American Car Fans- READ

Discussion in '2003 Ford Mustang SVT Cobra' started by SeansVette, Sep 10, 2002.

  1. Re: American Car Fans- READ

    No you are wrong. Most cars that are rwd or fwd have a loss of 15-18%. A awd vehicle will be more, probably up to 20%.
    And yes in a race 20hp is a lot to give up.
     
  2. Re: Re:

    Holy shit you're moron! First off you can not increase the boost and have no hp gain, it's impossible!! So stop saying that you are wrong.
    The wrx is not a much better car. Why would you think so? It's over hyped. It’s not the superior car most people think. It’s a great car, but not the god like symbol some people think it is (like you must think).
    Mustang GT: $22,000, 13.7 in the quarter mile.
    WRX: $25,000 14.1 in the quarter mile.
    Camaro z28 $25,000 13.5(?) in the quarter mile.
    Stock the pony cars are the best buy for both speed and handling. I have no doubt that the wrx is a better handling car, but overall it's not the best buy. But it all comes down to what you are looking for when you buy a car, so there's really no way to say one car is better than the other for everyone.
    Now did you ever drive a wrx before...no that’s what I thought. So how the hell can you tell that it "accelerated no faster than the general factory wrx"? It had to accelerate faster since it did the quarter mile in 12.9 seconds moron, its common sense, if it was that much faster than a stock wrx it HAD TO ACCELERATE FASTER.
    Seems to me that the only one spouting bullshit around here is you password. From trying to tell us that rally cars are stock to saying that stock a wrx will run a 12.9, to saying that the dodge srt-4 will be $26,000, you have no clue as to what the hell you are talking about, ever. I don't know you and you might be intelligent in other areas of life, but when it comes to cars your a complete moron.

     
  3. #128 Ford rulez, Jan 8, 2003
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Re: Re:

    LOL, I thought you were done with this debate<A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/emoticons.html"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="http://speed.supercars.net/cboardhtml/emoticons/wink.gif"></A>
    Well, I just had a look at different Dyno results and the figures I came up with (by extrapolating the hp loss and calculating the percent difference) for the WRX ranged from 17%-23% hp loss, to contrast that with a good RWD, hp loss for the Mustang (from the GT up to the Cobra R) ranged from 15%-20% hp loss. That's not much more at all, even if you only take the highest figures of the WRX and the lowest figures of the Mustang. That's certainly not enough difference to make up for the advantage AWD has for getting off the line.

    As I said (and this is another case where you're just hearing what you want to hear) I ASSUME THAT EITHER PEAK HP WAS ACHIEVED AT A LOWER RPM (which according to the formula for hp, is quite feasible) OR THAT IT WAS A TYPO what don't you understand about this?? It seems your ignorance is blinding you to what I'm saying.

    And according to the formula for hp (which you yourself have used as an example), a gain in peak torque is possible without a gain in peak hp (if the peak hp is achieved at a lower rpm, just look at the formula that derives hp.

    No the WRX is not the "god like symbol some people think it is", I know where its limitations lie, and its limitations are not that high on pavement (as far as supercars are concerned), and it's true that it is over-hyped in the way of performance (though not nearly so much as the Mustang, or Camaro). And it's true that with the exception of handling the WRX is no better nor worse than the Mustang and Camaro when it comes to performance (in fact I think it's actually slower above 200km/h).

    However, overall the WRX is a much better package for its price, it has the utility, the crash safety, the handling, the storage capacity, the fuel economy, and the beautiful look and sound that the Mustang and Camaro lack (that last part was just IMHO, but I know there are a lot of people who would agree, as well as disagree).

    Anywhere you go the average consumer wants performance certainly (any who don't should not have a license and should be limited to public transit<A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/emoticons.html"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="http://speed.supercars.net/cboardhtml/emoticons/wink.gif"></A>), however the average consumer (including myself, if rally racers can be included<A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/emoticons.html"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="http://speed.supercars.net/cboardhtml/emoticons/wink.gif"></A>) also wants a car that is good for more than just performance, this is what makes the WRX a better car, it has very comparable performance, and it offers so much more than just the performance. Hell, if I wanted to buy a car for strictly performance (which is pretty much the only incentive to buy a Mustang or Camaro) I'll just go out and buy a Lotus Elise 340R, which has far superior performance than the Mustang or Camaro (with the exception of topspeed, though its top speed of over 200km/h is more than enough for BC roads), and - I've been told - can be found (used) for under $18,000usd. If you're going to go for performance, you might as well get the best you can for your budget right? Not only is this car (the 340R) faster and handle better, but it can be found for less money.

