LS1 Vs. Mach 1

[10.5secAWDTALON]

No, I am 100% correct. If you knew how to read, you would have known that I said, PRODUCED, not made. Just like there were some '02 cobras. But they were made, not produced.

Don't play semantics with me, you were wrong, there were 1983 Vettes, just not available for sale to the public.

So I was incorrect on the gears. That is the only thing.

Ummm...NO, that is NOT the only thing you were wrong about, you claimed the auto SS was the heaviest F body and that is INCORRECT.

So make up your mind. You are so contradictive and clueless it is truely pathetic.

Reading skills own you. Brush up on em. I said "I can ALMOST believe the ET". Does your dictionary include the word almost? Look it up for a clue. :read: :read: :read:

 

[ON D BIT]

"former LS1 owner"??? I still have it and it stills runs 13.0-13.1's stock, an AUTO nonetheless.

what difference does the auto have over a stick? did chevy put another engine in the auto?

i have already explained to you its a drivers race. the mach 1 has the edge 0-80mph and the ls1 has the edge from a run starting at 3rd gear and above. oh the edge that either car has will be given up at the slightest hint of a driving mistake. hence the words "drivers race".

Actually, yes...actually I get along with A LOT of folks...

could of fooled us. crosby, snorman, and anyone who disagrees with you(there are many when you skew facts like you do). basically you dont get along with anyone that does not think like you. not that there is anything wrong with that.

 

[ponygt65]

Don't play semantics with me, you were wrong, there were 1983 Vettes, just not available for sale to the public.

Are you serious? Tell me you are joking. Read my original post. I did say PRODUCED. It is not my fault you can not read, and you assumed I meant 'made'. Fact is, what I said IS 100% fact, and you tried to proove me wrong, and you didn't. There is no semantics in what I typed. If you would have re-read my original post, you would have noticed that.

Ummm...NO, that is NOT the only thing you were wrong about, you claimed the auto SS was the heaviest F body and that is INCORRECT.

I was thinking of the camaro's when I said that. I usually affiliate fbody with maros' not t/a's or birds.....seems how those are a copy of the camaro, just like..

Copied
After
Mustang
And
Really
OBSOLETE

Reading skills own you. Brush up on em. I said "I can ALMOST believe the ET". Does your dictionary include the word almost? Look it up for a clue. :read: :read: :read:

:lol: Looks like you are the one playing semantics......panzy a$$. :lol:



I find it hilarious that you don't believe us about the machs, and yet you expect us to believe you ran a 13.0 in a BONE FACTORY STOCK SS A4...sorry, ain't happenin'. You are the ONLY GM/LS1 person I have ever seen claim that......and believe me, I have run into ALOT.

You just need to take your ricer mentality else where.

 

[10.5secAWDTALON]

I find it hilarious that you don't believe us about the machs, and yet you expect us to believe you ran a 13.0 in a BONE FACTORY STOCK SS A4...sorry, ain't happenin'. You are the ONLY GM/LS1 person I have ever seen claim that......and believe me, I have run into ALOT.

You just need to take your ricer mentality else where.

blah blah blah... fact is my car can hot lap easy 13.1's all night, run it cold and it picks up about a tenth.

You don't believe me, fine....

But....You don't believe the mag test of a 13.1 for a heavier auto T/A?????absolute proof right before your eyes????

And you don't believe a very well respected Ford drag racer by the name of Bob Cosby.

There's only 1 word for you...DENIAL.

 

[10.5secAWDTALON]

basically you dont get along with anyone that does not think like you

hhmm...funny, sounds like you are describing yourself. :shrug:

 

[ponygt65]

blah blah blah... fact is my car can hot lap easy 13.1's all night, run it cold and it picks up about a tenth.

You don't believe me, fine....

But....You don't believe the mag test of a 13.1 for a heavier auto T/A?????absolute proof right before your eyes????

And you don't believe a very well respected Ford drag racer by the name of Bob Cosby.

There's only 1 word for you...DENIAL.

Boy, you wouldn't know FACTS if it came up and hit you in the face. Don't talk to me about denial.

