My friend has an 03 Mach 1 5 speed. Right now he has Mickey Thompsons on his car, a half-ass tune, and a K&N intake. Other then that it's stock with less then 55K miles on it. It's his daily driver and track car at a local 8th mile. This is the thing, our friend John has this 2000 Formula LS1 car, with 150,000 miles on the engine, transmission, and differential. He has Long tube headers, Y pipe, no cat, and Borla exhaust, with a tune and a WS6 differential with 3.42 gears, I think it's 3.42 I'm not into F-Body cars. At first the LS1 was smoking my friends Mach from rolls because his AUTO ls1 could not hook with the tires he has. He would take the mach by about 2-3 cars and continue pulling, these are rolls from 10 MPH. Then he goes on a road trip, comes back with Proxies or some off named tire, and he can hit wide open throttle in the LS1 without braking the tires lose! And now my friends Mach 1, even with Drag Radials and a 5 speed, cannot touch the LS1 from a dig. What is up with that? The auto LS1 on $80 tires, with 150K miles is humiliating my friends Mach 1! Anyone know of why or how this can happen? Even on the freeway the Mach is not even close to the LS1, they LS1 has the Mach each time by at least 4 cars no matter what roll or speed they race at. Also the Mach can average an 8.6 in the 8th mile, and the LS1 averages the same.
That is easy enough to figure out the Mach is a heavy 300 horse car the TransAm is a heavy 400 horse car
is this serious? mach has like 300 hp maybe a little more 4.6l and he has stock gears, the mach needs like 4.30s hes racing a modded 5.7l LS1 ...hes got 350 hp from the start and now hes got l/t and a tune. if the mach had 4.30s it might be a differant story.
No, the LS1 from the start has 305 hp. Remember this is a 2000, before the year of the LS6 intake, and not a Ram Air car, so 305 is what it starts off at. And I guess the LS1 from what the driver said, was tuned by MagnaFlow on the Dyno for nitrous, but a bottle has never been through the car. The Dyno tuned showed 35X hp to the rear wheels. But still, being an auto, with 150K miles on it, that 5 speed Mach 1 with DRAG RADIALS should take him correct? Even from a dig the LS1 uses the stock stall, leaves the car in drive and lets it shift at 5,000 rpm at most, and still kills the Mach 1. How is this? The LS1 is also heaver then the Mach 1. With 150K miles, the LS1 should not be acting the way it is.
Anywhich way you look at it an LS1 is a better motor than a stock 2V 4.6. Your buddies Mach needs a set of 4.10's in it and are you sure your not gettn sprayed and played by the TA. And how in gods name is a stock Mach with drag radials spinning at @ a 10 roll. Get some gears drop your tires to 15 psi or so get em hot and clean this punk up already, or I'm sending my mom out to drive that thing.
No, the LS1 with blowing the tires away from a roll at 10 will still pull harder then hell on the Mach 1. And 100% positive there is no juice in his car. Nothing.
I wouldn't say better.....more powerful maybe. And while we're on the subject, when you consider how close the two are in performance and the fact that the Ford engine is 281cid and the GM's running 346cid. Which engine is actually the more potent of the two when you sit down and think about it? How stout would the mightly LS1 be if it was dumbed down to the same displacement, or how radical would the Fords DOCH be if it was jacked up to 5.7L? The LS series IMO are good running, reliable V8's that makes great power based more on their sheer size, than their over all design......but some spectacular mechanical marvel like some would make them out to be, they are not!
Hey Chevy man I am far from but you have to give credit where due. Take the new stuff for example the fact that a 5.4 liter roots blown motor cant outmuscle a nat asped 6 liter is just sad. And the LS series motors are pushrod nontheless, so modern technological marvel goes out the window there. How about raw american horsepower. It is a system that just works, I can't tell you the number of LS1 cars I have seen with a 150 shot running 11.50's in street trim, it just works.
You can't honestly believe that? 400hp 6.0L LS2, vs. 500HP 5.4L DOHC. I can't see your argument here? Just because Ford saddled that marvelous power plant to a near 4,000lb car that wasn't drag oriented from the start, doesn't mean the hamster spinning the wheel is any less capable. I said nothing about comparing modern OHC design against OHV. I just don't like the bad rap that the 4.6L gets because it doesn't happen to make the power that the larger GM engines do. What exactly do people expect when the compare the sheer displacement difference between the two. I think the 4.6L DOHC and 3V engines do a tremendous job of making power, considering their limited size and they don't get the credit they deserve. If GM really wants to impress, lets see them make that kind of power and torque with less displacement the way Ford has. Anyone can throw cubes and nitrous at and engine to make power. People (Vette, Camaro and T/A faithful usually) argue all the time that Ford needed to "Supercharge" their engines to outrun the GM's OHV’s. Well, I argue that GM couldn't run with the Ford without increased displacement. The sword has two edges here....and I think a lot of people forget that! Like I said, GM builds a good running, reliable V8's that makes great power for its size. Buy ya know what.....not to any greater extent than Ford has done with the modular line up.
