Mach 1 vs Fox Body

[mustangmanjeff]

O rly?

intake, catback, midpipe, tune, 4.10s and Drag radials, 12.38@110 mph, no weight reduction:

2003-04 Mach 1 Registry Owners Club

quick ? are you missing something upstairs? all you just did was prove the statement made was wrong, o really? yes really

you said this,,

My 04 mach made 283 rwhp bone stock with no mods(5 speed). With a catted x pipe and magnapack catback I made 300 tune and no other mods. Its not that hard to get a 5 speed rwhp on stock mach to make 300 rwhp with exhaust as the only mods. They were all underrated and 90+% of the manual machs out there dyno 260 rwhp bone stock at the minimum, but thats rare. Most are 265-280 rwhp. The only ones that dyno 240s are autos. Ive never seen a manual dyno even in the 250s stock and I have seen ALOT of mach 1 dyno graphs.

Machs weigh 3359 lbs stock with no driver. Yes the fox has a weight advantage but its also down on power and it takes ALOT more than minor bolt ons to even keep up with a mach.

I then said


93 cobra intake,intake,3.73 gears,pypes catback off road mid pipe,DR's
and gutted car dynoed 250rwhp

his best time to date is 12.4@111

to run them same times in a mach would = same mods bolt ons and 300-350rwhp and run mid 12's.
Today 04:10 PM

you then post



O rly?

intake, catback, midpipe, tune, 4.10s and Drag radials, 12.38@110 mph, no weight reduction:


2003-04 Mach 1 Registry Owners Club


Answer:

YES REALLY you just proved bolt on mach 1 is 280-300+hp with bolt ons and ran 12.3

the foxbody had just bolt ons and ran 12.4 with alot less power


So yes really like I stated they dont need alot more to run down a mach they have power to weight ratio and a good aftermarket for them.

:lol::nonono:

:bash:oke:

 

[zak88lx]

I vote Fox but I'm a bit biased. ;-)

 

[Forza Aerospace]

[/B]
93 cobra intake,intake,3.73 gears,pypes catback off road mid pipe,DR's
and gutted car dynoed 250rwhp

.

oke:

+1 for the fox........mach owners crack me up

termi (<--- haha) owners are always good for a laugh.

What do you have done?
(termi owner) Pulley, exhaust, tune.
Oh, nice, what do you run?
(termi owner) I'm running 12.9's, but it's this stupid wheel hop and my shifts that you can eat a sandwich in between.
Oh, I see.

 

[Fenixfire]

quick ? are you missing something upstairs? all you just did was prove the statement made was wrong, o really? yes really

you said this,,


[/B]

I then said


93 cobra intake,intake,3.73 gears,pypes catback off road mid pipe,DR's
and gutted car dynoed 250rwhp

his best time to date is 12.4@111

to run them same times in a mach would = same mods bolt ons and 300-350rwhp and run mid 12's.
Today 04:10 PM

you then post



O rly?

intake, catback, midpipe, tune, 4.10s and Drag radials, 12.38@110 mph, no weight reduction:


2003-04 Mach 1 Registry Owners Club


Answer:

YES REALLY you just proved bolt on mach 1 is 280-300+hp with bolt ons and ran 12.3

the foxbody had just bolt ons and ran 12.4 with alot less power


So yes really like I stated they dont need alot more to run down a mach they have power to weight ratio and a good aftermarket for them.

:lol::nonono:

:bash:oke:

Wow, you sir are an idiot. Your exact words for that fox that ran the 12.4 with the following mods:

93 cobra intake,intake,3.73 gears,pypes catback off road mid pipe,DR's
and gutted car dynoed 250rwhp

Just in case you miss the BOLD PRINT THERE. You said the car IS GUTTED. THATS ALOT OF WEIGHT REDUCTION, asshat.

What I just did there was prove that a bolt on ONLY mach 1 can run low 12s with NO WEIGHT REDUCTION. So that fox there is running that time on a diet. The mach 1 that ran almost the exact same time(alittle faster actually) is doing it with full stock weight and all the creature comforts. If his car was gutted as well I think we can agree he would be in the 11s. :bash:

 

[Forza Aerospace]

Wow, you sir are an idiot. Your exact words for that fox that ran the 12.4 with the following mods:

93 cobra intake,intake,3.73 gears,pypes catback off road mid pipe,DR's
and gutted car dynoed 250rwhp

Just in case you miss the BOLD PRINT THERE. You said the car IS GUTTED. THATS ALOT OF WEIGHT REDUCTION, asshat.