    As a matter of fact, yes, I have driven one before, and I pushed it hard, you can read all about in one of my posts in this forum: http://speed.supercars.net/cBoard?viewThread=true&bottom=15&fID=1103&tID=25609

    Once again, you are misunderstanding what I've said, read what I said earlier again please, I'll make it easy for you: "acceleration in that clip was no faster than normal for a WRX with the exception of the start, which was where the torque came in" since you seem unable to understand what I was saying, I'll break it down for you: The driver got a great start, his reaction time was excellent, he suffered little turbo-lag, and the small amount of extra torque allowed him to get through 1st and 2nd gear very quickly, by that time he was at a decent speed, however acceleration is no longer as drastic and he's now accelerating at about the same speed as the factory WRX does (I've seen a lot of stock WRX's accelerating, some at the strip).

    In other words all the factors that gave him a good start, did roughly the equivalent of (bear with me here, I know you're going to have difficulty getting what I'm saying and you're probably going to say something moronic about this description) of dropping a WRX with 13.5 ps on the track at just before the 1/8th mile mark (about where he began to accelerate the same as the 14.1 sec. 13.5ps WRX) with 5.1sec on the clock (approx. time elapsed at that point, give or take .5 sec) going 65mph (rough estimated speed he was going at that point), to finish the 1/4 under normal acceleration. To the point: it had the same effect of starting a normal WRX at that much more speed than would be typical, at just before 1/8th mile mark, with that much time already elapsed.
     
  4. #129 Ford rulez, Jan 8, 2003
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Re: Re:

    LOL, I thought you were done with this debate<A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/emoticons.html"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="http://speed.supercars.net/cboardhtml/emoticons/wink.gif"></A>
    Well, I just had a look at different Dyno results and the figures I came up with (by extrapolating the hp loss and calculating the percent difference) for the WRX ranged from 17%-23% hp loss, to contrast that with a good RWD, hp loss for the Mustang (from the GT up to the Cobra R) ranged from 15%-20% hp loss. That's not much more at all, even if you only take the highest figures of the WRX and the lowest figures of the Mustang. That's certainly not enough difference to make up for the advantage AWD has for getting off the line.

    As I said (and this is another case where you're just hearing what you want to hear) I ASSUME THAT EITHER PEAK HP WAS ACHIEVED AT A LOWER RPM (which according to the formula for hp, is quite feasible) OR THAT IT WAS A TYPO what don't you understand about this?? It seems your ignorance is blinding you to what I'm saying.

    And according to the formula for hp (which you yourself have used as an example), a gain in peak torque is possible without a gain in peak hp (if the peak hp is achieved at a lower rpm, just look at the formula that derives hp.

    No the WRX is not the "god like symbol some people think it is", I know where its limitations lie, and its limitations are not that high on pavement (as far as supercars are concerned), and it's true that it is over-hyped in the way of performance (though not nearly so much as the Mustang, or Camaro). And it's true that with the exception of handling the WRX is no better nor worse than the Mustang and Camaro when it comes to performance (in fact I think it's actually slower above 200km/h).

    However, overall the WRX is a much better package for its price, it has the utility, the crash safety, the handling, the storage capacity, the fuel economy, and the beautiful look and sound that the Mustang and Camaro lack (that last part was just IMHO, but I know there are a lot of people who would agree, as well as disagree).

    Anywhere you go the average consumer wants performance certainly (any who don't should not have a license and should be limited to public transit), however the average consumer (including myself, if rally racers can be included) also wants a car that is good for more than just performance, this is what makes the WRX a better car, it has very comparable performance, and it offers so much more than just the performance. Hell, if I wanted to buy a car for strictly performance (which is pretty much the only incentive to buy a Mustang or Camaro) I'll just go out and buy a Lotus Elise 340R, which has far superior performance than the Mustang or Camaro (with the exception of topspeed, though its top speed of over 200km/h is more than enough for BC roads), and - I've been told - can be found (used) for under $18,000usd. If you're going to go for performance, you might as well get the best you can for your budget right? Not only is this car (the 340R) faster and handle better, but it can be found for less money.

    As a matter of fact, yes, I have driven one before, and I pushed it hard, you can read all about in one of my posts in this forum: http://speed.supercars.net/cBoard?viewThread=true&bottom=15&fID=1103&tID=25609

    Once again, you are misunderstanding what I've said, read what I said earlier again please, I'll make it easy for you: "acceleration in that clip was no faster than normal for a WRX with the exception of the start, which was where the torque came in" Note the part where I said "WITH EXCEPTION OF THE START"?? since you seem unable to understand what I was saying, I'll break it down for you: The driver got a great start, his reaction time was excellent, he suffered little turbo-lag, and the small amount of extra torque allowed him to get through 1st and 2nd gear very quickly and accelerate a little faster than usual, by the time he reached 3rd gear he was at a decent speed, however acceleration is no longer as drastic and he's now accelerating at about the same speed as the factory WRX does (I've seen a lot of stock WRX's accelerating, some at the strip).

