Mr. Weiss' page does not explain how his formulas are calculated or tested.

Inputing known data for the Mach 1 provides a 12.9X-13.0 1/4 mile via Weiss's calculator. (depends on whether 320 or 325hp is used) (And 12.1X for an 03-04 Cobra) I have not seen it done by any Mustang magazine. I generally go by MMFF or SuperFord. I believe 13.10 was done once but admited to be an exception. Although I see a number of claims for it over at the Mach 1 registry by vehicle owners.

I generally go by 13.40 for the Mach 1 & 12.80 for the 03-04 Cobra. I prefer to err on the conservative side and use the other calc.

 

Don't forget, I said with perfect traction. That means slicks. Guessing how much you will spin on street tires is adding in error thats hard to compute. A new stock Cobra since it is underrated by Ford, should in good air touch the 11's with slicks.

 

13.10? You mean 13.1 right? Why include the extra zero?

 

maybe it's a sig fig

 

Explain "sig fig"

 

significant figures: when performing calculations involving several numbers, there are rules which should be followed when carrying decimal places......bascially, different numbers are only accurate to a certain decimal place. As a result, the answer's accuracy is limited.

In addition:

34.5 has three significant figures and is accurate to .1

100 has three significant figures and is accurate to 1.

0.0012 has two significant figures and is accurate to 0.0001.

Anyway, I know you are all

:sleep:

 

A few responses:

1.It is a sig fig. Wished to stress the very low 13 second aspect of the Mach 1. (At work I have to calc out to four decimal places and so extra digits are habit) The X used is to indicate variations in the hundreths of a second. Also trained to keep digit count equal when presenting data. Yes it is a bit boring.

2. No arguement with 200mphcobra regarding the capability of a car with slicks or Drag Radials compared to factory issue. Especially if the 2005 Mustang 4.6L 3V will be a torque engine compared to high rpm performer. I notice the 4.6L3V is rated for peak horsepower at 5700rpm where the Mach 1 engine is rated at 6000rpm. Over at the Mach 1 site, recommended shift point is 6100rpm. The factory peak horsepower rpm may be quite correct for the Mach 1 even if the actual hp number is under-rated. I wonder how it is for the 4.6L3V-same peak hp rpm but considerably under-rated from the point of view of output. I imagine different driving habits will need to be learned compared to previous Ford small blocks.

New question: Is the 4.6L 3v in the 2005 Mustang much changed from the truck engine version? If so what changes have been made? Variable cam timing? Variable intake too? I admit I have not kept up with the 4.6L development being a diehard 5.0 person since the last century and then some.

 

check out the article in this month's Mustang Enthusiast. i haven't gotten around to reading it yet tho

 

yeah get that mag. they have a really good article on the 4.6 3V and the 4.0L v6. quite good reading i must say. andf they act like 300 HP is very conservative. ill try and scan it tom morning at my parents house and post it for everyone to read

 

a fellow reader

 

All I'm saying is don't get your hopes up....Ford has let us down before and I wouldn't be surprised if they did it again. Just assume the worst (that usually makes things work out