Ignorant about the Cobra

Discussion in 'American Cars' started by BlackSnake03, Nov 15, 2004.

  1. Oh Gawwwd.... #$%#ing puke. Shut up you stupid ass n00b.
     
  2. Dumbass X 2
     
  3. A. Actually I believe GM did send off some 427 Camaros, but it was only like 69 of them. But the average person can go buy a 572 at a dealer.

    B. What did you do in this performance shop all that time?

    C. Stock for stock the Cobra motor is superior powerwise, no one is arguing that, its the other areas we are in disagreement. That dollar for dollar, part for part deal is iffy at best. LS1s can make the power, they just have to go about it a different way. You can build your Cobra to just under 600 crank horsepower for pretty cheap, where as an LS1 is gonna cost like 2k more (for NA NON-nitrous power). Past that you're gonna have to dump lots of money into the Cobra aswell.

    But lets take a step back for a second, what matters more: How much power you're making, or who crosses the finish line first? You say a 500 RWHP Cobra will run a low 11 with slicks. I love this database, I'm looking at a Camaro w/ a 3500 pound race weight that runs a low 11 with about 410 RWHP. With about 510 RWHP (from a 100 shot) it runs mid 10's. This isn't a fluke, F-bodies can run quicker times with less power in many cases.
     
  4. You're a dumbass n00b. You've always been a dumbass n00b. You'll always be a dumbass n00b.

    Or stupid ho... whichever.

    Seriously, shut up.
     
  5. That's correct. The "new" Cobra was designed to compete with a car no longer in production.

    More dumbassness in this thread than I have seen in a long long time.
     
  6. Idiot X 3
     
  7. Shut the hell up.
     
  8. You're a bigger idiot than I thought if you don't know that LS1 f-bodies and Corvettes make about the same amount of horsepower.
     
  9. No....actually its pretty much right on target.

    A high powered RWD vehicle running a standard transmission will lose between 10-12% at peak power (as it varies throughout the powerband).

    The "stated" average of 15% is just that...it is a rough guesstimate based on an average powered vehicle during normal operation.

    As has been mentioned before....I have a good deal of experience of engine in/engine out sequences.....

    Additionally, the more power you are making with the same drivetrain, the lower the drivetrain loss as a percentage of power.
     
  10. No....actually its pretty much right on target.

    A high powered RWD vehicle running a standard transmission will lose between 10-12% at peak power (as it varies throughout the powerband).

    The "stated" average of 15% is just that...it is a rough guesstimate based on an average powered vehicle during normal operation.

    As has been mentioned before....I have a good deal of experience of engine in/engine out sequences.....

    Additionally, the more power you are making with the same drivetrain, the lower the drivetrain loss as a percentage of power.
     
  11. No....actually its pretty much right on target.

    A high powered RWD vehicle running a standard transmission will lose between 10-12% at peak power (as it varies throughout the powerband).

    The "stated" average of 15% is just that...it is a rough guesstimate based on an average powered vehicle during normal operation.

    As has been mentioned before....I have a good deal of experience of engine in/engine out sequences.....

    Additionally, the more power you are making with the same drivetrain, the lower the drivetrain loss as a percentage of power.
     
  12. His numbers were between 8-10% loss. This is out of a stock Camaro that might or might not have the T56.

    EDIT: I remember seeing the numbers and thinking that they were pretty parasidic.

    So I snooped around, a 408cu LS1 w/ a 6 speed had a 15% drivetrain loss which came out to 504 horsepower from about 600.

    Most people find between 12-15% with F-bodies, and corvettes IRS makes it even worse.
     
  13. #138 BowtieIZBetter, Nov 20, 2004
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
  14. Gloom dust>dark matter
     
  15. A stock Cobra actually makes 420 hp. Panoz uses the same engine in the GT-LM and says that Ford is just very conservative with their numbers.
     
  16. Fact
     
  17. Actually, the camaro was not completely stock, as you have seem to forgotten, he has the slp loudmouth catback system. It has the BW T56, and the 03-04 cobras have the much nicer tremec T56 that is used in the Vette and Viper. In a recent issue of GM high-tech, they had an article about LT1 SS's which were rated at 305hp, and they said at the wheels it put down 270hp. In an old motortrend I have, There is a Review for a LS1 SS, and when they RW dyno'd it, it put down 283 for them.
     
  18. So then the Camaro was basically stock, that exhaust isn't gonna make much more than a couple horse difference. So for all intense purposes, its making stock power.

    ? Tremec is building Borg Warner's design, the gears have changed and it is NOT the same transmission the viper gets. It is rated at 450HP/610TQ capacity, F-bodies were rated at 375HP/508TQ. So if you think the transmission is sooo much nicer think again, with either car it only takes a mod or two to breach what is considered safe.

    LT1s are a much different beast than LS1s, that crank rating was the truth. Yeah, what year LS1SS, go get that review, what were the conditions, and what kind of dyno was this? Note that they've also dynoed stock 325RWHP LS1 cars.
     
  19. #144 metaleric5, Nov 20, 2004
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Why don't you go to this link and read: http://www.ttcautomotive.com/English/products/T-56.asp

    There is more than one type of T56, the one that is of BW design, and the nice one used by the cobra, viper, Z06, V12 vanquish etc...