    In other words all the factors that gave him a good start, did roughly the equivalent of (bear with me here, I know you're going to have difficulty getting what I'm saying and you're probably going to say something moronic about this description) of dropping a WRX with 13.5 ps on the track at just before the 1/8th mile mark (about where he began to accelerate the same as the 14.1 sec. 13.5ps WRX) with 5.1sec on the clock (approx. time elapsed at that point, give or take .5 sec) going 65mph (rough estimated speed he was going at that point), to finish the 1/4 under normal acceleration. To the point: it had the same effect of starting a normal WRX at that much more speed than would be typical, at just before 1/8th mile mark, with that much time already elapsed.

    Wrong again, it's just you being an idiot and hearing what you want to hear yet again, I never said rally cars were stock, I said that the performance DIFFERENCE between models in the WRC is representative of that for the stock versions, in what way did I say that Rally cars are stock? Cause I'm really stumped on how you could come to that conclusion. I've just shown you a stock WRX that will run a 12.9, saying that it's not stock is pretty much the same as saying that a car that has AC offered as an option and having it installed before you purchase it is not stock. And if a Neon srt-4 is not $26,000cdn, then why don't you convert the American price of under $20,000usd to Canadian dollars and find out for yourself (The listed price I saw was wrong btw, it's actually higher than $26,000cdn) There is NO SRT-4 Neon offered for under $20,000 in Canada.
     
  5. #130 BrownDoggie, Jan 9, 2003
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Re: American Car Fans- READ

    http://irvinesubaru.com/wrx/cdreview.html

    Car and Driver tested a WRX special edition that did 0-60 in 4.7 seconds, but it cost over $40,000. The best rating a stock one ever got was 6.1 seconds, and that's no 13-second ET.

    It is NOT possible, with added boost, to reach a lower peak HP, since boost effectively increases static compression, which RAISES both Torque and HP on the RPM range.

    In the end, the WRX neither handles better nor goes faster than any pony car stock. Expecially not the bad-ass 390 horse, 390 lbft Cobra.
     
  6. Re: American Car Fans- READ

    So I gave RWD more credit than it's due (although I do believe the published drivetrain loss for the Z06 is around 14%). I rounded the R32...it's published drivetrain loss by Nissan is an average 18.3% while AWD is engaged (which includes speeds at over 180kph), and 16.8% while disengaged. That means at 400HP a difference of less than 12HP (if RWD is 15%)
     
  7. Re: American Car Fans- READ

    The generic WRX will run 0-100km/h in 5.6 sec., it's been proven time and again and that's what the generally agreed upon 0-100km/h time is. Your 6.1 seconds comes from the ESTIMATED time that Subaru figured would be added due to the hp difference, before they ever really tested the car, his agreement was based on his 4.7 sec. (achieved when Car and Driver test drove the STI) with Subaru's estimated time of 1.4 seconds added on, it openly states that in your article. Basically, you took untested figures and claimed those are the actual acceleration times, well, newsflash: the WRX performs better than Subaru had estimated at the time.

    That is no "special edition" (I believe his words were "Limited edition"), I dunno where he got the idea that it's a limited edition, perhaps because that was the last 2.2l Sti?, but he's wrong nonetheless, that's the 2.2 litre STI which is no longer made, they now use a 2.0 litre engine that boasts just slightly less horsepower but more torque.

    BTW the acceleration of the Sti (both 1st and 2nd gen) is actually faster than what Car and Driver claims, the most commonly achieved 0-100km/h time is 4.6 seconds, but 4.5 seconds is achieved fairly often: i.e.: Subaru has achieved 4.5 seconds, EVO magazine achieved 4.5 seconds, SCC achieved 4.5 seconds, Road test (on speed channel) achieved 4.5 seconds as well.

    I didn't say hp can be less, just that peak hp can be reached at a lower RPM which essentially means hp went up, just that optimum hp gain remained the same but was available at a lower rpm, rare, but it does happen. And in this case as I said I assume that either peak hp was achieved at a lower rpm, or that there was a typo. How many times am I going to have to repeat myself before you realize what I'm saying?

