Ignorant about the Cobra

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

  1. Either way the Cobra has about 420 horsepower, did I ever say it didn't. What I'm seeing is you and blacksnake talking shit because you think your Cobra is being threatened.

    I don't see anyone here being naive about the Cobra, all I see is ignorance about the Gen IV F-body from you two.

    Pound this into your skull: The LS1 5.7 liter 346 cubic inch engine in the Z28, SS, TA, and WS6 are all exactly the same. Only power differences are minimal, like less than 10HP.

    "295 is right around what the LS1 TA and Z28 make at the crank."
    Then you're now saying the Z28 and TA make around 250RWHP? Kay...

    Maybe if I just ask you in caps you'll cut the crap and take a look around - NO ONE IS SAYING THE COBRA IS A SHITTY CAR, ALL WE'RE SEEING IS YOU TWO TALKING SHIT ABOUT F-BODIES.
  2. The point of it was the 4.6 can't handle tons of boost either, so who ever argued that the 4.6 can handle more boost therefore it is better, is wrong.
  3. #153 Zprotuner, Nov 21, 2004
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Is GM King of Junk?

    For each model year from 1988 through 2001, a Best Cars and Trucks Table and a Worst Cars and Trucks Table, based on the auto Reliability Percentrank, have been assembled. For every such year, General Motors lacked a model of its own on the Best Cars and Trucks Table; however, for every model year, from 1988 through 2001, General Motors has accounted for at least 28.5% of the entries in the Worst Cars and Trucks Table. In the Worst Cars and Trucks Table of 1997, it accounted for 65% of the entries, a record unapproached by Ford, Chrysler, or any other manufacturer. From the 2004 updates, the percentages of entries, by auto manufacturer, in the Worst Cars and Trucks Tables for 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001 are given in the following table:

    Percentage of Model Entries in the Worst Cars and Trucks Tables for Each Manufacturer by Model Year
    Auto Manufacturer 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
    General Motors 46% 65% 49% 49% 42% 36%
    Ford 4% 3% 11% 8.5% 12% 14%
    Chrysler 42% 23% 18% 21% 13.5% 12%
    Volkswagen 6% 3% 10% 8.5% 11% 12%
    Volvo 0% 3% 6% 6% 2.5% 10%
    Jaguar 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 2%
    Isuzu 0% 1.5% 0% 0% 2.5% 0%
    Hyundai 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 5%
    Mercedes-Benz 0% 0% 3% 6% 10% 7%
    BMW 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 2%
    Mitsubishi 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
    Honda 0% 1.5% 0% 0% 2.5% 0%
    All others 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

    From the table, it may be seen that General Motors' percentage of entries in the Worst Cars and Trucks of 2001 is nearly three times that of Ford and exactly three times that of Chrysler. The following chart depicts graphically the percentages for the Big Three over the fourteen-year data history.

    And the next chart gives the extrapolations of these percentages to 2006. The extrapolations are linear regressions of degree one.


    From this last chart, it may be seen that only General Motors has a long-term trend of increasingly larger percentages of the worst cars and trucks sold in North America, per the Reliability Percentrank, and by 2006, should the trend continue, it will have attained quite considerable dominance of the worst vehicles sold in North America by this measure of quality.
  4. #154 Jay2002WS6, Nov 21, 2004
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    "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."

    You are dead wrong.

    The fastest stock LS1 f-body on record was a bare bones Camaro Z28. It wasn't a fancy-schmancy WS6 or SS or even a Firehawk.

    There is NO factual evidence to support that an SS will dyno significantly higher than a Z28 - just like there is no factual evidence to show that a WS6 or Firehawk will dyno significantly higher than T/A or Formula.

    I suggest you do a little more research before you insist to an LS1 f-body owner how much power LS1 f-bodies make. Take a look at the members here: www.ls1tech.com and then tell me that there is a significant difference between Z28s and SSs.

    Saying that LS1 Z28s and T/As make 295 at the crank is an absolute joke. They usually make more than that at the wheels. All LS1s - Corvettes and F-Bodies - dyno the same, within a certain margin of error.
  5. #155 BowtieIZBetter, Nov 21, 2004
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    There is a new trend you should be aware of.
  6. The C-146 can't. The SC46 ('03 Cobra) can. It's been pushed past 25psi on the stock bottom-end without a problem.
  7. How is my age relevant to you? How old are you? You don't seem like you know a whole lot since you think that the F-bodys are rated at the wheels and not the crank. Like I said, my family owns an auto repair shop, who do you think is in line to take it over??? Me. I am a tech there right now, which gives me just as much first hand experience as you. The vette and LS1 engines are pretty much the same, they just de-tuned the camaro a little so it wasn't as quick as the vette. It would be pretty stupid of GM to make both cars have equal power, they have to make the vette faster. We could just say that the first 4.6DOHC SVT's were actually 320hp, and that they just underrated it so that the new model would be faster, doesn't make much since does it? Do you really think that they couldn't do something to make the SS LS1 have less power. Look at the difference between the first LS6 and the later 405hp, if I recall there really wasn't much difference but a larger MAF. Since you work in a repair shop, do you have Mitchell's 6 pro On-demand? It says for all the F-bodys I looked up under specs hp and torque are rated crank. Maybe you should take a look at that.
  8. Your age is relevent because either you're too young to be telling the truth or you're new to internet forums. I'm coming on 20 and have been working on this stuff for a few years. You're a tech, and what is it that you do? How long have you been doing something more than oil changes there? I also am absolutely positive I have more experience with the T56 and LS1 engines in general.

