Re: 2003 SVT Cobra vs. The BMW M3

Discussion in '2003 Ford Mustang SVT Cobra' started by Cobra Man, Aug 9, 2002.

  1. I was waiting for someone to say something about it. Ok I'll change it now. I really just did it to piss "domestic only" guys off.
  2. What's inaccurate about it...?
  3. Rustangs told me my signature --theres no replacement for huge american engine blocks that barely pull ahead of 2 liter jap cars--is inaccurate on the engine block size compared to liters. Liters have nothing to do with engine block size. Then password said that inaccurate as it may be (my sig) its still hilarious.
  4. Oh, he was saying that your sig was inaccurate...ok.
  5. I don't think its hillarious (the sig). Normally some element of truth pervades humor, in this case NO element of truth is present.
  6. Hmmm...s'funny I seem to recall that a 2.0 litre I4 Honda S2000 is faster than a 4.6 litre V8 Mustang GT. Both NA.....and yet substitute PART of his ex-sig with a slight modification: "There's no replacement for (High displacement American V8's) that barely pull ahead of 2.0 litre Japanese cars" one begins to recognize the folley of your reply.

    First of all, my example shows that in some cases the portion "...that barely pull ahead of..." should be changed to "...that can't keep up with...".

    That's not to say his sig was entirely true, but it should be evident that there still is an element of truth to it. This is just one example.....How about one more? 1990 Civic SI with a 1.6 litre I4 engine is just slightly faster than a 1992 3.5 litre V6 Cavalier Z24 (My car and my sister's car...hers has less mileage, and has not been subjected to the harsh conditions of racing on dirt roads)....the Civic also gets better gas mileage, and puts out fewer emissions.
  7. Actually I was only referring to the "...huge American Engine blocks..." part of his sig. as being inaccurate. That part should say "...huge American displacement..." or something to the same effect instead.

    The rest of the sig. is - in many cases - true (also in Many cases NOT true), and YOU KNOW IT.
  8. Actually, the s2000 and the mustang GT run almost the same times in the quarter mile, with the mustang being around $10,000 less.
  9. And being a roadster which (as I'm sure you well know, but temporarily forgot) will also generally cost about $10,000 more than a hardtop version would, ergo, that in no way diminishes my point.

    In the logic he was voicing out against in his sig. the Mustang GT should by all means be faster given that it has more than twice the displacement. However it's not, which bears evident the fact that there are examples of alternatives to big displacement, which in many cases is an ideal thing, as a more compact engine equates to better handling.
  10. A vert is usually around 3 grand more then a coupe. And when a car is $10,000+ more then another car it better be faster...which the s2000 is not.
  11. And before you begin ASSUME(ing) again, I'm sure somewhere in the back of your mind that you know that a roadster is NOT a "vert" and Roadster versions of cars will generally cost $10,000 more than if it was a 4-seater convertible.

    Hmm...0-100 times I've seen for the Mustang GT: 5.4-6.2 (officially 5.6)

    0-100 times I've seen for the S2000: 5.2-7.5 (officially 5.5)

    *note: the S2000 is much more difficult to get the maximum performance out of than the GT.

    But if you really want to get technical about it: then replace the GT with the Thunderbird, 3.5 litre V-8, more displacement, SAME PRICE<A BORDER="0" HREF=""><IMG BORDER="0" SRC=""></A>, but slower, this still remains consistent with his ex-sig.
  12. I don't like magazine racing but you already have started it. I don't know where the hell you're getting these mystical times "you've seen" but car and driver seems to think the 2003 S2000 runs 0-60 in 6.3 seconds, and runs the quarter mile in 14.9. Now, granted, I know these numbers can vary depending on driver, but they have fairly good drivers at C&D. But those same drivers got an '01 GT (same as '03) to run to 60 in 5.4, and run the 1/4 in 14 flat.

    Now, dont get me wrong I'm sure the S2000 is a fine car and all...but try and get those facts at least a LITTLE straight.