    In the end the WRX handles far better than any pony car stock. And seeing as I couldn't find performance specs for the 390/390 SVT cobra, I had a look at the 1999 SVT cobra (which has less power at 320hp and less torque at 317.2 lb-ft of torque) which accelerates at the same speed as the WRX (5.6 sec. 0-100km/h...assuming that 0-60 is the most important accel time, I know it isn't), therefore the newer SVT cobra can't be much faster than the WRX, and if you made arrangements before purchasing your WRX it can be just as fast as the newer SVT cobra. New SVT Cobra aside, the WRX can readily be faster than any pony car stock provided you have the foresight to make the arrangements ahead of time.
     
  8. Re: American Car Fans- READ

    Holy shit stop typing bullshit in these forums! The 2001 cobra did 0-60 in around 4.9 seconds, and the quarter mile in 13.4. Where did you find 5.6 seconds for the 2001 cobra, the newer gt's (99+) are faster then that at 5.4 seconds. Moron. The new cobra (2003) does 0-60 in 4.5 seconds and the quarter mile in 12.4 seconds. How the hell is that anywhere close to the wrx's times, they are both alot faster than the wrx idiot.
    Lets see
    2001 cobra: 0-60 4.9 seconds, quarter mile 13.4 seconds.
    2003 cobra: 0-60 4.5 seconds, quarter mile 12.4 seconds.
    Wrx : 0-60 5.4 seconds, quarter mile 14.1 seconds.
    Please tell me how the hell those numbers for the wrx are even close to either one of the cobras? They aren't. Please do a little research before you post so you don't look like a jackass.
    Also the wrx does not handle better than the 2003 cobra and I would say even the 2001 is a better track car. Off road yes the wrx is the better rally car, on any paved surface no.
    The wrx is in the same league as the mustang gt, not the cobras.
     
  9. #134 Ford rulez, Jan 9, 2003
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Re: American Car Fans- READ

    Holy crap do you ever need a reading tutor, that or you're just dyslexic, but you've already proven you're not intelligent enough to be dyslexic (dyslexic people on avg. have an above avg. IQ). I said I found 5.6 seconds for the 1999 Cobra, NOT ONCE did I EVER say anything about the 2001 Cobra taking 5.6 seconds for 0-100km/h, in fact I specifically stated that I COULDN'T find any info on the acceleration of the 2001 Cobra, READ BEFORE YOU POST SO YOU DON'T LOOK LIKE A JACKASS...speaking of which, perhaps you should practice what you preach.

    and look at this link from this very site: http://www.supercars.net/cars/1999@$Ford@$Mustang%20SVT%20Cobrag.html what does that say right beside "0-60mph"? it looks like...it IS it does say "5.6 seconds".

    Wow, that's great, the 2003 and 2001 are both faster in 0-100 than the WRX, when did I say the WRX was as fast as either? oh, that's right...NEVER! I said that the STI accelerates from 0-100 as fast as the 2003 Cobra, for the STI the 0-100 time is 4.5 seconds, and how fast is the 2003 Cobra again? oh, that's right, in your own words "4.5 seconds". Please explain how 4.5 is any different from 4.5? Do you have some sort of visual problem? that you can't even make out the difference between "STI" and "WRX", or that causes you to see "4.5" and "4.5" as two different figures? if so, then I'll stop being so harsh (hell, I'm not even resorting to such simian mudslinging, as you so eloquently seem to be<A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/emoticons.html"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="http://speed.supercars.net/cboardhtml/emoticons/wink.gif"></A>).

    Lets see:
    1999 cobra: 0-100(km/h) 5.6 seconds, quarter mile (?) but I bet it's a lot slower, probably over 14 seconds
    2001 cobra: 0-100 4.9 seconds, quater mile 13.4 seconds
    2003 cobra: 0-60 4.5 seconds, quarter mile 12.4 seconds
    Wrx : 0-100 5.4 seconds, quarter mile 14.1 seconds (with just 1.3ps extra boost - 12.91 seconds, with just a bit more boost - 12.31 seconds - as we saw earlier on that link to the 1/4mile "turbo only" registry for the WRX)
    STI: 0-100 4.5 seconds, quarter mile 13.14 seconds

    Wow, the fastest times I see on there are 4.5 seconds 0-100 which is achieved by both the STI and 2003 Cobra, and 12.31 seconds in the quarter mile, achieved by a STOCK WRX (still covered under factory warranty, just one more reason to consider it stock) with a small ps increase.