    The Borg Warner one is weak, as is the T5 they made for the mustangs and camaros through the 80's and early 90's. Mustang builders always get rid of the T5 in exhange for a nice T56 or a TKO. Its not just a slam on Chevy fact. Mustangs were plagued by them too. People just need to face the facts that the factory hp rating is at the crank???!!! GM V8's are not magical and make freakish hp, they use the same human technology as everyone else.
     
  20. #145 Will938, Nov 20, 2004
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Why don't you go to that link and read? They share the same name, not the same internals, ugh. Now pick out all the transmissions with the same gear ratios as the cobra, do you see ANY that share the same gears and have a power rating that would suit a 525 horse Viper? Oh you don't? I rest my case. If I wanted to go past that page I'd bring up the Viper's thicker 30 spline mainshaft that the corvette and Cobra don't have.

    Where do you get this information? Tremec took over Borg Warner's transmission production, I'm pretty real sure its almost exactly the same design. Stop saying "the nice one" because you don't even know what would make it "nice". Why don't you explain the problems with the 375 rated T56 that the F-body used? Or how they corrected all these problems so that the 450 rated T56 the Cobra uses is "nicer".

    The IV Gen F-body power ratings WERE NOT at the crank. This is a fact whether you choose to accept it or not.
     
  21. The F-body ratings were at the crank, and anyone who says otherwise is just in denial that those cars are no more incredible than any other car on the planet. Why would GM rate the F-body's at the crank and none of their other cars. You do seem to know some stuff about cars, I didn't think that I had to explain to you what makes the t56 used in the F-bodys and what are used in the vette and cobra different. You should know that, you knew what spline the mainshaft on the vipers tranny is. I sat there and told you that the mustangs had weak trannys when using the T5, and you can't even admit that F-bodys had the same problem? I have first hand experience, my family owns an auto repair shop, and we see these things all the time, we don't just read about something or hear something, we see it.

    Cobra's hp is rated at the wheels, which makes them 425+hp at the crank. <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/emoticons.html"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="http://speed.supercars.net/pitlane/emoticons/smile.gif"></A>
     
  22. The Cobra is not rated at the wheels. It was rated at the flywheel but drastically underrated. Why? I don't know.

    I don't care if your family owns a repair shop. I own an LS1 f-body.

    LS1 f-bodies typically dyno 295-315 with an auto, and 305-320 at the wheels for the M6. This is very factual when you look at average numbers.
     
  23. I know the cobra is not rated at the wheels, as I mentioned several times, and I don't recall asking you if you care that my family owns a repair shop, and I don't care that you own an LS1 F-body. I like LS1 F-bodys, the LS1 is a fantastic engine, as is the 4.6. They both have lots of potential, I just hate how everyone tries to live an old muscle car war from the 60's. People still try to stupid things like, Mopar and Ford suck, GM rules or vice versa. There are so few muscle cars still in production, I think should learn to appreciate what is out, every car has its weakness and its flaws. The only LS1 F bodys that dyno like that at the wheels are the LS1 SS and WS6. 295 is right around what the LS1 TA and Z28 make at the crank. People being so naieve about the cobra just really pisses me off. They are a heck of a car, that can hang with vettes and dessimate just about every import out there. You see, I can appreciate both F-bodys and stangs. There isn't anything wrong with admitting either car is good... even if it is one of those Fords.
     
  24. #149 Vanilla Ice, Nov 21, 2004
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    For one, this is about the '03 Cobra which is practically indistructable. Secondly he's a #$%#ing idiot for boosting 20-odd PSI on the stock bottom-end C-149. Not any engineering fault of the Cobra's.
     
  25. I like how you kinda just moved around all my questions.

    If you were serious with that first sentence then you'd be wrong again. I'm sorry that you're like 6 years behind and don't realize that the engine that went in the corvette and F-body were making about the same power. I'm sorry you don't believe that a stock LS1 F-body really makes about 350 horsepower give or take. I'm sorry you don't realize that your friend's F-body was making more than 20 horsepower more than GM stated IF it was really rated at the crank.

    So the question is why would GM rate F-bodies at the (I assume you ment wheels) wheels? Maybe because they then get to rate the corvette at the crank and make it appear to have more power? Therefore sell better and cost less to use the same engine?

    I didn't think I'd have to explain how to read a table to you. You could of snooped around more and figured out exactly which model transmission the Cobra used but you just assumed that it had the same one as the viper and corvette. You have no idea what, if any, changes were made to the T56 when Tremec took production. And you can't tell me what the difference is between the transmission in an F-body and a Cobra other than one is "nicer" than the other.

    I can't admit that GM made some mistakes? Like a couple pages back when I said their 10 bolts were crap? You're just pulling a random thing you said that I would have no reason to agree with you on, and using that as an example.

    I have better first hand experience, I work in an auto repair shop.

    You see what, that Cobras have "nicer" transmissions? Tell me what you see first hand.

    Ok, if the Cobra was rated at the wheels then wouldn't that destroy your whole argument about a company only measuring one model at the wheels as something that wouldn't happen?

    How old are you?
     

Share This Page