Re: 2003 SVT Cobra vs. The BMW M3

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

  1. #451 Big Nix SS, Sep 5, 2003
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Okay now I have to question you here...You've never stated that you've seen 03' Cobra runs on the dyno in person...You've said you have a neighbor who has dyno'd it but never have you said you were there in person. This makes me question you...


    And Logical Heretic...when I posted the 370rwhp run...he took the airlid off completely...it's just common sense man...if the 03' Cobra really had 385hp at the crank...making it about 328hp at the wheels...then taking the airlid out does not give you about a 40hp increase...maybe 20-25 but not 40...

    Make no mistake...the 03' Cobra is very very underrated...you two just don't want to believe it but it is. And this argument is getting very old cuz you two make bullshit claims after we give you proof.

    By the way...like I say before...call this guy a liar...

    Stock 03' Cobra....364.4 rwhp and 351 torque and there are plenty of guys on that site with only Basani X-pipes making 396.2/415 rwhp/tq. You have a question about the car...or want to make claims to them and call them liars...check out that site...sign up...and tell them they're wrong okay?

    Here's the link...
    http://www.svtperformance.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?s=8c3f1bd37d564e56754e68bb22a1689e&forumid=42
     
  2. lol 12.6 sec 1/4 mile ... man get your numbers right.. the cobra wont ever be able to get those numbers stock. and the bimmer is 13.1 and so is the cobra, ive seen both slower but still even or close. And the bimmer is quicker off the line 4.5sec 0-60, cobras 0-60 4.9. lol and the M3 will still out handle the cobra. All that with a 3.6L Inline 6 vs 4.6L v8(S) ! cmon on man.. cant #$%# with BMW.
     
  3. Where did I say I have seen my buddy dyno HIS car? I've seen his results.....

    I HAVE been to quite a few local (and San Jose) dyno days where I HAVE seen 03 Cobras on the dyno. Please exhibit where I said differently.....
     
  4. Well maybe I read your post wrong...But still you've never mentioned seeing dyno runs until recently...and it still makes me question your thoughts.


    But still like I said...If you seriously want to know and justify your own conclusion...get on that link and register and tell those guys on SVT Performance they're lying...cuz you act like it might not be that big of a deal...but obviously it is if you and I have been argueing about this for over a freaking year practically.

    I'm serious...you want real numbers? Talk to those guys there.
     
  5. Why?

    For the god-damn upteenth time. I have SEEN 03 Cobras on a dyno. I have watched them pull silencers, cats, run drafting fans, and change pipes.

    You can't argue with what I have SEEN. 370, 380, 390 stock. No. Have not seen it happen. I believe SVT Performance was one of the sites I saw someone claim 380 and just about everyone on the site called him out.....SHOW US THE DYNO I heard.

    Although I did hear of someone with a supposed factory freak at 392 or something and he suffered a leaking head gasket at 3k miles.....I believe that was also the same site.

    I don't honestly believe anyone is straight-up lying....I think they are just ill-informed or embelishing so they don't feel foolish because their car didn't live up to everyone's claims.....
     
  6. Dude I say that cuz they've posted their damn Dyno slips...where do you think I got pics of em?

    And like I said...I know someone on that board...his name is GotCobra...he's the one that pulled over 370rwhp by taking out his airlid.

    that link I provided earlier today showed a guy pull 360+rwhp stock...I'm just simply pointing out...you don't believe it...call them out then. Whether you think you're lying or not...call em out and see for yourself. If you think they're bluffing call their bluff. I'm jus tired of argueing with about this...I've been around the car so many damn times...I'm a freaking Fbody guy for crying out loud...and every time I'm around this car...it impresses me even more. Cuz it's turned out to be more than Ford said it would. Plain and simple...All that for a 35,000 dollar price tag.
     
  7. No moron, you are straight up lying. They are underrated from factory, get your head out of your a$s and just get over it.
     
  8. And once again....the no facts, pull info out of his ass guy speaks....nice work.
     
  9. We gave you facts jacka$s and you just looked right past them. Like I said before, get your head out of your a$s for once.
     
  10. Great, Ford's top-end car is just slightly slower than Honda's Top-end car (the NSX), that's not modified.


    next: whatever you say, arguments for performance specs from magazines can go on forever, give it up, my facts ARE straight, and my point IS valid, but it's all irrelevant anyway.
     
  11. Straight line performance the cobra is faster then the NSX I believe. Track...all NSX.
     
  12. Yeah and keep in mind the NSX is about 3 times the price.

    Slightly isn't that bad for a car with the Mustangs price.
     
  13. Very true...$34,000 or $80,000...hmmmm...and the cheaper one is faster...lol...
     
  14. how about used? i can get both same condition [1999] for $25K [CDN]
     
  15. #465 Ford rulez, Sep 9, 2003
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    http://popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars_trucks/1999/7/comparison_test_13_quickest_cars/print.phtml

    Tell me again when 13.5 was ever faster than 13.1???