    And just for the sake of argument, a Cobra, of the same year AND displacement, also naturally aspirated, can hit 60 in 4.8 and 1/4 mile in 13.5. Times that Honda will NOT be seeing short of modification.
  13. in a straight line
  14. First, look at the Price of the S2000 vs the GT, then look at the aftermarket. The S2000 has nearly no aftermarket while the GT has a HUGE one.
  15. Who would even think of this matchup? a mustang would have difficulty against a civic for crying out loud

  16. This is my first time at this site, but I must add something to the discussion here. I currently own a 2003 Cobra and a new M5, yes its not an M3, but I have driven my share of beemers of all generations, from M series, to the 3, 5, and 7's. I would give the award to the Cobra for all out performance, whether its straight line performance or a twisty road. Dont get me wrong, I love BMW's to death, as well as American cars.

    I have had my Cobra dynoed in stock form. I was greatly surprised and impressed to see it pull 371 RWHP. I have the dyno sheet that I will try to post, I just need someone to copy it for me and get in from the office. That makes for over 410 HP at the flywheel. This engine is greatly underrated from the factory. I have also seen beemers pull more power then expected on the dynoes, but nothing this big. Compared to my M5 engine, the 4.6 is detuned. These engines yield huge performance gains from small mods. The 4.6 is just awaiting someone to awaken it up. The M5 engine is tuned to hell, but thats what makes it so great, that makes it an M series car. That and a german automobile.

    At the track I have raced my Cobra in stock form. My best was a 12.8 sec quarter mile at 110.5 MPH (this is with a 60ft time of 2.4...aka "NO TRACTION"!!!). With a Magnaflow cat back exhaust and the silencer removed from the air intake I hit a 12.3 sec quarter mile at 115 MPH. These times were with stock street tires, 24 PSI air in tires, feathering the clutch off launch, and a full tank of gas to help with traction. I am buying slicks as I speak and I should be into the high 11's with those inexpensive modifications.

    I drive my Cobra alot in long windy twisty roads. And I have had the pleasure of racing a new M3 through a 3 mile stretch of Rancho Santa Fe. I started behind it and easily kept up with it. During the straight away I was able to pass it and then i swept away from the beamer through the corners easily. This M3 driver was not being easy on his car, nor was I. Once he caught up we both pulled over and I was able to talk to this guy. He has a stock M3, no mods, as was my car. He was pretty surpirsed, as was I, of how the Cobra performed.

    I have also raced a Ferrari 360 Spider in a straight line race from a 10 MPH roll. We went about 1/4 mile to the next stop light and i was 2 car lengths ahead of it and pulling still. This race was with the cat back exhaust.

    Both of these cars are excellent performers. The BMW's are more refined from the interior all the way down to the brakes. This down not include the engine at all. I must give huge props to the SVT crew for building such a balanced engine. But the BMW has alot better paint job and overall assembly. I would hope to expect that for a car in that price range as the beemers though. With the cobra you basically just bought the engine and suspension.

    I have let my buds ride in my cars and all of them always seem to want to ride in the Cobra one more time over the M5. The M5 is one beautiful great luxorious sports car, but you just get more thrills behind that Cobra.

    I believe that these cars arnt in the same class, but I really dont care. When it comes to me I'll race anything that pulls up next to me and wants to race, let is be a r*ced out Civic to a Top Fuel Dragster. I am always up for a little competition, and definitely, the M3 and the Cobra brings it together nicely.

    Go ahead and yell and ***** at me all you want, I really got give a rats ass, all I know is that I have driven and raced both of these cars and know exactly how they perform in the conditions I have driven them in. Fact of the matter I am trying to get across is that the Cobra is not any better that the M3, its just plain and simple a better bang for the buck. The Z06 used to be this, but that has stepped down for the Cobra.

    The Cobra is by no means any odinary mustang. It has the name Cobra for a reason, and until recently it has been able to back it up, whether its been 1/4 mile at a time, or turn after turn. Unless you have had the privilage to drive any of these great cars I wouldnt rant on it, it sure is a different experience. Each car is unique it their own way.

