Mach1, SS Camero, 03/04 Cobra

[delmarsteelers]

In the thread "Mach 1 VS asshole driving an 02 camaro SS "

Most of the arguement was that the stock Z-28 and the SS Camaro would beat the Mach 1 and run close to the Terminator. Here are a couple of past articles in the top Mustang Magazine. Now yes it is a mustang magazine, but us mustang owners and fans also deal with Hot Rod always putting chevy on top, hell they had a WRX STI on there one time beating the 03 cobra. That could be another topic.

These test were done by the same driver, so that sounds pretty fair to me.
The Mach 1 has clearly demostrated it can get 13 falt to 13.1's. Show me an article or prove that a stock z-28 or SS has gotten better than the low 13's of the Mach 1?

Here are a couple of articles on the Mach 1. I have given you 2, because one will show the Mach 1's best time at 13.0? and the worst time was 13.4.

http://musclemustangfastfords.com/features/0407mm_mach/

http://musclemustangfastfords.com/features/0303MM_Mach1/

Here is the article on the 35th anniversary SS Camaro -vs- 03 Cobra test race. I guess it should have been the SS and the Mach 1 test.

Best time of the SS was 13.2 and the Cobra was 12.79 Both cars straight from the factory and the same did both. I would say that is 5-6 cars and for someone to say they could hang with the stock 03/04 Cobra with their stock z-28 is just rediculas.

I think all the cars tested are were bad ass.....................

I am a fan of any good muscle car, but I think when you are going to talk trash about what you think is is facts then post up the prove, hard facts!

op:

 

[GH1086]

Fact, it's CAMARO not CAMERO.

 

[delmarsteelers]

Fact, it's CAMARO not CAMERO.

Nice!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I had to hurry and write that message before work. I corrected the word CAMARO.............sorry.

 

[XCELR8]

Oh boy... this should probably be in "smackdown".

op:

 

[Vashthestampede]

 

[COBRABRAD]

Those Camaro numbers are not SAE they are STD, Camaro owners use STD because their sisters familiarized them with the term STD at an early age.

 

[XCELR8]

Those Camaro numbers are not SAE they are STD, Camaro owners use STD because their sisters familiarized them with the term STD at an early age.

holy...


shit...



op:

 

[WhistlePig]

Those Camaro numbers are not SAE they are STD, Camaro owners use STD because their sisters familiarized them with the term STD at an early age.

so...I guess those ET's are STD as well huh oke:

 

[300bhp/ton]

Those Camaro numbers are not SAE they are STD, Camaro owners use STD because their sisters familiarized them with the term STD at an early age.

WTF I think the article was posted to show ET not rwhp.

Yes the numbers where probably STD but they where also on a Dynojet which reads comparitivly high when comparing to manufacturer claimed figures.

LS1 Fbody's regardless of year or model all make about 290-300rwhp in real life on a proper dyno such as a Mustang Dyno. This is for M6 evidently, as auto guys will dyno slightly less due to having a torque convertor.

13.0 flat ET in a Mach is pretty darn rare (like only every acheivable from a few select magazine articles).

12's are also rare from STOCK Fbody's, but it does happen. Have a look at www.ls1tech.com there are a lot of guys who ran 13.0/13.1 Stock on a 2.1 60' which means on a better 60' they would have been well into the 12's.

I mean which is the faster car:

1. 13.0 @ 104mph on a 1.9 60'

or

2. 13.1 @ 108mph on a 2.1 60'

 

[S/CCobra03]

I've never and I mean never seen a STOCK Camaro of any year run within a car length of the 03-04 Cobra so I would call BS on anyone who thinks differently.

 

[XCELR8]

I mean which is the faster car:

1. 13.0 @ 104mph on a 1.9 60'

or

2. 13.1 @ 108mph on a 2.1 60'

I hate to even bring this up, because you've forgotten more things about cars then I'll ever know, but with a 1.9 60' of the Mach1, it's obvious the good 60' is hurting its trap speed. For some reason (perhaps you can explain this) when a car hooks coming off the line, the E/T is faster, but the trap is slower and vice versa. The times that I've ran at the track and spun coming off the line, I've trapped 106 but had a 13.4 as an E/T. The time in my sig is my quickest time, but one of my slowest traps.

 

[Ryan00TJ]

The SS article was written and published in MM & FF not by any LS1 sourced magazine. GMHTP also had Evan Smith run a 12.9 @ 107.6 in a bone stock 02.
Mine ran 13.2 @ 108 w 2.2 60ft stock. The SS is stronger than a Mach stock as shown by the results aswell as when modded. I've seen this firsthand as a friend used to have one.

As to a stock SS taking down a stock 03+ well it could happen but with equal drivers the Cobra stock should be faster. I mean 50-60 more rwhp @ rwtq with a more linear powerband should pull somewhat. The SS is lighter but not enough to make up for the power difference.