 

[ponygt65]

For somebody who likes mathmatical equations, I am surprised you believe this:

"At 5500 rpm the 4L60E slams into the next gear and the shock to the 3.23 geared performance axle breaks the tires loose when the traction control is disengaged. Quarter-mile performance for our automatic-equipped Collector was 13.13 at 104 mph with a 3,740 pound race weight."

13.13@104 at 3740 lbs........um, ok....and with "How can any self-respecting car nut not get excited about a 325-horse."

You like numbers...ok. Riddle me this batman. A mach one has the same HP, better gears, and weighs 300 pounds less.............HOW THE HELL IS IT NOT JUST AS QUICK??? You make no sense....And no, I do not believe this was in an auto. Please show me in their breakdown of 'added cost options' they show addition cost for the auto tranny. Here, I will copy and paste for you:

"Our tester was of course the penultimate Collector Edition decked out with over $3,000 worth of special decals over a bright yellow body. This pushed the price to $35,700 with aid from the Ram Air package that cost $3,290, a remote compact disc changer for $595, traction control at $50 and the performance axle at $300. With no less than 17 birds on the T/A, even low flying aircraft will recognize it. Love it or hate it, the T/A is bowing out the same way it bowed in, with an outrageous graphics package."

Now - why would they post all that break down info, and not add in the auto option? Are you trying to tell me that the Auto is a no additional charge option with GM??


EDIT: Here, I will even offer up some assistance...Find me a BONE FACTORY STOCK, (IE: Full race weight) Auto that runs 13.0-13.1......
http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/etdb.php?etlist=si&sort=&order=asc&pp=25&page=14

I'll save you the time....I already looked. There isn't one. There is either, weight reduction, bolt ons, or suspension mods. NONE BONE FACTORY STOCK.

 

[10.5secAWDTALON]

Boy, you wouldn't know FACTS if it came up and hit you in the face. Don't talk to me about denial.

Please tell me the 13.1 the mag ran a 2002 A4 T/A to is BS...tell my Bob Cosby who has probably raced more than you ever will is also wrong.

If there was some great time a mag ran for a Mach1 you'd be all over it, but there isn't, there's no 12.XX docummented time for one so you take the easy way out and now the mag times are BS?

They are ONLY BS when they don't use a recognized track with a standard timing system and they are also BS when then they factor in correction...NEITHER OF WHICH APPLY to the 13.1 that was ran in a heavy 2002 A4 CE T/A.

Usually the issue folks have with mag times is they are TOO SLOW...they drive like shit in some mags.


What's killing you is the fact my A4 SS is as quick or slightly quicker than an M5 Mach. It eats you up and it pisses you off so you have to go off and blather BS to cover that up.


It;'s all pretty obvious really.


:lol1: :lol1: :lol1: :lol1:

 

[machfelon]

Wow...big words out of a very little man. :lol:

"former LS1 owner"??? I still have it and it stills runs 13.0-13.1's stock, an AUTO nonetheless.

At "your track" I didn't know Kinder Kare for Kids had tracks? They let little boi's like you race there?? :dw:

Fact stands and remains with irrefutable proof for ever and all of time...the LS1 f body is faster than the Mach1 stock for stock.

:banana: :beer: :beer: :banana:

I just finished reading all of the posts on here. I've owned both a 2000 Z-28 and a 2004 Mach 1. I like both cars however at the time when I got a new car the Camaro was discontinued so I got a Mach. Im glad for that because I like the Mach a lot better now.

My question for you is this: How come you are on www.SVTPERFORMANCE.COM and NOT on www.z28.com

Im on that site and the F-Body owners on there dont go on bashing mustangs. I post on there quite often as a mach owner. I dont bash CAMAROS either.

WHY ARE YOU HERE?

This is a mustang site. Just curious! Im too tired to argue about this topic.

 

[10.5secAWDTALON]

Now - why would they post all that break down info, and not add in the auto option? Are you trying to tell me that the Auto is a no additional charge option with GM??