    If that wasnt the case we would all be driving the same #$%#in car with the same performance. That wouldnt be any fun would it?

    And no I am not a professional driver by anymeans, but I have been around all different types of cars all my life. I have raced cars from a 65 Shelby Gt-350 to a 71 Hemi Cuda. Even was able to drive a friends M1, now that was SWEEEEET. Welp I gotta get home and get to work on restoring my baby, a first generation M5.
  17. 65Kcode, that's an impressive post. And I really hope that members here would read it.
  18. Yeah hopefully bored up will read that <A BORDER="0" HREF=""><IMG BORDER="0" SRC=""></A>
  19. .....and he point blank says the Cobra isn't any better than the M3. Pretty much sums it up (if he indeed owns said cars) post, disappears...hmmm.
  20. You're right...I'm not arguing that point...but he's also telling you his dyno #'s and his 1/4 mile times. Hmmmmm who was right from the beginning? <A BORDER="0" HREF=""><IMG BORDER="0" SRC=""></A>
  21. He SAYS he managed 371.

    I`ve seen the truth in person.

    I was right.....
  22. Bullsh!t. It's that simple. Every cobra dynoed so far that I have seen and read about (both in mags and on mustang forums) has aleast dynoed 365rwhp, while some were higher. He's right and you're wrong like usual, idiot.
  23. #424 27GTR, Aug 22, 2003
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    That`s just the you are, 16 (or was it 17) years old....probably never even been near an actual sit around and read every Mustang magazine under the`s no wonder you`re warped.

    In the mean time, I have seen with my very own eyes what a stock (a REAL stock...not...oh it`s stock...I just pulled a few things off it) Cobra will dyno. You could NEVER convince me otherwise. I have seen too many of these on the Dyno to convince me otherwise.

    Let`s not forget, Rustangs (Fbody...whatever) HIMSELF posted a car dynoing some 350HP. You would believe a difference of 15 HP would be lent to engineering tolerances. I`m glad you aren`t an engineer...

    Never seen?...are you honestly going to tell me you haven`t seen this dyno?...or do I have to go back into the boards...dig it up and point blank prove you a liar....
    Hmmm...347 and 350 at the wheels.

    This one is absolutely classic....
    SoCal SAAC dyno day in April....Roland Eddy`s 03 Cobra...337RWHP. Are you going to call them liars?...they have a picture of his car ON THE DYNO! What`s your excuse for that one? I suppose you want me to believe two identical cars could possibly dyno SAE Power some 35RWHP (10%!) apart? Are you kidding?!? LOL
    All you are is another kid dreaming of a fast car, who is angry at someone who owns a fast car and who has actually spent some time at the shops/track/strip.

    All it takes is one simple look at your name calling, angry responses to understand what kind of person you are...
  24. I've already explained this...but one more time for you (since saying things more then once for 5 year olds like you seems to work). Different dyno's, different air temp, different altitudes, etc...all make for different dyno numbers. The same mustang (or any car for that matter) will dyno different numbers on different dynos. A 350z was tested and on (if I remember right) 5 different dynos, it produced 5 different HP ratings with up to 30hp differences!
    But on the AVERAGE the 2003 cobra will dyno well over it's advertised rating. Why can't you uderstand this...? Why only pick the few (one or two) lower dyno's everytime? Why not look around some more idiot and see for yourself that the 2003 cobra dyno's higher then what it's rated for. Oh that's right you're biased and overall a moron that's why.
    Also why would a company selling something want to have a low baseline for a product of theirs that's supposed to up the HP...hmmm...weird? Maybe it's because their product doesn't really work that great, so by taking the overall lowest dyno number they produced for the baseline (or just plain out lying about it) and then taking the overall highest one with their product on would make their product look a hell of a lot better...wouldn't it? But we all know that anything advertised wouldn't do that huh...
    Your such a sad, sad person whoredup...

Share This Page