    Therefore I feel fully justified in saying the Impreza can be as fast stock. Why don't you do a little research before you post (at least I'm admitting when I don't have the info, you on the other hand are making numbers up), I mean honestly, coming up with that sorry excuse as evidence for the Subaru's performance when that info was estimated before the WRX was ever tested and the guy didn't even know the actual names of the models? pulleeze even you can do far better than that<A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/emoticons.html"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="http://speed.supercars.net/cboardhtml/emoticons/wink.gif"></A>. While you're at it, why don't you also read posts fully before you go around knocking people for things they didn't say.

    Anybody who knows anything about both cars will tell you that the WRX handles far better than the 2003 cobra, and the 2001 isn't even a competitor. Off road, on tarmac style roads, on tight twisty paved roads, hell even on the straight 1/4 mile for "dead start" acceleration the WRX seems to "handle" better. I suppose on the long sweeping ovals where the Cobra's handling really "shines" (lol), the Cobra would handle better than the WRX, but that's only because the WRX begs to have the wheel cranked in one direction and have the hand brake pulled then do a burnout with all 4 wheels spinning in 4th gear. No, it's true, the WRX would get too bored on tracks like that<A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/emoticons.html"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="http://speed.supercars.net/cboardhtml/emoticons/wink.gif"></A>, having "touchy" steering likely wouldn't be very good for tracks like that either (particularly if you don't have steady hands), especially since all 4 wheels are going to respond.

    The WRX is only in the same league as the mustang gt because the gt is just slightly faster than it, wait, I just checked, and the GT is slower in 0-100 acceleration by a full .4 seconds, nope, handles far better and it's faster? I don't think the GT is in the WRX's league, though I suppose if you ignore the handling then the WRX is closer to being in the same league as the GT than the Cobra, unleash the ps boosting, or, better yet(since its handling is even better), unleash the STI, though not quite as fast in the 1/4, put it on any paved surface with a few turns and the STI will dance circles around the Cobra.
     
  10. Re: American Car Fans- READ

    oh, guess what I found out? I was right about the 1999 SVT Cobra - 1/4 time IS over 14 sec, 14.1 to be exact (though according to the site I found that out from, the 0-100 is 5.5, but I'll stick with the 5.6 for this post).

    Therefore, with apparently the exact same acceleration, the 1999 SVT Cobra IS perfect competition for the WRX, though given the superior handling of the WRX, I'd say the WRX would take it.
     
  11. Re: American Car Fans- READ

    Holy f^ck moron, the 99 and 2001 cobra are almsot identical, so they would get almost the same times, understand. The mustang gt gets 5.4 seconds in the quarter mile, so how the hell do you think the cobra (which is 60hp more) is going to be slower?!? Are you mentally challenged or something (I'm really starting to disbelieve that you're in college, and starting to believe that you're in 5th grade).
    The WRX for the last time idiot does the quarter mile in 14.1 seconds stock. With a 1.3 boost it would probably be more like 14 falt or maybe even a 13.9. The mustang gt stock is faster than the wrx in a straight line. They have the same 0-60 times (5.4 seconds for both the gt and the wrx) but the gt is faster in the quarter mile running a 13.7 to the wrx's 14.1 (yes moron the stock wrx runs the quarter mile in 14.1 seconds, not high 12's).
    I really don't know how the hell you think a boost of 1.3psi will gain you a 1.5 second in the quarter mile.
    So lets recap, the WRX can not run a 12.anything stock, it's not possible. The mustang cobra is alot faster than the wrx, and the mustang gt is a little faster. The wrx will handle better than the gt but not the cobra. I know you might have downs syndrome, but please try to understand the what I have just said ok?
     
  12. #137 Ford rulez, Jan 10, 2003
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Re: American Car Fans- READ

    "The first paragraph of the above scan communicates to management that CarAndDriver magazine was surprised that they could not achieve a 0-60 mph time in under 6.0 seconds when SVT advertises that the Cobra convertible was able to achieve this time in 5.4 seconds. SVT contends that CarAndDriver should have been able to at least record a 0-60 time of 5.6 seconds." this quote is from - http://www.bonforums.com/mustang/cobra_99problems072301.htm

    other sources which say above 5.4 are this very site among others - http://www.supercars.net/cars/1999@$Ford@$Mustang%20SVT%20Cobrag.html
    http://www.fantasycars.com/derek/cars/cobra.html
    There are numerous others, however I'm too lazy to find them in my history list right now. That's not to say that Ford's time of 5.4 is wrong, just that those are the specs I came up with, you cannot justifiably criticize me for posting figures I found - much like I didn't criticize you for coming up with est. times for the WRX that were as much as 1/2 a second slower than the actual 0-60 time, either way, the acceleration is not notably faster than the WRX.

