Re: 2003 SVT Cobra vs. The BMW M3

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

  1. Ok I'm done arguing about this moron, for the last time the 99 COBRA had less HP then ford said it did, END OF F^CKING STORY, get over it you were wrong.
    Oh and most cars sold don't differ from one another by 40hp or more, yes some do differ a little bit (maybe up to 10hp at the most) but not by 40...son of a b!tch that was stupid...
  2. ...imagine finally sunk in.
  3. You just don't get it do you, sure, the average 99 Cobra did have less hp than Ford claimed, I'm not disagreeing with that, however, SOME of the 99 Cobra's DID produce the power Ford claimed, especially when it was one prepared for a comparison test by major magazines.

    Due to the inconsistent power output of that engine, the hp difference very well could have varied by as much as (or more than) 40hp. Have you personally dynoed EVERY SINGLE 99 SVT COBRA??? If so, then I'm willing to accept what you say as truth, with exception of that SINGLE 99 Cobra used in that comparison. Though I sincerely doubt that they were the only ones who dynoed it at 320 hp, not that it matters, as that one was the one used in the test, and that one was proven to put out the power claimed, yet it didn't out-accelerate the SLOWEST NSX there, that's all there is to it.

    And if you're going to tell me I'm wrong, you're dumber than I thought.
  4. I'm only going to tell you this one time (you've shown many times you don't know what you are talking about) NO CAR MADE TODAY IS GOING TO DIFFER 40HP FROM ONE CAR TO THE NEXT, IT JUST DOESN'T HAPPEN. Some will differ of course, maybe up to 10hp, but saying that they will differ up to 40HP is just showing your ignorance on the topic.
    Oh and...YOU'RE WRONG.
  5. What finally sunk in moron...that the 99 cobra didn't produce the power it should have? I already knew that. That production cars won't differ 40hp from one another...already knew that. That the 2003 cobra is underrated by ford and is actually making over 400hp when people dyno them...already knew that.
  6. Really....though you were insistent the Cobra had a variation of almost 40HP by declaring it dynoed over 370 to the wheels..... they are always good for a laugh. Chastising someone in another thread for calling you names, asking if they are eight years old, yet, here you are doing the same thing. LOL
  7. For the last "F^cking" time fool, a car that performs as INCONSISTENTLY as it's been shown the 1999 Cobra does, could very easily vary by as much as 40 hp between models.

    BTW - It happens quite often with any newly designed car, as mass production lines need to be calibrated to consistently build cars the same, you just never see those cars roll out of the factory due to Quality control.

    As has been shown on occasions that reach an almost infinitessimal scale, you're either clueless AND extremely stubborn/thickheaded, or you're just plain DUMB. For your sake, I hope it's the former, as there may actually be some hope for you, however I'm inclined to believe it's the latter.

    Ford's fastest car (of 1999) with 320 hp that was one of the few that was performing as it should, couldn't keep up with the slowest version of Honda's fastest production car that had 280 hp....DEAL WITH IT!
  8. Ummm...what are you talking about? I never said they varied by 40hp, I said they are UNDERRATED from Ford by around 40hp, big difference (of course it would help if you could read or reason).
    And for the "name" calling, if the shoe fits moron...
  9. I'm not arguing this anymore, YOU'RE WRONG, get over it.
  10. Guess you ARE insolent, YOU'RE WRONG.....and stop being so delusional, the SLOWEST NSX is faster in the 1/4 than the 1999 SVT Cobra performing as it should, or are you completely ignorant of the fact that that one was tested on the dyno at 230hp?

    So YOU get over it. fool.
  11. Big words from a retard. I never said in 99 the cobra was faster idiot, learn how to read.
    You said earlier that the NSX is faster then any cobra, I proved you wrong because it's not faster (straight line) then the 2003 SVT Cobra.
    And for the last time, the 99 cobra had HP problems, they didn't get 320hp, they got 300hp. It would still be slower then the NSX even with the extra HP, but the fact still remains that the 99 cobra didn't make 320hp like ford said it did (although if you bought one ford would fix the problem for free, thus making it run at 320hp).
    Oh...and what are you talking about 230rwhp...? With 15% drivetrain loss the cobra should be making 270rwhp (or very close) when it's making it's advertised 320hp. Even at 300hp it should be making 255rwhp...
  12. You claimed the the Cobra dynoed over 370HP to the wheels. I have SHOWN you a Cobra that dynoed 337. Over 370 to 337, that's not too far off from 40.
  13. "Oh...and what are you talking about 230rwhp...?"

