2003 vs. 2004

[bikahog@mac.com]

I was wondering, has anyone compared a stock '03 and '04 Marauder in the quarter mile? I heard that Ford made two changes to the 2004 MM. A lower first gear and a dual knock sensor system. Thanks

[Bluerauder]

I was wondering, has anyone compared a stock '03 and '04 Marauder in the quarter mile? I heard that Ford made two changes to the 2004 MM. A lower first gear and a dual knock sensor system. Thanks
Just ran a head to head on Saturday at Mason-Dixon. Stock '03 Blue vs. '04 Silver. Seemed pretty even to me. Blue got the jump off the line and Silver was never able to make up the difference. It was 10.150@70.88 mph (Blue) vs. 10.186@70.71 mph (Silver) at the 1/8 marker. Unfortunately, the 1/4 times never made the board or the printout; but Blue was still out front.

[GordonB]

I can tell you all for a fact that my '04 has more power than my '03 B and both are STOCK. The '04 drives better also.

STOCK, NO MODS incl. tunes, I'll challenge anyone with an '03 to beat my '04 or anyone else's '04 ON A DYNO (no variables & no driver diffs. that way) on a dyno, not a track. If you look at anyone's latest '04 dyno printout with A/F ratio you will see what I am talking about. My '04 FACTORY tune absolutely rocks with a VERY consistent and FLAT A/F ratio across the RMP range. It starts around 14:1 and stays in the 12 to 13 range all the way up to fuel cutoff.

GordonB

[Bluerauder]

I'll challenge anyone with an '03 to beat my '04 or anyone else's '04 ON A DYNO (no variables & no driver diffs. that way) on a dyno, not a track.
So, I guess this means that a Blue vs. Blue on the asphalt is out of the question. :rofl: Dyno numbers are nice; but not as exhilarating as the door-to-door match up. :D That's OK, I figure my racing career is over anyway. :rolleyes:

[mdmarauder]

Gordon, I'm with you. My new 04' would have surely hurt my old stock 03 300A in a stoplight match. Shift quality is far superior as well. :burnout:

[2003 MIB]

It's certainly not quantified but the two folks I know (Rollin'Thunder and RacerX88) that traded '03s for '04s have both commented that the '04 was a little stronger bone stock. The other constant comment they both make is that Silver Birch is much easier to keep clean than Black- I guess y'all probably already knew that.

[CRUZTAKER]

Stock for stock, and year for year....the '04's have turned out better time in their juvenile milage age.

[MarauderMark]

Stock for stock, and year for year....the '04's have turned out better time in their juvenile milage age.
Well o4marauder666 told me last night he ran a 14.78 and his is an 04 all stock were as his 03 early model ran low 16's


Charlie you pickin on Gordon?Guess were gonna have to set up a 1/4 mile track at the mall saturday:lol: :burn:

[GarageMahal]

ISTOCK, NO MODS incl. tunes, I'll challenge anyone with an '03 to beat my '04 or anyone else's '04 ON A DYNO (no variables & no driver diffs. that way) on a dyno, not a track. If you look at anyone's latest '04 dyno printout with A/F ratio you will see what I am talking about. My '04 FACTORY tune absolutely rocks with a VERY consistent and FLAT A/F ratio across the RMP range. It starts around 14:1 and stays in the 12 to 13 range all the way up to fuel cutoff.

My baseline numbers were 266.4 HP and 279.8 Torque with approximately 30,000 miles on the clock. This is before my tune, which is the only thing I have done to change the cars performance. You can see my dyno sheet here (http://www.mercurygallery.net/mmnet/showphoto.php/photo/4770/size/big/sort/1/cat/500)

How does these compare to yours? However, from what I hear, I got exceptional numbers for a stock MM.

jta

[Bluerauder]

Charlie you pickin on Gordon?Guess were gonna have to set up a 1/4 mile track at the mall saturday:lol: :burn:
Can't we just show him the video?? :rofl:

[CRUZTAKER]

I think....it's been awhile....my baseline on my stock '03 300A 8-02 build was 238 rwhp.

[Haggis]

Charlie you pickin on Gordon?Guess were gonna have to set up a 1/4 mile track at the mall saturday:lol: :burn:

Oh never mind! Wrong Gordon. :wasntme:

[jgc61sr2002]

bikahog - Welcome aboard. :welcome: :D

[GordonB]

Hey guys & gals,
only reason I said compare DYNO nbrs is that it takes the reaction time, etc. out of the equation.
I just know what a late '03 and a late '04 do on the dyno and how they RUN on the street.

GordonB

[Bluerauder]

Hey guys & gals,
only reason I said compare DYNO nbrs is that it takes the reaction time, etc. out of the equation.
I just know what a late '03 and a late '04 do on the dyno and how they RUN on the street.

GordonB
Just having fun Gordon. :D And, still enjoying the after effects of my first time at the track. :)

[Haggis]

Hey guys & gals,
only reason I said compare DYNO nbrs is that it takes the reaction time, etc. out of the equation.
I just know what a late '03 and a late '04 do on the dyno and how they RUN on the street.

GordonB


When we were at Kauffman's for the Dyno Day my dyno numbers were higher then MarauderMarks, but yet at Mason/Dixon he was running 12.6 while I was running 13.3. While I still had the better reaction times, so I do not believe that you can compare dyno numbers on how a car is going to perform on the track or on the street for that matter.

[MarauderMark]

When we were at Kauffman's for the Dyno Day my dyno numbers were higher then MarauderMarks, but yet at Mason/Dixon he was running 12.6 while I was running 13.3. While I still had the better reaction times, so I do not believe that you can compare dyno numbers on how a car is going to perform on the track or on the street for that matter.
Yes i didnt get that why???

[2005Marauder]

My '04 is almost a second faster than my '03 was.

[Bluerauder]

Yes i didnt get that why???
Must be less drag with the badgeless grill !!! :rofl:

Were you running with the left headlight pulled?