    Mustang GT gets 4.5 in the quarter mile huh? lol...now who's REALLY posting BS 1/4 times? btw - I know you meant "0-60" not "quarter mile"

    According to the website below, http://ford.jbroadtests.com/Mustang/2002/index4.php#v6
    the stock 2002 V8 Mustang GT does 0-100km/h in 6.0 seconds, and the 1/4 in 14.7, much slower than the WRX and I dunno where you get the idea the 0-100 time is 5.4, but hey, if you know anywhere else I can find 0-100 times for the GT then by all means feel free to post it, that was the only site I could find performance specs (at least 0-100 and 1/4) for a current GT.

    The generic, stock WRX does NOT have a 5.4 0-100 time, I dunno where you got that idea, but it is 5.6 0-100 which is still faster than the GT according to the only posted 0-100 time and 1/4 time I could find, but again, if you know anywhere else I can find different times, by all means feel free to post the source.

    The WRX for the last time, DID do a 1/4 time it 12.9 with a 1.3 extra ps boost, your eyes did not lie to you (you saw it for yourself, I think). But this discussion is obviously not going to go anywhere, we'll both just keep repeating ourselves, so let's just agree to disagree ok?

    *ahem* it was a gain of 1.19 sec. not 1.5, dolt.

    So now let US (btw you forgot the apostrophe) recap - Since that WRX is still covered under factory warranty, had the ps increased by the manufacturer, and was just a small option the owner had added it is still considered stock, there are no two ways about it. But again, that discussion is going nowhere, we're just repeating ourselves, so just DROP IT. The 2001 & newer Cobra's are faster than the WRX (though not the STI - with exception of the 1/4), but the 1999 Cobra and the WRX are just as fast, the Mustang GT is SLOWER than the WRX (unless you can show me information stating otherwise).

    Though it was not actually a recap of what was in your post - just something else you added on, I will respond to the handling part anyway. The WRX handles far better than the GT. And though they can add all the suspension refinements, ATC, and Active limited slip differential to the Cobra they want, it still has an engine ABOVE the axle, does NOT have AWD, it still weighs more, it has all the torque being put to the ground with just two wheels, and it still does not have the greatest weight distribution, so what makes you think it handles better than the WRX? Although it's not as much an advantage on dry pavement as it is on slippery surfaces, AWD is still an advantage, and that along with the lower center of gravity, better weight distribution, torque split 50/50 between front and rear, weight split 53/47 between front and rear, more responsive steering, and all the handling advantages the Cobra already has, is why the WRX handles better and is far more controllable than the mustang.


    Now, I have NOT shown any symptoms of having Downs Syndrome, I know you only posted that in retaliation to my questioning whether or not you have Dyslexia, which I said you may have because you seem to get everything you read all mixed up, much like someone with Dyslexia. However as I said, unless you just have difficulty with reading, you do not appear to be intelligent enough to have Dyslexia (that's not to say you're stupid, just that you're not intellectually above average).
     
  13. #138 Ford rulez, Jan 10, 2003
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Re: American Car Fans- READ

    http://www.fantasycars.com/derek/cars/cobra.html

    Do my eyes deceive me, or does the 1/4 time say 14.1?

    That's not the only source, show me a source that shows less than 14.1 and I'll admit defeat.

    Aww, did you think I meant 0-100mph? That's so cute, being so naive about the outside world you forgot that most of the world operates on the METRIC system. 0-100km/h = 0-60mph! Perhaps YOU need to get your facts straight.

    p.s. Do NOT come back with the fact that I didn't specify that it was in km/h, because in the post above that one I made it VERY clear that I use the only rational system of measurement - METRIC, and that when I say 0-100 I mean 0-100km/h. I'm not going to waste the time to type 4 xtra keys just to make things a little more convenient for just 5% of the world's population.
     
  14. #139 Ford rulez, Jan 10, 2003
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Re: American Car Fans- READ

    "The first paragraph of the above scan communicates to management that CarAndDriver magazine was surprised that they could not achieve a 0-60 mph time in under 6.0 seconds when SVT advertises that the Cobra convertible was able to achieve this time in 5.4 seconds. SVT contends that CarAndDriver should have been able to at least record a 0-60 time of 5.6 seconds." this quote is from - http://www.bonforums.com/mustang/cobra_99problems072301.htm

    other sources which say above 5.4 are this very site among others - http://www.supercars.net/cars/1999@$Ford@$Mustang%20SVT%20Cobrag.html
    http://www.fantasycars.com/derek/cars/cobra.html
    There are numerous others, however I'm too lazy to find them in my history list right now. That's not to say that Ford's time of 5.4 is wrong, just that those are the specs I came up with, you cannot justifiably criticize me for posting figures I found - much like I didn't criticize you for coming up with est. times for the WRX that were more than 1/2 a second slower than the actual 0-60 time, either way, the acceleration is not notably faster than the WRX.