DING DING DING...you win the prize, auto did not cost any more.

"At 5500 rpm the 4L60E slams into the next gear and the shock to the 3.23 geared performance axle breaks the tires loose when the traction control is disengaged. Quarter-mile performance for our automatic-equipped Collector was 13.13 at 104 mph with a 3,740 pound race weight."

13.13@104 at 3740 lbs........um, ok....and with "How can any self-respecting car nut not get excited about a 325-horse."

You like numbers...ok. Riddle me this batman. A mach one has the same HP, better gears, and weighs 300 pounds less.............HOW THE HELL IS IT NOT JUST AS QUICK???

You're too funny. 300 POUNDS?????????

RACE WEIGHT..that is WITH DRIVER. DUD, DUH, AND DUH. Figure driver at 220 pounds, that makes the car 3520, a MaCH IS 3465 DWELL = 55 pounds!

Second, an LS1 usually lays down more RWHP than a Mach1, the LS1 is a 350 crank HP motor regardless of factory ratings. it was underrated!

 

[ponygt65]

Please tell me the 13.1 the mag ran a 2002 A4 T/A to is BS...tell my Bob Cosby who has probably raced more than you ever will is also wrong.

If there was some great time a mag ran for a Mach1 you'd be all over it, but there isn't, there's no 12.XX docummented time for one so you take the easy way out and now the mag times are BS?

They are ONLY BS when they don't use a recognized track with a standard timing system and they are also BS when then they factor in correction...NEITHER OF WHICH APPLY to the 13.1 that was ran in a heavy 2002 A4 CE T/A.

Usually the issue folks have with mag times is they are TOO SLOW...they drive like shit in some mags.


What's killing you is the fact my A4 SS is as quick or slightly quicker than an M5 Mach. It eats you up and it pisses you off so you have to go off and blather BS to cover that up.


It;'s all pretty obvious really.


:lol1: :lol1: :lol1: :lol1:

YOu still have yet to offer real proof. All the crap you have listed is too questionable....it's that simple.

For the record, I have never claimed the mach to be a 12 second car. I have never claimed it was FASTER than an Fbody. I say it is a driver's race.....like the rest on here. You are the one that continues to TRY and proove otherwise.

As for the A4 full weight running a 13.1.......I will believe it when I see it. Just like you will believe us when you see it. You think an Fbody is not a drivers race. Go onto an LS website and ask. Sure, you will get a few haters. But I am sure most of them on there will say Mach's are a good race for them.

 

[10.5secAWDTALON]

Im on that site and the F-Body owners on there dont go on bashing mustangs. I post on there quite often as a mach owner. I dont bash CAMAROS either.

WHY ARE YOU HERE?

This is a mustang site. Just curious! Im too tired to argue about this topic.

show me where I have bashed the mustang. The topic is LS1 verus Mach1...seems to me I'm right at home in this thread.

 

[ponygt65]

DING DING DING...you win the prize, auto did not cost any more.



You're too funny. 300 POUNDS?????????

RACE WEIGHT..that is WITH DRIVER. DUD, DUH, AND DUH. Figure driver at 220 pounds, that makes the car 3520, a MaCH IS 3465 DWELL = 55 pounds!

Second, an LS1 usually lays down more RWHP than a Mach1, the LS1 is a 350 crank HP motor regardless of factory ratings. it was underrated!

Dude, are you an a$$ plain and simple. Race weight is NOT always WITH driver dipsh!t.

I love it. Add in the benefactor with it suits you. So, 350 is correct, regardless of what we read in teh magazines? So, one minutes the mag's are right, and the next they aren't? OMG, you are so childish. Fbod, lay down an avg, of what?? 280-290....300 if you are lucky. Tell me Einstein, what does a Mach 1 dyno?

Also, how do you figure 220 pounds, do you know the driver of the article? And where do you get that weight for a mach? You really should read more than magazine's. As ON D Bit said earlier:
"5 sp mach 1, weights 3318lbs as i have said before. its on the shipping documention from ford to the dealers."