    That was a typo, I meant to type 320, and you know it (if you actually do know anything at all that is)

    If the 2003 SVT Cobra were actually as fast as you claim (12.5 in the 1/4, and 4.5 in 0-100) then yes, it would be faster than the Type-R, however it's not, and so the new NSX-R is faster in straight line acceleration.

    Anyway, I never claimed anything, other than that the NSX is faster all-round, in acceleration the NSX and SVT Cobra are so close, it's hard to tell, however you seem unable to see that. I just responded to your earlier ill conceived comment "Very true...$34,000 or $80,000...hmmmm...and the cheaper one is"

    The NSX-R is readily capable of a high 12 to low 13 1/4 mile run, the SVT Cobra is readily capable of a high 12 to low 13 1/4 mile run, both are capable of 0-100km/h runs of 4.4-4.7 seconds. Looks like they're pretty similar in acceleration to me.

  14. "well lets get vulgar now. the m cars are far supperior to the cobra. the cobra might be faster at the respective times straight line times but dont u tell me that the cobra would beat the m3 and the m5 through a road course."

    Superior? How?
    The only thing I see that's "superior" is your attitude. If you lowered your nose a bit, you might be able to see better.
    The Mustang Cobra is an integrated package that emphasizes all around performance, much like the M3. Tuned fully independent suspension, four wheel discs, etc...
    The only thing perhaps superior about the BMW are the trappings, which most buyers should expect and demand at a price $20,000 more than a Cobra.
    A bimmer might be a tad more refined here or there but, again, for the price, it should be, or people shouldn’t pay that much for it.
    Some of your arguments are a bit thin, like the ones of those who attempt to justify slower M3 performance by saying it’s a bigger car.
    Spec sheets vary, but from what I've seen, both (2003) M3 and Cobra cars weigh about 3700lbs. Just because the bimmer's a little wider and sandwiches an extra passenger in back, claiming it’s a five-seater, doesn't put it in an entirely different weight/size class.
    (The Mercury Cougar of the 1960's was based on the then current Mustang, but was a little wider, and could carry five. That didn't make it a mid-sized car, just a slightly bigger sports coupe. The car publications in their evaluations of the day did not start comparing its performance to Chevelle's and 442's. They compared it to other cars in its class, of which it was just a slightly larger example.

    -In any case, the difference in size didn't do much for #'s. A Mercury Cougar Eliminator Boss 302 turned in nearly identical times to a Mustang Boss 302. IOW:
    If the bimmer is slower, the extra seat isn't the culprit.)

    Not to say, that if you love a BMW, you shouldn't buy one. Just don't go around deluding yourself into thinking its better than anything else on the road just because it’s a bimmer, and that everyone else should agree with you or they’re wrong.
    Personally, I prefer American cars, but would have no problem with an import, if I could afford it, and it was worth the asking price (to me). But if we are going to talk superior, I've frankly always thought Mercedes' are much superior to BMW's, which by comparison have always been overpriced for what you get, and a Mercedes wanna be.

    I do like the looks of the M3, it has attitude. For $55,000, I’d either start looking elsewhere (Mercedes) save $20,000 on a Cobra, or $10,000 on a Lexus.


    <A BORDER="0" HREF=""><IMG BORDER="0" SRC=""></A>

  15. The cobra is that fast, 12.4 is the best STOCK times that have been recorded so far. Thats faster then the NSX no doubt. No matter how badly you want to think otherwise, you are wrong again. much does that Type R cost...? Hmmm a lot more then the Cobra. And yet you feel the need to keep comparing them, even when the "outclassed" mustang is faster.
    From now on don't talk unless you know what you are talking about.
  16. VETTE all the way.
  17. people make fun of people over rating the cobra, and its usually someone who overrates somthing themselfes.
  18. The NSX-R is a bit more than double, and that's a result of A) more expensive materials B) Higher build quality and C) time investment through hand built manufacturing.

