Mach 1 Section This section is for discussions relating to the reincarnation of the Mach 1 trimline.

Just curious

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Oct 13, 2009 | 04:12 PM
  #1  
DrDeaths01GT's Avatar
DrDeaths01GT
Thread Starter
2nd Gear Member
 
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 216
From: Georgia
Question Just curious

I have heard different answers to this but I want some real advice, I have heard the mach's have 305 hp from some, and others tell me that they are underrated and have more like 330. What is the hp for these cars.
Old Oct 13, 2009 | 07:30 PM
  #2  
rygi23's Avatar
rygi23
4th Gear Member
 
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,503
From: Maryland
Default

03/04 Machs (and Cobras) were underrated. Dynos with no resistance show rwhp at 270-280. General rule of manual tranny drivetrain loss is 15%, Tremec says the 3650 is 16%. Using 275 rwhp, 15% is 323.5 and 16% is 327.4. When I used calculators using 1/4 mi. elapsed time, trap speed and weight (including driver) the hp figure given was 325, so it's safe to say 325...as always, some are a couple more or less. Some who don't have a Mach have told me I'm full of crap with this info, but oh well. Hope this answers your question.
Old Oct 14, 2009 | 04:07 PM
  #3  
JDraper's Avatar
JDraper
2nd Gear Member
 
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 224
From: Central PA
Default

Yes, they were rated at 305 at the crank, and yes they are probably under rated. I turned 269 dead stock at the rear wheels. If you use the 16% loss that puts me at 312 at the crank.
Old Oct 14, 2009 | 05:17 PM
  #4  
rygi23's Avatar
rygi23
4th Gear Member
 
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,503
From: Maryland
Default

Originally Posted by JDraper
Yes, they were rated at 305 at the crank, and yes they are probably under rated. I turned 269 dead stock at the rear wheels. If you use the 16% loss that puts me at 312 at the crank.
Unless my comps calculator is wrong, 269 rwhp puts you at just over 320 hp at the crank using 16% drivetrain loss.
Old Oct 14, 2009 | 06:13 PM
  #5  
PaintballFreak's Avatar
PaintballFreak
4th Gear Member
 
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,139
From: Austin, TX
Default

Originally Posted by rygi23
Unless my comps calculator is wrong, 269 rwhp puts you at just over 320 hp at the crank using 16% drivetrain loss.
Yep 320hp. JDraper you calculated 16% of 269hp and added that to your dyno measurement. That's not the same as 16% of the crank hp. Just a slightly more involved calculation
Old Oct 14, 2009 | 06:30 PM
  #6  
JDraper's Avatar
JDraper
2nd Gear Member
 
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 224
From: Central PA
Default

Originally Posted by PaintballFreak
Yep 320hp. JDraper you calculated 16% of 269hp and added that to your dyno measurement. That's not the same as 16% of the crank hp. Just a slightly more involved calculation
Eh..gimme a break...I just got home from work and wasn't fully with it Forgot to go backwards.....Us dumb engineers turn our brains off after work sometimes... 320*.84=268.8

What matters to me is that I put down 302 hp/327 tq Corrected last time it was on the dyno...but, it's only numbers.
Old Oct 14, 2009 | 07:12 PM
  #7  
DrDeaths01GT's Avatar
DrDeaths01GT
Thread Starter
2nd Gear Member
 
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 216
From: Georgia
Default

Ok I see so they have a little more that a full bolt on gt, it makes sense now that i think of some of the et's I have seen for these cars, i love them except for the rims, not really a big fan of them, but the shaker hood is awesome.
Thanks for the info.
Old Oct 14, 2009 | 08:28 PM
  #8  
rygi23's Avatar
rygi23
4th Gear Member
 
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,503
From: Maryland
Default

Originally Posted by JDraper
Eh..gimme a break...I just got home from work and wasn't fully with it Forgot to go backwards.....Us dumb engineers turn our brains off after work sometimes... 320*.84=268.8

What matters to me is that I put down 302 hp/327 tq Corrected last time it was on the dyno...but, it's only numbers.
LOL. It's all good man. Just making sure the OP got his question answered correctly. You're an engineer so I'm sure you got us mathematically beat by a looooong shot! Yup, only numbers...time slips show the real story. 302/327....corrected!!!! Awesome numbers. Mind if I ask what mods you have?
Old Oct 14, 2009 | 08:32 PM
  #9  
rygi23's Avatar
rygi23
4th Gear Member
 
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,503
From: Maryland
Default

Originally Posted by DrDeaths01GT
Ok I see so they have a little more that a full bolt on gt, it makes sense now that i think of some of the et's I have seen for these cars, i love them except for the rims, not really a big fan of them, but the shaker hood is awesome.
Thanks for the info.
May be a little faster than a full bolt-on GT, but damn our Machs can be expensive to mod. Very welcome for the info.
Old Oct 14, 2009 | 08:43 PM
  #10  
JDraper's Avatar
JDraper
2nd Gear Member
 
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 224
From: Central PA
Default

Originally Posted by rygi23
LOL. It's all good man. Just making sure the OP got his question answered correctly. You're an engineer so I'm sure you got us mathematically beat by a looooong shot! Yup, only numbers...time slips show the real story. 302/327....corrected!!!! Awesome numbers. Mind if I ask what mods you have?
Mods are C&L CAI/MAF housing, PHP Intake spacer, Meziere electric water pump, Aluminum Flywheel, Bassani catted X-Pipe, Borla Stinger cat back exhaust and a good tune. Dyno sheet is attached.
Attached Thumbnails Just curious-dl-run-feb-06b.jpg  

Last edited by JDraper; Oct 14, 2009 at 08:50 PM.



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:50 AM.