Well Im not defending my friends LS1, but I mean it is a very fast engine, with a single cam, push rods, it's built like an old school engine, at least everything except intake and injection. Ford needs quad cam V8, high rpm red line, and all that jazz and can barley get 300 N/A hp? I'm not taking anyones sides on this, but both engines have the downfalls.
ls1's are a badazz motor. lol the future of small block race engines as far as i am concerned thanks to the 16 bolt heads
I am an olddog and have been driving and around fast cars for most of my life and please note"I am not nor ever been a bow tie fan" the LS1 is bad ass out of the box,they can be dealt with if you have $$$ cause thats what it takes and a machine shop that knows how to set up a Ford that will work.I use a shop that builds sprint car engines,they drag race in a circle.I have over 650hp with my stroked 392 and its very streetable.So you don't have to get sand kicked in your face anymore.
All LS1's regardless of year put around 345 at the crank. GM underrated them from the factory so they wouldnt steal the spotlight from their flagship car, Corvette. if the T/A had a stock stall, and gears which im assuming the way its pulling it has the optional 3.23's, would shift at 5700. Ram Air does hardly nothing for performance. it ads around 5HP at around 100 MPH. the rain baffles in the hood is what causes this. the Ram Air hood is more looks than anything in stock form. 150k miles on an LS1 is nothing. especially if they are highway miles. with all the bolt ons that the LS1 has now, it should be putting about 335 to the wheels,, and the Mach is putting all of 270 to the wheels. so i dont find this hard to beleive at all.
if it were "Dumbed down" to the 4.6's size it would still have about as much power if not more than the DOHC 4.6. the truck engines (4.8) still a GEN III motor which shares the same design as the LS1, makes 295 HP and 305 FT.LBS of TQ. and thats out of an all iron truck motor. if it were built to be a performance engine rather than a truck engine, it would probably still stomp the Mach.
I'm glad you think so.....and you're entitled to your opinion even if it is wrong. It's too bad all you're able to do is speculate on that one, since GM hasn't taken the chance by fitting any of their performers with any really impressive low displacement V8's in the last several years, huh? I'd hardly consider the 4.6L DOHC in the '99-'01 Cobra, '03-'04 Mach 1, or the '05-up 4.6L 3V in the Mustang GT race bred engines either, even if they're still able to out do GM's 4.8L in both the horsepower and torque department. And if my math is correct 4.6L is still slightly smaller than 4.8L, is it not?!? And really, who cares if GM chose to fit their 4.8L design with an iron block and stuffed it between the fenders of a P/U truck? The Ford GT essentially runs a truck engine as it's motivational source and we all know how well those perform! The V6 Mustang runs a bloody Explorer engine for god sake! Just because the 4.8L engine was designated to a P/U truck, doesn't mean they sucked all of the power out of it when they put it there. Sure, it's likely a little tamer at the top end because of the use of a longer runner intake manifold and more restrictive single exhaust system, but this was done with the intention of increasing torque production down low and keeping power figures higher in the lower ranges. You can bet that converting to a short runner intake and freer flowing exhaust system to run it in one of their sports cars would negate a lot of that "under the curve" horsepower and torque production in order to pick up a few more ponies at the top end. Besides, if GM was so sure that the LS1/LS2 OHV design was so superior to Fords OHC, why not keep the displacement low to prove as much....all while further improving fuel economy and emissions? Now that would have impressed me! Why add another 1-2L of displacement to their engine(s) if it wasn't necessary to best the puny, inferior 4.6L OHC Ford V8 We could go back and forth on this all day, but the bottom line is that with all things being equal the OHC design is superior to the OHV design as far as power making capability and efficiency are concerned. No contest. The reduction ofmechanical parts that create friction and as a result “drag” within the engine itself is proof of this. Ford chose to improve upon the power production of the small displacement OHC and GM chose to forgo technological improvements in the name of larger displacement. Both companies get the job done with their choice in engine configuration, they just chose to accomplish their respective goals with different methods. This still doesn't change the fact that the GM engine line up's increased power production by comparison is a result of increased engine displacement, not a superior engine design. I mean, if you want to start getting exotic, I'd consider Fords 5.0L DOHC "Cammer" the real performer of the bunch. When you consider it matches the 6.0L LS2's 400hp horsepower figures with a full liter less displacement, you can't help but be impressed. I mean....why shouldn't we play by the same rules? If you want to speculate, if Ford "Pumped up" the OHC design to 6.0L or 7.0L displacement like GM did with their LS series, it would make as much, or more horsepower than the LS1,2,3 OHV. ...and guess what, that's exactly what Ford has in the works right now.
All I have to say is Chevy can make some impressive engines in terms of overall performance. Base Corvette Engine: 6.0L V8 400HP 18/28 mpg Z06: 7.0L V8 505HP 16/26 mpg I find it highly impressive for them to achieve that amount of horsepower and get that kind of gas mileage. So many major companies have dropped the OHV design for the OHC because it was "out-dated" and couldn't be made as efficient as OHC engines. Chevy redesigns their venerable LS-Series and they turn some heads. Why can't Ford at least match the gas mileage with their smaller displacement engines? It makes you think what if Ford stuck behind the 5.0...
You're not taking into account that GM's "Plastic Fantastic" Corvette is toting around less than 3,200lbs, skip shift technology and a .57 6th gear O/D ratio. Their fuel economy has less to do with engine configuration, and more to do with plain old physics. If Ford put the Mustang on a diet, which in turn would allow them to equip it with a similar drive train configuration, you can bet fuel economy figures would match and even best those of GM's Corvette. Check out Fuel economy stats for heavier cars like the GTO....they're no better than those of the Mustang GT. Carrying around that extra weight can really throw a wrench into things. Speaking from experience here when you consider my car weighs nealy 4,000lbs and only averages about 21mpg.