 

[COBRABRAD]

so...I guess those ET's are STD as well huh oke:

One of my best friends has a TA, and I've seen him eyeballing his sister. All i'm saying is, stay away from your sisters, it's just not right!





Just kidding, Those are great ET's but the numbers are STD, outside of fantasy land SAE numbers are not anywhere near that.

 

[300bhp/ton]

I hate to even bring this up, because you've forgotten more things about cars then I'll ever know, but with a 1.9 60' of the Mach1, it's obvious the good 60' is hurting its trap speed. For some reason (perhaps you can explain this) when a car hooks coming off the line, the E/T is faster, but the trap is slower and vice versa. The times that I've ran at the track and spun coming off the line, I've trapped 106 but had a 13.4 as an E/T. The time in my sig is my quickest time, but one of my slowest traps.

Yeah this is something I've often pondered on and have found no info on it at all. The best theory I have come up with is this, although I have nothing but my own logic to back it up.

I've noticed the same, a bit of wheel spin and the trap speed is higher than a good launch and hook. But excessive wheel spin also lowers trap speed (I have time slips to back this up).

I think it's all about how far or more precisley how may revolutions the wheels turn over the course.

If you hook with no wheel spin then the car wheels actually travel 1/4 mile (or 1320 feet). Yet with a bit of wheel spin the wheels actually travel further, so it would be like having an extra 10-15 feet at the end of the track before the trap speed is clocked.

Excessive wheel spin doesn't show the same increase in trap because most people have to 'back off' which means you actually accelarate for less than the 1/4 mile distance.

There are also other variable's such as when you hook you generally are using less power, because if you used more power (throttle open further and/or more rpm's) the wheels would spins.

 

[WhistlePig]

One of my best friends has a TA, and I've seen him eyeballing his sister. All i'm saying is, stay away from your sisters, it's just not right!





Just kidding, Those are great ET's but the numbers are STD, outside of fantasy land SAE numbers are not anywhere near that.

WTF? I don't even have a sister. This thread was not started to argue HP #'s. We were talking ET''s. The original poster asked for proof of Ls1's with better times, proof was shown, end of debate.

 

[joegt38]

Yeah this is something I've often pondered on and have found no info on it at all. The best theory I have come up with is this, although I have nothing but my own logic to back it up.

I've noticed the same, a bit of wheel spin and the trap speed is higher than a good launch and hook. But excessive wheel spin also lowers trap speed (I have time slips to back this up).

I think it's all about how far or more precisley how may revolutions the wheels turn over the course.

If you hook with no wheel spin then the car wheels actually travel 1/4 mile (or 1320 feet). Yet with a bit of wheel spin the wheels actually travel further, so it would be like having an extra 10-15 feet at the end of the track before the trap speed is clocked.

Excessive wheel spin doesn't show the same increase in trap because most people have to 'back off' which means you actually accelarate for less than the 1/4 mile distance.

There are also other variable's such as when you hook you generally are using less power, because if you used more power (throttle open further and/or more rpm's) the wheels would spins.

Sounds good to me.......
I was about to post something along them lines good thing you posted first it saves me some typin.

 

[delmarsteelers]

Forgot to add this link

http://musclemustangfastfords.com/features/0208mmff_deathmatch/

Nice cars!!!!!!

 

[Cahill00SS]

The SS article was written and published in MM & FF not by any LS1 sourced magazine. GMHTP also had Evan Smith run a 12.9 @ 107.6 in a bone stock 02.
Mine ran 13.2 @ 108 w 2.2 60ft stock. The SS is stronger than a Mach stock as shown by the results aswell as when modded. I've seen this firsthand as a friend used to have one.

As to a stock SS taking down a stock 03+ well it could happen but with equal drivers the Cobra stock should be faster. I mean 50-60 more rwhp @ rwtq with a more linear powerband should pull somewhat. The SS is lighter but not enough to make up for the power difference.

welp there goes the opening argument..

end thread.

 

[Stopsign32v]

I've never and I mean never seen a STOCK Camaro of any year run within a car length of the 03-04 Cobra so I would call BS on anyone who thinks differently.

Nope, me neither. Hell a bolt on 01 Z28 6 speed couldn't keep up with my Cobra when it had 4.10 gears, 255 series firestone tires, x pipe, catback, shifter, and intake! All that and I made 287rwhp and 294rwtq :kaboom: and the guy still couldn't beat me. :lol:

And then I drive a new one at the dealership, boy oh boy was I not impressed!

 

[delmarsteelers]

WTF? I don't even have a sister. This thread was not started to argue HP #'s. We were talking ET''s. The original poster asked for proof of Ls1's with better times, proof was shown, end of debate.

Proof was shown? Where is the link to a LS1 magizine that shows their ET times are better? Proof is not when someone saids "I ran a 12.9 when my car was stock".