    Fine, call it whatever you want it. They usually make AT THE WHEELS what they're rated AT THE CRANK. When I say the crank horsepower = whatever, it means that is the power created without any driveline loss. If you want to say that the F-body is really rated at the crank...and its just underrated about 40 horsepower then I guess you could say that too. Either way you're flat wrong about the Z28 and TA having 295 crank horsepower.

    What years are you talking about for the LS1 Camaros and Corvettes? In 02 the only differences was a slightly milder cam, and exhaust. The cars post very very close numbers on the track, maybe the corvette posts better numbers because it weighs a couple hundred pounds less? Because its more aerodynamic? Because it has grippier 18" wheels? Because the weight is distributed better? Ever consider that there is more to posting better times than power output?

    I think we have the Snapon one on our computer, not Mitchell. I use it alot but never paid attention to the name, I'll check tomorrow. What if it is rated at the crank? It'd still be way underrated.

    I noticed that the T56 differences disappeared the discussion, please answer.
  9. Considering that chassis dyno's from unit to unit vary between 3-6%, that isn't much of a suprise.

    "Most people" don't find any such thing. Very, very few private owners have run successive Engine, Chassis runs....not even magazines do engine-dyno runs.

    Chassis dynos are an estimate of power. Considering that their operating environments are almost always less than ideal (especially the travelling dyno circuses) correction factors are required. Correction factors for FI are different than for an N/A.....and are much less accurate to boot.

    The only thing a chassis dyno is good for is comparing run to run based on engine modifications. Comparing two different cars (especially an FI and an NA) doesn't do you much of anything....The only exception is running non-corrected numbers.
  10. I choose not to believe his friend's camaro only has between 8 and 10% drivetrain loss, especially when owners are coming up with 12-15% through that setup. You're a smart guy, but I choose not to accept that.
  11. Shut your mouth and listen to someone who owns one of these cars.

    Do a little research, talk to other owners, other techs, anyone who knows what they are talking about.

    Your logic is there, but your facts aren't. The LS1 in the f-bodies typically put the same amount of power to the wheels as the Corvette.

    Why was the '01 LS6 less powerful than the '02+ LS6? Hotter cam in the 02+ LS6 for one thing.
  12. #162 Jay2002WS6, Nov 22, 2004
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Here are some posts on ls1tech about how LS1 f-bodies and Corvettes really measure up in regards to actual dyno testing.

    Notice the date on these posts. They are from early 2003 -- in the old formatting on ls1tech. That is how behind the times you are... I can't believe there is still an American car guy who insists Corvettes make more power than f-bodies.

  13. #163 Rigidreaves, Nov 22, 2004
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
  14. Again I ask you....what do they base their 12-15% on? How many of those owners have run successive Engine-dyno, Chassi-dyno runs?

    If they are applying that standard at peak power, they are quite a bit off....

    Hence some of these overblown numbers I keep seeing.
  15. These numbers were from two different people who dynoed their engine before they reinstalled it in their car, then put it on the dyno again. That and discussion of which I have no specific evidence but what "people" have found.

    What is it supposed to be at peak power, isn't that what we're talking about?
  16. But yet, as I said before, a chassis dyno is a reference, not an absolute....and tend to vary between 3-6%.

    At peak power, through a relatively high powered (more than 150HP), RWD, Manual Tranny, it should be right around 10%.
  17. Well then what is the loss at just under peak power? Like 10-15 horsepower under peak.
  18. #168 Guibo, Nov 24, 2004
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Have read on various Mustang forums that SVT Cobra loss is around 13-15%. This is info from people who are directly involved in Mustang development or are otherwise connected with those in the know.