    Hmmm....not even the fastest version of the NSX(which, might I add, is designed for downright overall track performance, not for straight line acceleration) is faster than not even the fastest version of the Mustang SVT Cobra (which is designed solely for straight line acceleration). Face it, the superior drivetrain and traction control combined with the dynamically engineered V-6, more than make up for the lack of an oversized, Brutish, performance (or handling anyway) inhibiting V-8.

    A car with such a well designed package, is well worth the "hefty" price tag, though, considering the performance it puts out in comparison to much more expensive supercars (such as the venerable Murceliago), that price starts to look much less hefty now doesn't it.

    And anyway, excluding the much faster Type-R, comparing the NSX to the SVT Cobra, I'd gladly pay the extra $40,000 for quality over quantity any day (quantity in this case being horsepower figures, and acceleration time).

    Saying the Lower price of the Mustang SVT Cobra qualifies it as a better car than the NSX (just because the two are quite similar in acceleration), is much like saying the lower price of the Callaway Sledgehammer qualifies it as a better car than the Dauer 962 LeMans (just because the Sledgehammer has a higher top speed, and twice the seating capacity).

    But you know as well as I, that you would much rather drive the 962 LeMans.

    So anyway, even if the SVT Cobra WERE actually faster than the NSX, then I'd say "congratulations, here you have a car that's designed for straight line acceleration, is overdone in its engine size, but is barely faster in accelerating than a car designed for overall performance which beats it in every other way, and costs about half the price. Very good, and what would you say to me if I bought a $2,000 go-Kart, dropped a K20 engine in it, added a transmission and made it roadworthy, all for under $10,000, then I'd have a car that's not only considerably faster than the SVT Cobra, but also handles better, and costs 1/3 the price, by your prior logic, I would then have a car that's superior to your SVT Cobra. Hmmm....but wait, anyone with the slightest bit of intelligence would vouch for the quality of the Mustang over the Go-Kart. Perhaps you should take another look at your line of thinking.
     
  16. I dont care what all you pepople say any corvette would smoke this POS.
    Tell me I'm wrong.
     
  17. Sure I will...

    A stock C5 runs low 13's high 12's....

    The good ole 80's Crossfire Injected Vettes ran 15's....

    You were saying "Any corvette" so you seem to show confindence that you're gonna be right on this one when you say "Tell me I'm wrong" but you're not specific enough cuz the 03' Cobra is faster than the C5 Vette...maybe not the Z06...but the Z06 doesn't smoke it. But a regular C5 sure as hell doesn't stand a chance.

    sorry buddy...but I'm right...and I'm a chevy guy myself...it's time to swallow your pride and give credit where credit is due.
     
  18. Dude really, stop being a f^cking retard it's getting old now. Get your facts straight or don't post anymore alright? I'm not even going to read the rest of your post just because you have already shown you don't know wtf you are talking about in the first sentence.

    You are talking about the 99 cobra, which was overrated by ford, it only had 300hp. Why don't you compare the newer NSX (which hasen't changed in 10 years) to the current Cobra...oh that's right the newer cobra is faster isn't it. 12.4 is the fastest time recorded so far for the 2003 cobra, please tell me you don't think the NSX can run that. Like I said the cobra is faster in a straight line, the NSX is faster on the curves. But for 1/3 the price the cobra is the better deal in my opinion.
     
  19. the NSX changed, 20 more horses in '97.
     
  20. Motor Trend did a convertible test once and it included the Cobra and a regular C5 Vette and won by almost a second. Now if they made it fair and compared the ZO6 against a cobra it would never satand a chance.BUDDY
     
  21. Don't start being an idiot all over again, as I already pointed out that both the NSX AND Cobra in that comparison were not the fastest versions of either car, you obviously didn't read the first part of that post very well.

    The NSX-T is the heaviest Version of the NSX, has the weakest Chasis, and the worst drivetrain, equating to not as good power delivery as the Type-R version.

    The 1999 SVT Cobra has 90hp less hp than the 2003 SVT Cobra (if the 1999 SVT Cobra actually did have 300hp as you claim, which is contradicted by the fact that the SVT Cobra in that article was dynoed at 320hp).


    The blistering acceleration of the NSX is due to the refined balance between Chasis, weight, and drivetrain.

    The blistering acceleration of the SVT Cobra is due to its power and torque.

    In both cases It seems like both cars in that test were at equal footing down from their faster counterparts, so don't use that stupid, overused BS excuse that the 99 SVT Cobra was overrated in power (which would only indicate more bungling clumsy engineering on Ford's behalf - but I'm not going to get into that as I'm not here to trash talk Ford, just here to respond to your once again all too mindnumbing ignorance/arrogance)

    BTW - did you not notice that the above posted article was from Popular Mechanics (an often Pro-Ford biased magazine), and that they put 320hp to the wheels when they had it on the dyno, which contradicts your "only had 300hp" theory, or perhaps you think that particular SVT Cobra was built on a Wednesday?