What I just did there was prove that a bolt on ONLY mach 1 can run low 12s with NO WEIGHT REDUCTION. So that fox there is running that time on a diet. The mach 1 that ran almost the exact same time(alittle faster actually) is doing it with full stock weight and all the creature comforts. If his car was gutted as well I think we can agree he would be in the 11s. :bash:

:rockon:

 

[99BlownVert]

Wow, you sir are an idiot. Your exact words for that fox that ran the 12.4 with the following mods:

93 cobra intake,intake,3.73 gears,pypes catback off road mid pipe,DR's
and gutted car dynoed 250rwhp

Just in case you miss the BOLD PRINT THERE. You said the car IS GUTTED. THATS ALOT OF WEIGHT REDUCTION, asshat.

What I just did there was prove that a bolt on ONLY mach 1 can run low 12s with NO WEIGHT REDUCTION. So that fox there is running that time on a diet. The mach 1 that ran almost the exact same time(alittle faster actually) is doing it with full stock weight and all the creature comforts. If his car was gutted as well I think we can agree he would be in the 11s. :bash:

x2:rockon:

 

[Forza Aerospace]

ill post the day and location when i get my car back if any one wants to come watch.

I def. want to be there to record!

 

[mustangmanjeff]

Wow, you sir are an idiot. Your exact words for that fox that ran the 12.4 with the following mods:

93 cobra intake,intake,3.73 gears,pypes catback off road mid pipe,DR's
and gutted car dynoed 250rwhp

Just in case you miss the BOLD PRINT THERE. You said the car IS GUTTED. THATS ALOT OF WEIGHT REDUCTION, asshat.

What I just did there was prove that a bolt on ONLY mach 1 can run low 12s with NO WEIGHT REDUCTION. So that fox there is running that time on a diet. The mach 1 that ran almost the exact same time(alittle faster actually) is doing it with full stock weight and all the creature comforts. If his car was gutted as well I think we can agree he would be in the 11s. :bash:

Originally Posted by Fenixfire
My 04 mach made 283 rwhp bone stock with no mods(5 speed). With a catted x pipe and magnapack catback I made 300 rwhp on stock tune and no other mods. Its not that hard to get a 5 speed mach to make 300 rwhp with exhaust as the only mods. They were all underrated and 90+% of the manual machs out there dyno 260 rwhp bone stock at the minimum, but thats rare. Most are 265-280 rwhp. The only ones that dyno 240s are autos. Ive never seen a manual dyno even in the 250s stock and I have seen ALOT of mach 1 dyno graphs.

Machs weigh 3359 lbs stock with no driver. Yes the fox has a weight advantage but its also down on power and it takes ALOT more than minor bolt ons to even keep up with a mach



^ Because you said it NEEDED ALOT MORE mods= power mods ,AND LIKE I SAID ALL ALONG THE FOX HAS power to weight ratio, it = out "ASS HAT" the mach needed 50+hp to run the same time and the fox was down 50 less hp and needed just weight reduction and same " power mods" and bolt ons to run same times like ive said [COLOR="red"]4x and u said " IT TAKES ALOT MORE MODS" mods doesnt = weight reduction.. (last time I check weight reduction doesnt give you power or a mod)[/COLOR].and I might of messed up when I said gutted because. he can still do alot more weight reduction and mods which you claim it takes to run with a mach but if hes already running 12.4 and he does them so called " NEEDED MORE MODS AND MORE WEIGHT REDUCTION" the mach will still get runned down,

I dont care you own a mach and your gonna take sides and I own a 5.0, but I'm just stating your statment is wrong because I was passenger in the fox and witnessed the races of him beating mach1's I dont go by joe smo's story or what I read on the internet, I'm going by what ive seen with my own eyes..

its ok mach owners are butt hurt when its a 15+ year old box foxy thatcost $2,000 with only $1,500 of bolt on mods and still can run with a bolt on 2003-2004 mach 1 that already has the 75 horsepower advantage stock vs stock


maybe u missed it on page 1 i said WEIGHT MAKES A BIG DIFF you just cant read or did you not read what I said on page 1? oke:


Lets make it nice and big for you to:



mods on both cars:

1989 foxbody mods:
cobra intake,intake,pypes catback , mid pipe,3.73 gears,DR's weight reduction power=250rwhp=1/4 12.4@111

2003 mach 1 mods:
intake, catback, midpipe[/COLOR], tune, 4.10s and Drag radials, stock weight 300+rwhp= 1/4 12.38@110 mph,


you said :

Machs weigh 3359 lbs stock with no driver. Yes the fox has a weight advantage but its also down on power and it takes ALOT more than minor bolt ons to even keep up with a mach

^ I dont see that much more " power mods" or money or mods for the fox to run as close to a similar modded bolt on mach and where talking a car thats a 1989 that cost what $2,000 and is what 225hp stock vs a mach 1 that cost $10-$20k and has 300hp stock so SORRY THAT COMMENT OF YOURS IS WRONG!!

to sum it up it took = power mods on both cars the mach has more power and the fox has less weight and they run= times

 

[chucknorris289]

I'm a fox owner and I'm saying the mach will win. already ran it with my fox (but better mods than the one in this thread). those machs make good power all the way to 7k,

 

[97cobraheaven]

but stock 302 stock bottum end i wonder how much spray the stock can handle?