    Again, I'm only bringing it up because you said "...and yet the cheaper car is faster..." I'm just calling you on your lie (or perhaps it's just blind faith) you have ANY 1/4 time that's faster than 12.9 that DOESN'T use MMFF as a source? If so, post a link to the source.
  19. "Again, I'm only bringing it up because you said "...and yet the cheaper car is faster..." I'm just calling you on your lie (or perhaps it's just blind faith)"

    Yet that "lie" is the truth which you are to blinded to see, or to dumb to see. Whichever the case the CHEAPER Cobra is also the FASTER car, funny huh?
    And it's more then double the price, the mustang cobra is $34,000, the regualar NSX is over $80,000, which would lead me to believe that the NSX-R is well over that price.
  20. However that "Truth" is not true, show me ONE reliable source that shows the Cobra accelerating from 0-100km/h in less than 4.4, or the 1/4 in less than 12.9. And NO MMFF is NOT a reliable source. If you can do so, then I'll admit I'm wrong, however, you won't be able to do so, because I'm right, and the SVT Cobra is NOT faster than that.

    The Mustang Cobra (when priced at dealerships, not the MSRP) is $38,000

    The Dealership price for the NSX-R is $90,000, which is just barely more than double the price of an SVT Cobra, you can't even buy a new car for the difference (of double the price to the price of the NSX).
  21. Do you want me to go the my local SVT dealer and show you that they are $34,000? Do you want me to buy one and take it to the track to show you they can do mid 12's?
    You are wrong on both accounts, please just accept that and move on.
    Oh and $20,000+ is a little bit more then just double kid, learn some math. I could buy a cobra and a gt. But I'm thinking the NSX R is more then $90,000...
  22. Sure, then you can drive it up here, and show me yourself, though even if the car were that fast, I suspect you wouldn't be able to break 14-16 seconds, I mean you do drive an automatic after all, there's no way you'd be able to accelerate hard in the thing without spinning the tires.

    Why don't you take a picture of that price in the window of an SVT Cobra then send it to me, bet you anything when you ask the sales guy at the Ford dealership laughs his ass off at the fact that you would actually think the car goes at the MSRP.

    Hmmm....2x34,000-40,000 is anywhere from $68,000(the MSRP) - to $80,000, the Car doesn't go for the MSRP, but it does go for somewhere between that and $40,000, so $80,000 is ONLY $10,000 less than $90,000 there's your math corrected. Now, I was wrong on one count, ant that's the price of the NSX-R, it's actually the equivalent of $117,000 USD, so you could actually purchase a fairly decent car for the price difference of 2xthe price of the SVT Cobra. But also on the other hand, the NSX-R is faster than I thought, it actually accelerates to 100km/h in 4.4 seconds consistently according to a number of automotive mags, sites, and just about anybody else who's tested it, so the NSX-R is NOT actually in the same acceleration range as the SVT Cobra (as I had said earlier), no, it's considerably faster. Yet its power remains at a "mere" 276 hp.

    The NSX isn't an all-dominating, Super sports car, it's a regular sports car with little more power than your common sports sedan, that was made RIGHT, and it's probably the only one in the world. Perhaps Fords "live rear axle" is beoming a bit outdated.
  23. WTF are you talking about? If the sticker in the window says $34,000, then the car is $34,000, it's really that simple. The only way that number changes is if you argue them down (which probably wont happen with a SVT).
    You are right about on thing, even if I could drive the SVT cobra to you, I wouldn't get a 12.4 second quarter mile run, I would spin the hell out of those tires. <A BORDER="0" HREF=""><IMG BORDER="0" SRC=""></A>
    Now I don't know much about the NSX R but why would it have less HP then the standard (if you can call a NSX standard) 290hp NSX's?
    Also the Cobras don't have a live rear axle, they all come with IRS.
  24. Hey PasswordPlease...

    Just to let you April I was very close to buying an 03' Cobra...and they offered it to me 34,000 out the just wasn't to sure about laying 10k down right away. So I declined.
  25. You must be lying...they would never do that. They won't sell any mustang for sticker price. Or at least Password will say something like that.
    They have had TONS of SVT Cobras at my local SVT dealer, and they have all been $34,000 (for the coupes).

Share This Page