    LOL, here you go again with your "low 12's" BS. Try 12.9 as a more accurate 1/4 time for the modern SVT Cobra, then show me a RELIABLE source that says 12.4 from a STOCK SVT Cobra, in other words, NOT your beloved (yet ever so biased) mmff, and NOT from some individual Jackass who happens to have Office Frontpage.

    Off the top of my head, changes that have occurred to the NSX in the last 10 years:

    Note: bear in mind that right from the beginning, the NSX astounded the world, and gave a lot of people a "Rude awakening", at this point (1993) the NSX was still one of the "top dogs" in the world, changes made to the car are tentative and only made to A) improve sales (really just the Targa top), and B)to refine the near-perfect balance of all aspects of the car.

    Introduction of a Targa top model (NSX-T) (late 1992, early 1993, depending on country)

    1993 - introdcution of the NSX-R (Lighter, stiffer suspension & Chassis, faster gear ratios...), refinement of weight distribution, Change in body design (improved aerodynamics)

    1995 - more power (increase in displacement) further refinement of weight distribution, drastic weight reduction, addition of a 6th gear

    1997 - more power, another body redesign (even better aerodynamics), better power delivery to ground due to improved drivetrain, Traction control, and wider tires

    1998 - reduction in size of front spoiler to increase ground clearance, improved handling due to stiffer chassis and suspension set up,

    1999 - further weight distribution refinement, cancellation of NSX-R

    2001 - Another body redesign (improved aerodynamics, elimination of pop-up headlights in favour for safer, lighter, and more aerodynamic exposed headlights), Prototype of New NSX-R

    2002 - introduction of New NSX-R (extreme weight reduction - to 2800lbs, improved Chassis and suspension setup, intake in Hood for direct cold air fed to radiator, elimination of ground clearance inhibiting front spoiler, smooth underbody, Side scoops (FUNCTIONAL sidescoops) to vent air from underbody to prevent air being trapped in wheel wells and rear bumper, side spoiler to prevent air from being caught underneath, in one word: improved high-speed stability, drastically improved transmission and gearing...etc, etc...

    Hmmm...looks to me like more performance improvements in the last 10 years, than the Mustang has had in the last 13, perhaps you should think about being a little more open minded in the future.

     
  22. Go ask anybody about the 99 cobra man, it had 300hp, 20 under what ford rated it because they messed with the intake and exhaust before releasing it, making it 20hp lower then what they advertised. It's true. Again ask anybody about it.
    I'm not really trying to be a jerk, I'm just tired of you and other NOT KNOWING WHAT THE F^CK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
     
  23. Forget about Motortrend...Convertibles are for bitches anyway...and I'm not your buddy...I know more about your precious Vette than you do. And I regular C5 will not beat an 03' Cobra...I drive a 2000 Camaro SS and whip C5's all day long but I can't touch an 03' Cobra...there's a big difference between the C5's 350hp and the 03' cobra's 400+hp.
     
  24. that would be because convertables suck. test hardtops, i bet you the stats will change.
     
  25. You dolt, ask anybody with the slightest bit of automotive knowledge, and they'll tell you that horsepower output (particularly in cases where some are not producing the power rated by the manufacturer) is NEVER 100% consistent. The AVERAGE output of the '99SVT Cobra's very well (and according to your sources) may have been 300hp instead of 320hp (or whatever it was supposed to be), however the standard deviation of some of the cars may have been anywhere from 320hp output to 280hp, or maybe an even greater difference.

    The car used in that article came directly from SVT, so obviously they ensured it was in tip-top running condition before sending it to those doing the testing, and (as were all other cars in that article) it was dynoed by Popular Mechanics the very same day it was tested, so that specific SVT Cobra WAS producing 320hp, whether you'd like to believe it or not.

    It's impossible for manufacturers to ensure that every single car that rolls off the production line is producing the correct amount of power, as A)it's not cost effective, and B)it's economically inefficient (both points mean pretty much the same thing, but really there's only one reason for quality control). That's what Quality control is for, to ensure that enough cars are tested for the level of quality in all areas to get a decent average level of quality off the production line (i.e.: none that are too good - often resulting in a loss of profit, and none that are too bad - which results in pissing consumers off due to an inferior product), while still remaining cost effective.

    And, well, let's face it - Domestic vehicle manufacturers (Ford and Dodge in particular) aren't exactly renowned for their level of quality control. In other words, the standard deviation from the average performance level is much greater than that of non-domestic manufacturers (some of which have been acclaimed for their level of quality control) which accounts in a large part for the higher price of most imports.
     

Share This Page