    Mustang GT gets 4.5 in the quarter mile huh? lol...now who's REALLY posting BS 1/4 times? btw - I know you meant "0-60" not "quarter mile"

    According to the website below, http://ford.jbroadtests.com/Mustang/2002/index4.php#v6
    the stock 2002 V8 Mustang GT does 0-100km/h in 6.0 seconds, and the 1/4 in 14.7, much slower than the WRX and I dunno where you get the idea the 0-100 time is 5.4, but hey, if you know anywhere else I can find 0-100 times for the GT then by all means feel free to post it, that was the only site I could find performance specs (at least 0-100 and 1/4) for a current GT.

    The generic, stock WRX is 5.4 0-100 which is still faster than the GT according to the only posted 0-100 time and 1/4 time I could find, but again, if you know anywhere else I can find different times, by all means feel free to post the source.

    The WRX for the last time, DID do a 1/4 time it 12.9 with a 1.3 extra ps boost, your eyes did not lie to you (you saw it for yourself, I think). But this discussion is obviously not going to go anywhere, we'll both just keep repeating ourselves, so let's just agree to disagree ok?

    *ahem* it was a gain of 1.19 sec. not 1.5, dolt.

    So now let US (btw you forgot the apostrophe) recap - Since that WRX is still covered under factory warranty, had the ps increased by the manufacturer, and was just a small option the owner had added it is still considered stock, there are no two ways about it. But again, that discussion is going nowhere, we're just repeating ourselves, so just DROP IT. The 2001 & newer Cobra's are faster than the WRX (though not the STI - with exception of the 1/4), but the 1999 Cobra and the WRX are just as fast, the Mustang GT is SLOWER than the WRX (unless you can show me information stating otherwise).

    Though it was not actually a recap of what was in your post - just something else you added on, I will respond to the handling part anyway. The WRX handles far better than the GT. And though they can add all the suspension refinements, ATC, and Active limited slip differential to the Cobra they want, it still has an engine ABOVE the axle, does NOT have AWD, it still weighs more, it has all the torque being put to the ground with just two wheels, and it still does not have the greatest weight distribution, so what makes you think it handles better than the WRX? Although it's not as much an advantage on dry pavement as it is on slippery surfaces, AWD is still an advantage, and that along with the lower center of gravity, better weight distribution, torque split 50/50 between front and rear, weight split 53/47 between front and rear, more responsive steering, and all the handling advantages the Cobra already has, is why the WRX handles better and is far more controllable than the mustang.


    Now, I have NOT shown any symptoms of having Downs Syndrome, I know you only posted that in retaliation to my questioning whether or not you have Dyslexia, which I said you may have because you seem to get everything you read all mixed up, much like someone with Dyslexia. However as I said, unless you just have difficulty with reading, you do not appear to be intelligent enough to have Dyslexia (that's not to say you're stupid, just that you're not intellectually above average).
     
  15. #140 Ford rulez, Jan 10, 2003
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Re: American Car Fans- READ

    http://www.fantasycars.com/derek/cars/cobra.html

    Do my eyes deceive me, or does the 1/4 time say 14.1?

    That's not the only source, show me a source that shows less than 14.1 and I'll admit defeat.

    Aww, did you think I meant 0-100mph? That's so cute, being so naive about the outside world you forgot that most of the world operates on the METRIC system. 0-100km/h = 0-60mph! Perhaps YOU need to get your facts straight.

    p.s. Do NOT come back with the fact that I didn't specify that it was in km/h, because in the post above that one I made it VERY clear that I use the only rational system of measurement - METRIC, and that when I say 0-100 I mean 0-100km/h. I'm not going to waste the time to type 4 xtra keys just to make things a little more convenient for just 5% of the world's population.
     
  16. Re: American Car Fans- READ

    Does it matter?
     
  17. Re: American Car Fans- READ

    Ok, your first link proves what exactly? That a 2001 does the 1/4 in 13.4 sec. (just like I said in one of my earlier posts), and 0-100 in 5.6 sec. (which is slower than what I said in one of my earlier posts), the Link I posted showed that a 1999 SVT Cobra does the 1/4 in 14.1 seconds, can you distinguish the difference between 1999 and 2000?. The first link doesn't prove anyting I've said wrong.

