2003/04 Mustang Mach 1

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jun 20, 2011
Messages
1,514
Location
Northern Kentucky
Well since my wife has found a great job and everything is getting back to normal I am going to get a toy since I had to sell mine when she lost her job. I had a 2007 GT and a 1990. I've really been looking at the Mach 1. I have never driven one, but the look great with the shaker hood.

Seem like they would be plenty fast with 310 horsepower and low weight.

Anyone here have one to give opinions?
 
My dad had an 04 Mach 1 for a few years. He had the auto, as his knees don't tolerate traffic with a MT anymore.

Very fun to drive. Ended up trading it in because the seats hurt his back for anything more than an around town trip.

I was sad to see it go, I was hoping to get it long down the road.
 
I'd personally go for the Terminator.... That's what I'd be driving if I didn't have three kids. The M5 made a lot more sense in this instance.
 
I had several of the fox bodied one's, including a 1986 notchback (first year for efi on the 'stang) with a whopping 210 or so horse power.
 
Originally Posted By: hardcore302
Do it! They have a 4 valve and looooooooove boost! Enough said.


They have the same powerplant/drivetrain as the pre-'03 NA Cobras, but do they also have the same (factory) suspension handling mods as those??
21.gif
 
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
I'd personally go for the Terminator.... That's what I'd be driving if I didn't have three kids. The M5 made a lot more sense in this instance.

I hear ya. The ultimate mustang.
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Originally Posted By: hardcore302
Do it! They have a 4 valve and looooooooove boost! Enough said.


They have the same powerplant/drivetrain as the pre-'03 NA Cobras, but do they also have the same (factory) suspension handling mods as those??
21.gif


No they aren't the same engine as the 99 and 01 cobra.
The 99 and 01 cobras have 60cc combustion chambers giving those engines a 9.8-1 compression ratio. The mach's have the revised and improved "c" heads and a 58cc combustion chamber.
The mach's were also seriously under-rated as far as their advertised output. A stock Mach will put 290-300hp at the wheels and they were advertised at 310 crank for the 03 and 325 crank for the 04's.
As far as the mach's suspension they are lowered an inch compared to a standard gt,they have 3.55 gears and the shaker hood is just plain sexy.
As far as boost goes the compression ratio is so high that a person need to make the combustion chambers bigger to reduce the comp ratio otherwise 6 pounds of boost won't run off 91 octane.
If you have any specific mustang questions please don't hesitate to pm me. I just happen to be putting an 04 Mach engine and transmission into my 2000 gt. It's my winter project.
Before you even ask the oil question I ran 40 grades in mine for 100000kms and never had a single problem. In fact my cams look brand new.
Before you purchase the car the 4v engines had valve issues on the passenger side rear 2 cylinders. If you hear a loud tapping or ticking the head may have this issue. Using a 20 grade at sustained high rpms which these engines can achieve seems to amplify the issue.
They are great cars. Pics if you buy it.
 
I'm really torn between the Mach 1 and a low mileage Fox. I know the Mach is hands down faster, but with a few tasteful mods the fox mustangs can feel really good as well. The power factor isn't all thats important to me, but I don't want my "toy" to be slower than my daily driver, lol
 
Originally Posted By: MuzzleFlash40
I'm really torn between the Mach 1 and a low mileage Fox. I know the Mach is hands down faster, but with a few tasteful mods the fox mustangs can feel really good as well. The power factor isn't all thats important to me, but I don't want my "toy" to be slower than my daily driver, lol


A bone stock Fox will still dominate your GMQ. They are much lighter. My stock '87 ran [email protected]. Your GMQ (unless it has a blower) is probably well into the 16's.
 
The stock 1990 I sold last year had a 2.73 gear. From the line yes it was faster, but on the highway my MGM with 3.27 gears , intercepter air box and 93 octane tune ran it down every time.
 
Originally Posted By: MuzzleFlash40
The stock 1990 I sold last year had a 2.73 gear. From the line yes it was faster, but on the highway my MGM with 3.27 gears , intercepter air box and 93 octane tune ran it down every time.


It really shouldn't have, LOL

Maybe the '90 was a raging turd? Ever have it to the track?
 
It ran good to me, it owned by an older lady maybe it was a turd. It didn't smoke or anything. I didnt own it all that long, I had to sell it when she lost her job. Imagine how I felt when my wife ran me down in my own boat on the highway. It was late at night in the sticks with noone on the road. We took off at about 30 or so, I put a car or two on her fast since the MGM is an auto. When we let off at 120 or so my front bumper was at her drivers door. I figured it was the 2.73. The fox was rated at 215 and i'm guessing my MGM has about 270+.
 
Hahaha, so true.

I got into it many times with Mustang owners at the strip with my sig car when it was new.

I would challenge them to race me at the same weight. They were all chicken. I put many of them on the trailer anyway!
 
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Hahaha, so true.

I got into it many times with Mustang owners at the strip with my sig car when it was new.

I would challenge them to race me at the same weight. They were all chicken. I put many of them on the trailer anyway!

Isn't your car boosted? Even if it wasn't boosted like come on. A lowly little 4.6 vs a hemi. If you did get beat you would never be able to show your face again.
 
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Hahaha, so true.

I got into it many times with Mustang owners at the strip with my sig car when it was new.

I would challenge them to race me at the same weight. They were all chicken. I put many of them on the trailer anyway!

Isn't your car boosted? Even if it wasn't boosted like come on. A lowly little 4.6 vs a hemi. If you did get beat you would never be able to show your face again.



No boost here, absolutely stock as delivered.

And what's fair about a two door sports car weighing several hundred pounds LESS racing a 4 door luxury sedan? All I wanted was for them to put a couple of their friends in their car to even out the weight advantage they enjoy!

And there's no embarrassment in being beaten by a faster car. The embarrassing thing is when you are scared to try...
 
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: MuzzleFlash40
I'm really torn between the Mach 1 and a low mileage Fox. I know the Mach is hands down faster, but with a few tasteful mods the fox mustangs can feel really good as well. The power factor isn't all thats important to me, but I don't want my "toy" to be slower than my daily driver, lol


A bone stock Fox will still dominate your GMQ. They are much lighter. My stock '87 ran [email protected]. Your GMQ (unless it has a blower) is probably well into the 16's.


And that's before one even considers the handling differences, stock for stock.
My brother's bone stock, auto, '91 notch ran a 13.7 @`101 mph, even on the factory Michelins.
wink.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom