The act of pushing the pad on one side over, after it hits the rotor, will pull the other side over, yes.
Oh, so one pad is connected to the other by a hinge which allows both to move by only pusing one? Thats awesome.
I don't think Ford ever intended for this Cobra to compete with such cars as the M3. You are saying that to spite the topic starter, just because he/she was curious as to whether this car was a vaild competitor of the M3 does not necesarily mean Ford built it for that very purpose. I think that a stock SVT Cobra would beat an SS Camaro of the same year in the 0-60 and in the quarter mile, but this is just considering horsepower and torque, 390 vs 3....50 or something in the SS? I would say that a Ford pony car to compare to the SS would be the Mustang Mach 1 (of same year), it had 350 hp or so I think. No, a stock Mustang GT could not beat stock Camaro Z28, the Z28 has like 65 more horses under the hood (325 vs 260), but then again I do not think that anyone has said that they could. According to several articles I have read from car magazines, the Ford GT40 and Dodge Viper are neck-in-neck competitors. The GT40 has slightly faster 0-60, 0-100, and Quarter mile times, but we are arguing hundreths of a second here, so it these cases it really depends on the driver <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/emoticons.html"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="http://speed.supercars.net/cboardhtml/emoticons/smile.gif"></A> The GT40 does not break as fast from 100-0, taking an extra 20 feet actually, I was surprised, but this car is said to haul more ass around the track, so when you get down to it, that why GT40 owners essentially paid $50,000 more than Viper owners. But as far as the price for the 2003 Mustang SVT Cobra is concerned, I would say it was niceley priced. Likes just do this in units of $10,000... ~$20,000 - Dodge SRT/4 - 200(230) hp ~$30,000 - Suburu WRX Sti - 300 hp ~$40,000 - ???? - 400 hp So if you look at it that way you just saved $5,000 , now you can get afford the convertible! Haha.
Because it allows them to sell cars boasting big numbers, for a small price, which appeals to a majority of the population. I'm sure they have the resources to produce a masterfully designed engine...but it is a matter of wanting to, needing to, and tradition. Do they want to? No, it's expensive to pour money into a project slush fund. Do they need to? No, they have working engines as is, and they seem to sell decent, look at the Mustang, 1/20 cars. Tradition? Historically, American cars are high displacement, OHV, V8 engines put into a heavy metal chassis and rear wheel drive. So from their angle, it seems ridiculous to make a low displacment, DOHC, I4 engine in a sport compact with all wheel drive. Laters.
I love BMW's, do not get me wrong but no one said BMW's were inferior, they just stated that the Cobra was faster than the M3 in the quarter mile and were able to back it up with recorded times. It is not to be taken to offense, it is simply the truth. And the BMW although slower has a luxurious interior, and yada yada, so it's all a trade off. In responce to an earlier post you made about Ford needing to put a supercharger onto it's cars to gain an increase in horsepower...The Cobra R had 385 normally aspired horsepower. Well the engine in the 390 horsepower Cobra is obviously a different engine because a charger would add more than 5 horsepower, but imagine adding a charger to the N/A 385 horsepower engine.... See, it's a trade off, Ford could acquire similar figures with a more dispensible engine + supercharger. Simply, it's easier to manufacture, faster to manufacture, and cheaper to mass produce. But I am looking forward to the upcoming 2003-2004 M5, it will be a nice addition to the road.