    The second link didn't even work.

    I called you naive because you criticized me when it was you that screwed up in your naive lack of knowledge of the rest of the world.

    You haven't backed up anything with facts, the above links were your first attempt at backing anything you've said up, and the first agrees with what I've been saying, while the second didn't even work, while I have posted links to pages from what? 4 different sites that agree with me.

    I didn't believe one article I read, I believed the video clip I posted a link to earlier, and I believed the comments from the owner of that Subaru when he e-mailed answers to my questions and told me all about his Subaru.
     
  18. Re: American Car Fans- READ

    oops, make that "can you distinguish the difference between 1999 and 2001?"
     
  19. Re: American Car Fans- READ

    We don't have to "prove" the numbers we say, we have already proved them many time before your ignorant ass was on this site.
    You have proved nothing. You post bullshit all day long (a stock wrx running 12's, moron) and then change that info little by little when you are proved wrohg so you don't look as bad, go away until you're old enough to drive.
     
  20. Re: American Car Fans- READ

    lol you're so fos.

    I already agreed that link he showed me was right, it also confirmed what I've been saying, all I'm saying now is as far as the sites I've seen, you've been nothing but wrong, I'll admit I'm wrong if you give me reason to think otherwise.

    Ignorance.....AmericanHP - You are the very definition of the term.

    4 sites that show the acceleration figures I've been saying, I'd say that's very adequate proof. I post a clip of a stock WRX running 12.91 (yes with a little more boost than normal) and that's bullshit? Please explain how.

    What info have I ever changed "little by little" just because I don't tell you every little aspect in the first post doesn't mean I think that's all there is to the story. EGADS are you EVER ignorant. And buddy, I can drive far far better than you'll ever hope to be able to. Tell me, have you ever even been in a legal race? Cause I have, on a number of occasions and I've been quite successful at it.



    btw: the past tense for proof is proven, not "proved".
     
  21. Re: American Car Fans- READ

    I could show you a clip of a mustang running 8's and say it's stock moron, doesn't mean it is. For the last f^cking time the wrx does the quarter mile in 14 second, not 12's, and you are a complete idiot for believing it can do 12's stock.
    Oh and racing the "escort service" is not a legal race.
     
  22. Re: American Car Fans- READ

    When and where did I say anything that goes against what I said?

    If you actually had any reading comprehension ability you would have figured out that I was referring to the 1999 SVT Cobra, not the 2001.

    And as I said, the 2001 Mustang SVT Cobra is faster than the WRX, not once did I say it isn't.

    lol, quit gagging on your father's D!CK (I assume the "Bl,bl,bl..." is the result of you gagging), and strap yours on, I may be able to arrange for one of my "expensive Ho's" to be sent to your place, but unfortunately for you you're not even going to have the privelege of of seeing me within anything that can be construed as your immediate viscinity, particularly not when you make a proposition like that.


    American HP - could one of those 8sec. Mustangs still be covered by factory warranty? of course not! Could all of the modifications to make it an 8sec. stang have been an extra performance package requested by the owner and performed by SVT before he received it? You know the answer is no! Could all of the modifications have been something as simple as increasing the boost? Not even the SVT Cobra is turbocharged (yes I know it's supercharged), so I would say they weren't. So how could saying that an 8sec. Stang is stock be saying the same thing as I am? It couldn't.
     
  23. Re: American Car Fans- READ

    Actually RustangsResurrected you didn't even need to read anything other than "1999 Mustang SVT Cobra" on that link I provided, to know that I was referring to the 1999, not the 2001. Hell, I never even used the figures 2001 and 14.1 in the same sentence, although I did specifically say in the post above that the 2001 does the 1/4 in 13.4 seconds. So, what gave you the idea I was referring to the 2001? Must be difficult going through life being so illiterate, you have my sympathy.
     
  24. Re: American Car Fans- READ

    A 12 second WRX would not be stock (it wouldn't be stock, they run 14's stock, you would need atleast an extra 80hp to do that), so it would not be covered under warrenty, which would put it in the same class as the 8 secong mustang. Moron.
     
  25. Re: American Car Fans- READ

    It's true that the 99 cobra did not get the claimed hp ford was saying (it was really around 300hp), and even at that it would be faster than what mr. moron password wants people to believe. And another thing password is to dumb to realize is that the 99 cobra had the problem solved, all you had to do was take your stang to the dealer and they fixed the problem.
    Next I still can't believe that password still thinks the wrx runs a low to mid 12 second quarter mile stock, I have figured out though that he (password) must have downs syndrome.
     

Share This Page