Guesses for 0-60 and 1/4 mile
6/5/04, 03:23 PM
#41
Member
Join Date: April 12, 2004
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
6/5/04, 07:04 PM
#42
GT Member
Join Date: May 31, 2004
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have not seen it done by any Mustang magazine. I generally go by MMFF or SuperFord.
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.
6/6/04, 03:41 PM
#46
Do You Remember Me?
Join Date: January 29, 2004
Posts: 5,999
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Grantsdale@Jun. 6th, 2004, 5:40 PM
Explain "sig fig"
Explain "sig fig"
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:
6/7/04, 09:25 PM
#47
Member
Join Date: April 12, 2004
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
6/7/04, 09:43 PM
#49
Shelby GT500 Member
Join Date: March 3, 2004
Location: Richmond VA
Posts: 2,633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by future9er24@June 7, 2004, 9:35 PM
check out the article in this month's Mustang Enthusiast. i haven't gotten around to reading it yet tho
check out the article in this month's Mustang Enthusiast. i haven't gotten around to reading it yet tho
a fellow reader
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
CiniZter
General Vehicle Discussion/News
25
4/28/16 05:41 PM