DUB 6

There's no way in hell your running a mid 13's or any numbers in the 13's with those mods....It will take more mods than you have, for you to reach 13's in a car that's capable of low 15's or very, very high 14's.....not buying it at all.....

LT1's are 13.8-14.0 cars and they just pull harder and harder as the rpm's climb...You said you had a 4-5 carlength up until around 115.....No way in hell......not with those mods......The 93 cobra happens to have more mods than your running and it won't even come close to beating and LT1..

Mach1

"If you want to compare an 04 Mach I motor against anything, compare it against the Z28/SS LS1 310/325 >>>> 305 hp.

End of story."

Those are advertised numbers. From my experience mach1s seem to have about 320hp and 340 lb/ft, ls1s seem to have anywhere from 340hp to 360hp with about 350 tq. Altought ls1s respond better to mods, the extra 1.1 liters comes in handy.

WS6speeDemon

[sm=exactly.gif]

Guest

Point Being, compare motors of hte same era. not a motor from 04 and a motor from 96 and call the 96 motor weak because of that.

90Mustangfan

If your reading the mods in my sig, there are way more, something called nitrous, Im using a 120 dry shot of NOS. and slicks, and all of the other mods that are not listed.I run 13.5 with a 80 shot of NOS/slicks.And again, this guy wasnt a PRO driver. He was a amature driver.He didnt get a good launch, he burned out through 1st and a little in 2nd...I on the other hand didnt, I got a good launch because of the slicks,and I have gears, I beat almost every car I race off the line.and What do I care what you think anyway, I know I beat the guy, the guy knows I beat him.

1993 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 5.8 14.4
1994 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 5.7 14.2
1994 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 Conv. 6.2 14.5
1995 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 5.7 14.2
1995 Chevrolet Camaro 3800 7.4 15.7
1996 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 5.7 14.1
these are all with pro drivers.
here is another link to show how slow an LT1 is
slowmaro

Mach1

Totally agreed with ya si, just wanted to clear up that both the ls1 and mach1 motors are under rated and IMO they are among the best V8s ever.

Guest

1993 Ford Mustang Cobra 5.9 14.5
1993 Ford Mustang GT(auto) 8.0 16.1
1994 Ford Mustang Cobra 6.9 15.3
1994 Ford Mustang GT 6.7 15.1
1995 Ford Mustang 3.8 9.9 17.3
1995 Ford Mustang Cobra R 5.2 13.8
1996 Ford Mustang Cobra 5.5 14.0
1998 Ford Mustang Cobra SVT 5.4 14.0
1999 Ford Mustang Cobra SVT 5.4 13.9
1999 Ford Mustang Convertible V6 8.6 16.5
1999 Ford Mustang GT 5.5 14.1

You were saying the Camaro is slow? Well compare it year for year and it seems to be pretty close, 93 Z28s seem to be good competition to the 93 Cobra, as well as 96 Z28s vs 96 Cobras.

Odd isn't it? You call it a Slowmaro, yet the COBRA models of the corresponding years are within 1/10ths of the lower end Camaro model.

This being said, I'd kill for any year Cobra... or 99+ GT right about now.

side by side, bolded on 0u7 y0...just cause i'm bored.


1993 Ford Mustang Cobra 5.9 14.5
1993 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 5.8 14.4

1994 Ford Mustang Cobra 6.9 15.3
1994 Ford Mustang GT 6.7 15.1
1994 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 5.7 14.2


1995 Ford Mustang Cobra R 5.2 13.8
1995 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 5.7 14.2

1995 Ford Mustang 3.8 9.9 17.3
1995 Chevrolet Camaro 3800 7.4 15.7

1996 Ford Mustang Cobra 5.5 14.0
1996 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 5.7 14.1

1998 Ford Mustang Cobra SVT 5.4 14.0
1999 Ford Mustang GT 5.5 14.1
1998 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 5.2 13.7
1998 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 SS 5.2 13.6

Guest

PS 90mustangfan, if you're going to try to own LT1 powered Camaros by showing us their 14 second timeslips, don't use the same site I do that has the same slightly slower (and some faster) times as the mustangs on it...

Mach1

Ya but are those from car-stats.com?

Guest

no... and if you read Car and Driver and then call Car-stats.com numbers BS, well then I'm going to have to insist you check yourself into a mental institution.