    Here's a modded Mach 1 showing 15% tested both at the crank and at the rear wheels:

    Chassis dyno can vary 3-6%, but what does it tell you when tested on the same dynos, Cobras put out about 15 more RWHP than Z06's? (This on cars rated at 390 and 405, respectively). Cobras are dynoing at around 360 RWHP. If we're to believe the factory claim of 390, then that amounts to a 7-8% drivetrain loss. Not bloody likely IMO.
  19. 03/04 Cobra: holds it value better than the camaro, more pimp factor than the camaro, better handling than the camaro, more powerful than the camaro, better transmission and drivetrain than the camaro, and WAY LESS of them on the road than camaros, commands more respect than the camaro (even though the 01's werent faster, they STILL command more respect from the average person), i mean how many people stop to look at a camaro, a cobra on the other hand will turn heads.

    Until chevy resurrects the camaro as bigger and better than the cobra (which they wont) i dont want to hear shit.

    And as far as what i did at the shop: one motor rebuild, oil changes, brake realigns, head replacements, header installs, exahaust installs, cam timing (DOHC, SOHC and cam in block) chip tuning (observed more than actually did), and other various things that needed to be done. Nothing too spectacular, but something nonetheless
  20. Some of that is speculation some of it is opinion, not that I disagree with you, but this is where arguments start, haha (I haven't read the rest of the thread so I don't know what has transpired)

    You can take that first paragraph and swap the word Cobra for Supra, and camaro for Cobra, and you have an equally true paragraph, but one I'm sure you wouldn't want to hear.

    Only difference is that the supra doesn't make more power stock, so take away that one comment and the rest of the paragraph holds true.
  21. the cobra holds its value because it is more limited and costs more to begin with. there may be fewer cobras but the mustang body style is a dime a dozen, i honestly don't remember ever seeing an 03/04 cobra, i may have but it nver turned my head because the body style is so common it doesn't draw my attention any more, they command more respect prove it, thats a pretty idiotic statment
  22. This thread is completely retarded and half full of useless retarded uneducated oppinions.

    Okay, no one has said the Cobra is a bad car. When the Camaro and Trans Am were around, they were faster then the Mustang GT and Cobra. The LS1 is a very good engine, and so is the Ford 4.6. The new Cobra is very fast, unfortunately It has no competition.

    Quit acting like a little #%!@ and face the facts that the Cobra isn't perfect, neither is the Camaro/TA. Each car has its own advantages and disadvantages.

    This thread is shit, someone delete it.
  23. 03/04 Cobra: its newer/costs more/is more rare and therefore must hold more value you dumbass, pimp factor is arguable, better handling, more powerful, has a stronger transmission (because it has to hold more power, duh), still arguable as well. Maybe you turn your head because you have a Cobra fetish, but thats your thing. Neither car is that great in the scheme of things.

    Piss and moan all you want, when a Cobra pulls up to a Camaro its anyones game. It would all depend on drivers and any one mod could make the difference.

    I still want to know how old you are, because that experience list is like 1st year material. Shit, just last week I did two engine swaps.
  24. I'll give you the value holding part, but they are rarer, and more expensive to start out with, as for having a better drivetrain, that's more of an opinion thing than fact. Better handling, doubt it, they're pretty much even there. More powerful, no, not without the forced induction, and I know tons of people that respect Camaros just as much as Mustangs and Cobras, ask anyone who knows what Z28, and SS really means, many Stangs had to learn the hard way. Last, the pimp factor, hahahaha, that's a joke, neither car is a pimp car period, they are performance cars, if you want a pimp car get a Caddy or Lincolin. Both cars are great in some ways and bad in other ways.
  25. While I'm on the same page as you that his comments were a bit off base, I've got to comment on something you said.

    A power adder discussion is one of the most ignorant and immature arguments you can make.

    (Don't take this as me insulting you, this is more of a rant, so take it with a grain of salt)

    Seriously people need to quit their #%!@ing about being forced induction. The damn car was FI from the factory, no one is preventing GM from adding a supercharger from the factory. This is like someone with a taurus complaining that the grand prix can come with a supercharger, to which the chevy boys would say HAHAH FORD SUCKS.

    It's the same ridiculous bullshit that the ford guys have been spouting off for over a decade. (before 03) "oh but you guys have an extra 1.1 liter (or .7 liters depending on the motor), you should win!" Or the ever classic "If ford made a modern 5.7 liter it would kill the (L98/LT1/LT4/LS1/LS6)!!!!!111!"

    To which the chevy boys would respond well they don't so too damn bad.

    Well guess what ford finally woke up and put a power adder on their car...too bad for the chevy boys. I work with both cars and I build both as well so I am not the least bit biased here.

    So yes...the cobra is more powerful. Too damn bad if it has forced induction.

    The same stupid ass arguments happen between immature V8 owners and import owners. "oh well take off your turbo and race me" - V8 owner

    "oh well take out 4 of your spark plugs and race me" - Import owner

    Both F'n moronic comments.

Share This Page