200X GT vs. Mach1: what's the difference?

I'm considering a 2001 or so GT, and I noticed the engine is the same size as the Mach1 engine yet the Mach1 is rated 45HP higher. Why? Is there any substantive difference, or is this a case of model cripple that can be easily reversed? (eg, with a chip or something similar.)

Thanks for the help- I looked around, but there's a TON of information out there about these cars and I can't find that particular question answered anywhere...

Thanks- Jim

Reply to
Jim
Loading thread data ...

The GT is an iron block SOHC and the Mach 1 is an aluminum block DOHC.

Reply to
Tweek

I would love to see the torque curve charts for both these engines. The Mach engine makes more hp at higher rpm, but at the expense of how much low end torque? My guess is that the Mach still has good low end torque due to the DOHC configuration. But they did feel a need to put a 3.55 in the back as opposed to a 3.27... the torque curve must be a bit higher up the rpm band. All I know is that I have 1100cc motorcycle with a V4, DOHC (very similar set-up to the Mach engine), and for the size, that thing is a ROCKET with loads of torque across the entire rpm band. I guess it's all in the combustion chamber design and ports... the 4 valves per cylinder, etc... this is where the magic must lie.

One thing that upset me a bit this morning... I saw a road test for a 2003 Honda Accord sedan, 3.0 V6, 240 hp, auto... and it had the SAME 0-60 and 1/4 times as a 2002 Mustang GT V8 4.6 auto (according to these particular Car and Driver road tests: 0-60 in about 6 and a half secs, and 1/4 mile in 15 secs). So this means that someone's grandma in a new Accord sedan can stay nose to nose with a new GT!!! And for me and my heavier GT convertible, granny will beat me!!! Oh man, I don't wanna be smoked by a granny!!! I'm not sure of the V6 Honda engine configuration in terms of heads/valves, but I do know that they have variable valve timing.... that's a pretty big deal apparently, and also expensive and sophisticated. But gee, a V6 sedan beating a V8 performance car... by today's standards, I guess the GT is not really a true musclecar, but just an average pretty fast car.. and the Mach

1 IS the musclecar. Well... lesson learned... if you don't want to be beaten by an old lady in a Japanese sedan, be sure to get at least a Mach 1.
Reply to
GT-Vert-03

I love my Mustang for the looks and performance but American car makers are behind when it comes to large output from small input. The new Acura TL will have 270hp and will be available with a 6sp trans. I am assuming it will still be 3.2 liters all for a retail price of about 32-35k. Not a bad choice as you get reliability and performance I will probably stick with my Mustang but I do think American car makers need to get with it a little. Don't get me wrong, I like all cars and I am not slamming any one maker just try to keep up with competition.

David Short

2000 GT Vert
Reply to
Acura God

Jim --

The 200x cars are basically SOHC 4.6L engines. The Mach1 is a DOHC4.6 I don't remember but it's either turbo or supercharged. It also has a less restrictive exhaust system.

Joe '03 GT 'Vert 5speed

Reply to
joe

It can't be duplicated easily. The Mach 1 essentially has the 320 hp DOHC naturally aspirated (2001 model year) Cobra engine--except that it is assembly line made instead of hand built like the Cobras. 320hp, with a redline like it has and gears like it has makes the Mach 1 a serious competitor.

The GT has the 260 hp SOHC V8. (SOHC = 2 valves/cylinder, DOHC = 4 valves/cylinder)

Reply to
Victor DiMichina

The engine is a DOHC 4.6 but it is NOT turbocharged or supercharged from the factory. Erik D. '94 white lightning

Reply to
Erik D.

Reply to
James Danielson

Thanks for all the responses! I had no idea the M1 was DOHC, I just saw the displacement number and thought there might be a chance. Oh well, I guess it'll have to be an M1 or a Cobra. :)

J-.

Jim wrote:

Reply to
Jim

OK I stand Corrected !!

Joe '03 GT 'Vert 5Spd

Reply to
joe

I drive a 2001 GT. If the variable valve timing is so great, how come I've thrashed the last three Acura TLs/CL's I've come up against, even though my engine and the Acura engine are both rated at 260hp? Is it possible they are misrepresenting their HP figures or that it just doesn't mean as much when it's a hopped up 6? However, for a 6, they do work pretty well.