 

[ponygt65]

show me where I have bashed the mustang. The topic is LS1 verus Mach1...seems to me I'm right at home in this thread.

You are not at home in this thread. You are in the OUT HOUSE. You have a TALON.

 

[10.5secAWDTALON]

YOu still have yet to offer real proof. All the crap you have listed is too questionable....it's that simple.

Questionable? See my reply to you about the T/A test.. You have no understanding, you think they 2002 T/A was a stick because you think the auto costs more? It does NOT. N/C FOR AUTO TRANS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You think their weight was the car only? IT INCLUDED THE DRIVER!!!!!!!!!!!

You are so wrong on your intrepretation of that article it's not even funny.

As for the A4 full weight running a 13.1.......I will believe it when I see it.

This is a VERY foolish statement coming from someone IF you are a drag racer. You SHOULD know...full well...that there are plenty of cars running times you may never personally see. I show you docummented proof and you twist it, claiming it was now a stick and the race weight was the car weight. You are pathetic.

 

[10.5secAWDTALON]

Dude, are you an a$$ plain and simple. Race weight is NOT always WITH driver dipsh!t.

You're dumb as a box of rocks, race weight IS with driver.
Even if it did not....
Anyone with a shred of sense knows a T/A does
NOT weight 3750 with no driver. Get grip on reality. :lol:

I love it. Add in the benefactor with it suits you. So, 350 is correct, regardless of what we read in teh magazines? So, one minutes the mag's are right, and the next they aren't? OMG, you are so childish. Fbod, lay down an avg, of what?? 280-290....300 if you are lucky.

Where have you been for the last 8 years?
Under a rock???

It's a well know FACT the LS1 in the f body
was underrated by the factory. I
t's not unusual for a 2001-2002 to lay down 320 RWHP.
2001-2002 were the highest HP years due to having
the LS6 intake stock on the the LS1 motor.


Here...321 RWHP...YOUR OWN MM/FF MAG....

You have SOoooooo many misconcieved ideas
and erroneous conclusions.

It is a fact...
the A4 equipted LS1 f body w/3.23 gears can
and has gone 13.0-13.1 DEAD BONE STOCK.

And a 13.1 IS DOCCUMENTED,
your piss poor understanding of that article proves
you know little about cars, LS1's or racing.

 

[ON D BIT]

this is a very good summation of what talon has said throughout the past 5 pages.

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

and it might of even be relevent today if anyone cared about the ls1 f-bodies. but they dont! :burn: and thats why they did not sell, and why you cant buy a new one today. :bash: :beer:

 

[10.5secAWDTALON]

and it might of even be relevent today if anyone cared about the ls1 f-bodies. but they dont!

Huh...really?
Did you by any chance notice the TITLE OF THIS THREAD?????

Take a look and check back clueless one.

: and thats why they did not sell, and why you cant buy a new one today.

REALLY? That is why???
Try again.
They were discontinued because they could not
meet new crash standards,
the name Camaro had contractual obligations with the Canada
St. Theresa plant so it could not be used for a few years
when that plant was closed in 2002.

BTW...the Camaro IS returning. :banana: :beer: :banana:

 

[ponygt65]

NEVERMIND. I had a response but what is the point. You obviously aren't going to believe what we tell you. And we all know you are full of sh!t. So why continue posting.

I will just leave you with this nice video.

http://videos.streetfire.net/search/mach+1/0/931D95EF-24C1-4AC3-BD7D-BF228E2B4F5B.htm

 

[ON D BIT]

Huh...really?
Did you by any chance notice the TITLE OF THIS THREAD?????

Take a look and check back clueless one.



REALLY? That is why???
Try again.
They were discontinued because they could not
meet new crash standards,
the name Camaro had contractual obligations with the Canada
St. Theresa plant so it could not be used for a few years
when that plant was closed in 2002.

BTW...the Camaro IS returning. :banana: :beer: :banana:

if they had sold half as well as the mustang, gm would have had a new camaro by 03, 04 at the latest. but they did not? and why sink all that money into a new car when the old one did not sell.