a few posts, you'll notice I'm for a pretty evenly split between the two cars and not necessarily in favor of one or the other from a stock performance standpoint. If you really want to get nit-picky about it though, I’d probably go with a Mach 1 over an S197. I'll admit, the superior design cues of the S197 makes it the better car between the two over all, but the aggressive look of the Mach 1, combined with its lower production run and 4-valve heritage makes it my clear favorite of the two.

    ...that's not to say I'm still not willing to be optimistic though. :shrug:
     
    #35
  16. rich1

    rich1 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ha :rlaugh:ha got you Guys !:nono: See another person on this site said all the S197 guys here were ganging up on his Mach and he was out numbered . So he asked for help on the Mach site ...I posted the list there too with mixed results .But all the Numbers, Times and Dynos are real . Just stirring things up a bit ! So to see who is real ..:Track:
     
    #36
  17. TGJ

    TGJ New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    1,054
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well hate to bust your bubble but your Mach is likely heavier than an 05 - 06 GT. Same scale same day right after each other, my 05 GT 5 spd manual weighed 1580 KG( 3476 lbs ) with a full tank of gas and full weight, no driver or person in the car. Friends 04 Mach 1 5 spd manual weighed 1585 KG( 3488 lbs ) with a full tank of gas and full weight, no person in the car...:shrug:
     
    #37
  18. rich1

    rich1 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Get to a new Ceritfied Scale...Seriously.:nono:..That goes againist every other Car Mag and site weight info ever printed.
     
    #38
  19. TGJ

    TGJ New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    1,054
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I disagree that his car was down on power. Here is a Sig from a member at Stangnet that had a 2003 Mach 1 who is kind of local to me as he went to the same track I go to.

    I have seen this Mach run and I can say that the Nittos used were the Drag Radials.

    100 - 103 MPH is what local Mach 1's have been trapping.

    He started racing in 2005 with his Mach 1 and maybe had 10 passes on his car before we ran against each other for the first time. I fully expected to hop into his car and run it better than him. I drove his car on 3 occasions down the track and have about 12 passes on it. The first 3 passes with his car was before I had 10 on mine. I had mine running consistent 13.7 after my 5th pass.

    My best outing with his car was the 2nd one where I ran my personal best of 2006. That was the one I talked about earlier...
     
    #39
  20. TGJ

    TGJ New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    1,054
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No it doesn't if you were to ACTUALLY check, you would see that a Mach 1 and a S197 GT are quite close in weight with the S197 being the LIGHTER car...

    I have posted in the past quite a few web links that had the Curb Weights for 03 - 04 Mach 1's and S197 GT listed...
     
    #40

Share This Page