ThisBlood147

Well, the Mach being underrated and weighing in a bit less all have something to do with this. But a less than competant driver in either car would be enough to swing a race either way (stock for stock).

classj

The 06 cars are underated in my book as well. Figuring only an 18% drivetrain loss, given the new stangs put down around 255-260hp stock to the tires. That is 315-320 at the crank.

A 20% drivetrain loss would mean closer to 330 at the crank.

Weight is a factor. As is break in. My car has 1500 miles on it and is still getting quicker IMO. And it is starting to sound better and drive alot better as well. Also I feel running premium fuel in my stock 06 GT helps performance a bit.

Probably with a little work the new stang would be a better matchup. Most stock ones seem to run 13.5-13.6 with a good driver.

AmericanMuscle4.6GT

a properly broken in new stang puts down about 270-275 to the ground. do the math with a 20-22 % drivetrain loss; that can't be right. and LS1's put down 300-315. wow.



and btw the mach is faster than the GT; but marginally. drivers race IMO; .2-.3 advantage to the mach.

viking396

I've now raced 2 Mach's, one when stock and one with my CAI and 93 tune, I won both times, the first by a fender the second car I beat by a car. Seems to me Ford got them rated close for a reason, perhaps the driver of the GT needs to be modified in your case?

classj

Based on 22% loss , 273 hp at the tires would be 350hp net at the crank. I dont know if I buy that. I think that if ford really had a 350hp motor here they would be bragging. 20hp underrated I believe, 50 is a bit hard to swallow.

Maybe 22% loss if you include accessory drive losses but that would be SAE gross HP, not net (which is what all cars are rated at since the early 70's)

But you are right, the machs are a tad faster due to the weight difference.

The long rider

I will agree with Rdub 76 I have an 03 Mach-1 and an 06 Gt both cars have autos, and both have 93 octane tunes. The Mach-1 will flat out stomp a mud hole in the 06 Gt's ***.

Driver72

First of all, RWD cars won't have a 22% drivetrain loss, that would horrendous.
Most FWD cars are 13-15%
Most RWD cars are 16-18%
Most AWD cars are 22-24%

The two cars should be just about dead on equal in performance.
Your 2006 isn't broken in yet if you just got it.
And broken in doesn't mean 1000 miles on it.

Car's engines take about 10,000 miles to FULLY break in, and
often still get better many thousands of miles past that.
A well broken in car with 40,000 miles on it will 95% of the time
beat a newer car with under 5K miles on it.

The Mach 1 weighs about 3471 pounds according to Ford
The new GT is about the same.

The MGT actually has a BETTER gear ratio for accelerating.
Both use 3.55:1 final drives and both have the same
1st, 2nd, and 4th gear ratios.
But the MGT has a slightly more aggressive 3rd and 5th gear.

For some reason, both engine are basically identical, but the Mach 1 shows
as having a redline of 6500 to the MGT's 6000 rpm. Not sure if that's correct though.

Again, 95% of the time, I'd say it's a driver's race if both cars are fully broken in
meaning 10K plus on the odometer.

Here's something for you to look at too:

http://videos.streetfire.net/search/...456F2B819C.htm

Had the Mach 1 not had the passenger videotaping, it would of been a pretty dead even race.

viking396

Stop by South Elgin, IL, I'll take that action.... The last guy with an automatic Mach1 said he would rip my GT a new ***, after I handed him his twice, he somehow had so much less to say after losing...

viking396

A manual Mach 1 has the same rear gear and tranny gears as the new 5spd Mustang GT, 5th gear is slightly taller in the Mach, .62 to our .68 which means nothing of course.

undefeated

I don't understand this at all. Everytime I go to the track. The Mach 1's and the 05/06 stangs are running similar almost Identical times. Everyone says they are faster. I want to race one someday. According to most, I should be about the same speed as a Mach 1 with my mods.