-Rich

Reply to
rander3127

The reason you trashed (as have I) the CL-S or TL-s cars despite their similar horsepower ratings is that most people forget: Customers buy horsepower, but they drive torque.

see above.

Yes they do.

Reply to
Victor DiMichina

On 03 Sep 2003 22:48:41 GMT, Victor DiMichina

I am in agreement. Everyone chases those gee-whiz HP figures, but frankly, it's TORQUE that hauls ass.

I sit and wonder about all of these ads touting outragous HP figures, when I see firsthand every single day, what new Hondas and Acuras actually DO out on the road, and it is sad indeed.

Even in my ugly-ass 2.5 FWD Chevy beater which is quite a torque monster in its own right, I *constantly* outrun these things. I'd love to believe that everyone driving these stupid things only uses 1/4 throttle to enter freeways, but I know it ain't so. Every damn time I get on a freeway behind a Honda something-or-other, I end up whipping around to the A-lane, passing them like they're sitting up on blocks, all the while listening to them beat the piss out of their tiny little motor. So much for all that colorful advertising.

In my '98 GT, I easily whip around these morons so fast, I nearly pull their windshield off the posts. Most appear shocked, watching me pull away from so quickly.

Don't get caught up in Honda's horsepower marketing bullshit. Check the torque figures instead, and you'll quickly see why the damn things are so slow.

-JD

Reply to
JD Adams

----------------------

I agree to an extent... torque is indeed a very important thing, and really means everything in a good performance street engine.. agreed. But, and I hate like hell to admit it, the Japs, via excellent technology and quality,have found ways of making sure that there is more than adequate torque on tap whenever you need it at all times. In otherwords, they have great tranny set-ups, the auto tranny cars are always in the correct gear and are sensitive to downshifting so that the car always feels "torquey". Plus the variable valve timing thing... this allows for much greater low end torque than otherwise while still being able to make those impressive upper end HP figures. I just drove my new 2003 GT Stang tonight for the first time, and one thing I noticed is that the tranny upshifts very quickly and likes to stay in a relatively high gear... thus the effect is that the car is "sluggish", and not "peppy". It's darned near "lugging" a lot of the time. Of course this makes for excellent economy, and you really can't have great economy and full-time "pep" either. I guess if I were to really lay my foot into it, the thing would downshift and take off, but I haven't tried that yet... wet roads tonight. One nice thing about the auto Stang is the overdrive lock-out thing... I can see that I'll have the overdrive turned off most of the time unless cruising at high speed on the highway. Well, in sum, don't be too quick to diss Honda's... regardless of the marketing balony, those engines are very torquey and very impressive. And I bought a Mustang anyway instead because they are way cooler!

Reply to
GT-Vert-03

I disagree. I had a 1993 LX 5.0. My aod transmission lost it's 4th gear three times. The third time, I said screw it, and I drove in Drive. This meant highway rpms of around 2500 but I observed essentially no change in fuel economy. The only time I've seen Mustangs consume prodigious amounts of gas is when they are used hard, stoplight to stoplight.

-Rich

Reply to
rander3127

------------------------------

True. Hey, what's involved when swapping rear gears on a new stock GT Stang, other than the gear/rear-end swap itself? How hard is it to get the speedo back in order... just a speedo cable gear change like on the old cars? Any other computer related trickery to be dealt with? Just curious.

Reply to
GT-Vert-03

I saw my Mustang burn through nearly 1/4 tank in less than 50 miles this last weekend. Granted I was driving the very twisty CA330 on the way to the mountains (Big Bear, CA) at 1:00am. I was averaging 3500 - 4500 rpm the whole way. With my Konis all tightened up, I honestly don't think I've ever had more fun behind the wheel of a car. (at least while driving)

This Audi TT was on my ass getting to that road, I could tell he wanted to be ahead of me in his so called "sports" car--probably figured I would slow him down. He hung with me (right on my ass) through half of the first turn on the mountain road. I unleashed hell on this guy, and his headlights got smaller and smaller with each turn in the road. Yes, he WAS trying.

Reply to
Victor DiMichina

Reply to
Michael Seeley

Nope. GT is an iron block 2v. Mach 1 is an aluminum block 4v. 03 Cobra is iron block. 96-01 Cobras are aluminum 4v, very similar to the new Mach 1 engine.

Reply to
paul-1993

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.