Ive seen stock fox's spray a 200 shot and run 10's. 90-92 I believe came with forged pistons, so keep a good tune and it can take the abuse

 

[Forza Aerospace]

I don't want to waste space and quote everything so fill in with what you posted[/B]

I think everybody understands what you're saying, but don't understand why. Yes a gutted car with 250 HP and DR can run a 12.4. A stock Mach 1 gutted with DR can run a 12.4. A bolt on fox, gutted, with DR can run a 12.4. I must be missing why you're posting this, but either way I love all mustangs and don't really care if I do get beat by another mustang. It's like racing your brother when you're a little kid. Just makes you want to work harder so you can be faster, but you still love him even if he beats you.

 

[whipplesnake]

whats so funny about mach owners?

It's like watching a group of midgets trying to convince the world that they're tall.

 

[Fenixfire]

Originally Posted by Fenixfire
My 04 mach made 283 rwhp bone stock with no mods(5 speed). With a catted x pipe and magnapack catback I made 300 rwhp on stock tune and no other mods. Its not that hard to get a 5 speed mach to make 300 rwhp with exhaust as the only mods. They were all underrated and 90+% of the manual machs out there dyno 260 rwhp bone stock at the minimum, but thats rare. Most are 265-280 rwhp. The only ones that dyno 240s are autos. Ive never seen a manual dyno even in the 250s stock and I have seen ALOT of mach 1 dyno graphs.

Machs weigh 3359 lbs stock with no driver. Yes the fox has a weight advantage but its also down on power and it takes ALOT more than minor bolt ons to even keep up with a mach



^ Because you said it NEEDED ALOT MORE mods= power mods ,AND LIKE I SAID ALL ALONG THE FOX HAS power to weight ratio, it = out "ASS HAT" the mach needed 50+hp to run the same time and the fox was down 50 less hp and needed just weight reduction and same " power mods" and bolt ons to run same times like ive said [COLOR="red"]4x and u said " IT TAKES ALOT MORE MODS" mods doesnt = weight reduction.. (last time I check weight reduction doesnt give you power or a mod)[/COLOR].and I might of messed up when I said gutted because. he can still do alot more weight reduction and mods which you claim it takes to run with a mach but if hes already running 12.4 and he does them so called " NEEDED MORE MODS AND MORE WEIGHT REDUCTION" the mach will still get runned down,

I dont care you own a mach and your gonna take sides and I own a 5.0, but I'm just stating your statment is wrong because I was passenger in the fox and witnessed the races of him beating mach1's I dont go by joe smo's story or what I read on the internet, I'm going by what ive seen with my own eyes..

its ok mach owners are butt hurt when its a 15+ year old box foxy thatcost $2,000 with only $1,500 of bolt on mods and still can run with a bolt on 2003-2004 mach 1 that already has the 75 horsepower advantage stock vs stock


maybe u missed it on page 1 i said WEIGHT MAKES A BIG DIFF you just cant read or did you not read what I said on page 1? oke:


Lets make it nice and big for you to:



mods on both cars:

1989 foxbody mods:
cobra intake,intake,pypes catback , mid pipe,3.73 gears,DR's weight reduction power=250rwhp=1/4 12.4@111

2003 mach 1 mods:
intake, catback, midpipe[/COLOR], tune, 4.10s and Drag radials, stock weight 300+rwhp= 1/4 12.38@110 mph,


you said :

Machs weigh 3359 lbs stock with no driver. Yes the fox has a weight advantage but its also down on power and it takes ALOT more than minor bolt ons to even keep up with a mach

^ I dont see that much more " power mods" or money or mods for the fox to run as close to a similar modded bolt on mach and where talking a car thats a 1989 that cost what $2,000 and is what 225hp stock vs a mach 1 that cost $10-$20k and has 300hp stock so SORRY THAT COMMENT OF YOURS IS WRONG!!

to sum it up it took = power mods on both cars the mach has more power and the fox has less weight and they run= times

You see the problem with your ENTIRE above argument is that weight reduction IS a power mod. If you reduce weight you unlock HP. It can be considered a power mod just as much as adding exhaust.

So that fox can be considered to have alot more mods than the mach does since the mach is sitting at stock weight. The fact that the fox is lighter than the mach to begin with is irrelevant considering the car had significant weight reduction in order to run that time. If he was at stock weight he wouldnt be running 12.4s. Thats the point im making.

 

[NateCO84]

Please show me one stock 03/04 Cobra that has ever dynoed 390 rwhp. :bored:

When the 03's first came out, I remember a magazine (motor trend?) running it against an 03 STI. All I remember is the cobra on the cover was yellow. When they dyno'd it, it threw down 381 at the wheels. They stated they had an SVT rep on location when it was dyno'd and, when they asked about it being rated at 390 but throwing down 381, the SVT chalked it up to ford's "very efficient drivetrain".

 

[mustangmanjeff]

You see the problem with your ENTIRE above argument is that weight reduction IS a power mod. If you reduce weight you unlock HP. It can be considered a power mod just as much as adding exhaust.

So that fox can be considered to have alot more mods than the mach does since the mach is sitting at stock weight. The fact that the fox is lighter than the mach to begin with is irrelevant considering the car had significant weight reduction in order to run that time. If he was at stock weight he wouldnt be running 12.4s. Thats the point im making.

:bs:yes and no because I didnt post about the weight reduction argument until after you made that statement of them needing alot more mods, and please dont sound like a domestic ricer when saying weight reduction is a "power mod" making it lighter makes it faster but its not a "power mod" next your gonna tell me putting on lighter wheels or gears gives you horsepower and is a power mod, so thats deff wrong like i said 5x now if you went back to page 1 and it evens out if you ask me the fox is ligther and has weight reduction and they have = bolt on " power mods and the mach 1 is full weight, but your forgetting that the mach has 305hp vs fox is 225hp thats a big diff. so that being said they both have = mods the mach has more power and the foxbody has = bolt on "power" mods and is lighter and they are running the same times= the end.

 

[GhostRiderblk]

well

i did say the car had no wieght reduction the one im racing idk why everyone is talking about weight reduction but sense people think foxes are amazing i have a vid me and a fox digs and rolls. but the fox does not have heads and everything else also my car is stock.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmK68Ralsas"]YouTube- Mach 1(Ghostrider) vs all Get Down Enterprise[/nomedia]

 

[GhostRiderblk]

csaclnsma erumw

[/B]


but just like some machs are " freaks " depending what they dyno there are alot of basic bolt on foxbodys that run 12's and 13's, My friends fox has bolt on's and beats mach 1's with less or = mods with less power, and starting off with a car with 75 less hp stock vs stock


So that statement is far from true, in a foxbody it doesnt take much to run 12's and 13's to run with a mach, now my year 94-95 sn95 that statement is true due to 100-300lbs heavier, 10 less hp ; )

stock heads and cam stock bottom end motor compression pistons etc.


93 cobra intake,intake,3.73 gears,pypes catback off road mid pipe,DR's
and gutted car dynoed 250rwhp

his best time to date is 12.4@111

to run them same times in a mach would = same mods bolt ons and 300-350rwhp and run mid 12's.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmK68Ralsas"]YouTube- Mach 1(Ghostrider) vs all Get Down Enterprise[/ame]
= me

 

[whipplesnake]

YouTube- Mach 1(Ghostrider) vs all Get Down Enterprise
= me

OMG so fast!!!:rockon:

 

[Fenixfire]

:bs:yes and no because I didnt post about the weight reduction argument until after you made that statement of them needing alot more mods, and please dont sound like a domestic ricer when saying weight reduction is a "power mod" making it lighter makes it faster but its not a "power mod" next your gonna tell me putting on lighter wheels or gears gives you horsepower and is a power mod, so thats deff wrong like i said 5x now if you went back to page 1 and it evens out if you ask me the fox is ligther and has weight reduction and they have = bolt on " power mods and the mach 1 is full weight, but your forgetting that the mach has 305hp vs fox is 225hp thats a big diff. so that being said they both have = mods the mach has more power and the foxbody has = bolt on "power" mods and is lighter and they are running the same times= the end.

ROFL Domestic ricer???? If you knew me at all you would not dare say that to me. I dont care what you THINK you know. Weight reduction IS a power mod. I think that after the video that ghost rider just posted its OBVIOUS that a fox needs alot more mods to hang with a stock mach 1. Alot of weight reduction is a pretty big modification so you have still FAILED to refute the FACT that my argument STILL STANDS that fox bodies need alot of mods to hang with a mach.

Build a bridge and get over it.

 

[whipplesnake]

are you saying that cars that weigh less dyno higher?