Well the way you referred to his name was "Oh well he must be biased towards foriegn cars, he has American in his screenname." or atleast that is how it came off. "No, as a matter of fact I haven't driven a Mustang, and I intend on keeping it that way, I don't want to have to wear a mullet and a wife beater and chew tobbaco." ...where to start...Well for one, not everyone who drives a Mustang fits that criteria of your mulleted, wife beater wearing red neck. Secondly, that is usually referred to F-body drivers, so get your sterotypes straight (I love the F twins btw), and finally, you make your self sound really ignorant by saying that, more so than the racist mulleted hick in the Mustang. But then again, crude, derogatory remarks are always a last resort for people who have no other alternatives, such as in your case. Funny thing, it's just like how suicide bombing is the last resort for terrorists...so in a crazy turn of a events, I guess you are sort of like a terrorist. And I love German cars, but here I go.... "The Germans think they are the only ones in the world who know how to build anything mechanical. They do nothing but criticize American-made cars and heap praise on their overpriced, self-proclaimed 'wun-dercars'" Ray Bohacz - Hemmings Muscle Magazine. If the Germans are such great engineers, and are such great thinkers, and produce such great stuff.... Why did the Americans kick their ass two for two?! Exacty, now shut the h*** up. This was only aimed at snobs like this guy, not all German automobile enthusiasts.
Once again, not too many people who purchase these cars are interested in racing around a course, but atleast their cars can hold their own; willing they need to. And yes, they go straight very well, that's what they were made to do, if they were made to take the twisties they'd all be shaped like Porsches..... And in your first sentence...in which aspect are you saying Cobra R's are not better than BMW's because most cars are better than some in atleast some way. The Cobra is cheaper, more horsepower, more torque, faster in a straight line. BMW is more luxurious, offers precision handeling, and it carries a trademark name. And one more thing, even though people do this on both sides, a car's handeling is more than a salom and skidpad. Do you judge handeling on which is "better" or which is favorable? Technically a car that handles like a roller coaster; always stays in the center of the road, and always keeps 4 tires secured to the ground is the BEST handeler, but is it favorable? If you enjoy a good donut in a parking lot with a nice rear wheel driver car, or fish-tailing it, I know you will get what I mean. Later.
OMG, don't even start, I see you in nearly every thread on this entire site, and all you do is find arguments to contradict those made by good old American car enthusiasts. Just leave it be!
Exactly horsepower! You're great! If Password was going to use this as a universal saying for all countries, he would have said it differently, and without throwing in "America". Either that, or just not have said it at all because he retracted his retort in his following posts. He's a college student and for the 4 or more years that he will be attending school, he will become nieve, anti-American, and more frightening....a liberal. So let him spew his 'my-professor-told-me-so' views, but if they get to you, just brush it off.
**This responce is not in responce to this particular post of yours.** Password, I enjoy reading your posts, they are always interesting and horrifically long, and you seem knowledgable but sometimes you just say...things...wrong things. I am no car genious myself, but you get a little carried away in your posts and go on these far-fetched tangents about unrelated topics, but when you make a mistake, instead of taking it as that, you scour the internet for specs that prove you more 'right' than before. For example; if someone proves that their car does a 12.6 second quarter mile, while yours does 12.8 (even with an unbiased source), all of a sudden in your next post, your car has speed up to 12.5 seconds! I am not starting an argument, just stating an observation, I see you around these threads alot. Well that's all I have to say about that, and Password, I look forward to seeing your newer posts.
Assuming that a 87' Toyota Supra with a 3.0 inline 6 engine, already gets horrible gas mileage, I bet this car achieves the same effect. Expecially with those RPMs soaring well around 17,000! As amazing and uncommon as it is, I am unimpressed. It's an amazing feat getting this engine so rev happy, but if this car needs to rev so high to get 800 horsepower, I would hardly call this practical (unless you added an extra 0 to each as a typo, in which case major props in the low end torque). At this point, we are comparing oranges and apples.
Umm, unless my eyes decieve me, he was describing a Formula 1 engine. Current ones are revving upwards of 19000, and busting out more than 900hp. They have to rev so high because of the FIA rules stating a engine cannot displace more than three liters. Its still amazing none the less. The internals going under a strain eight times that of a car like a Cobra, or LS1, stictly from the massive amounts of rotations it produces. Springs that are depressing, and reforming 300 times a second. And the production of about 300 pound feet, from 3000rpm, all the way up to the redline. They're a marval of modern engineering.
I was not aware it was a F1 car, I don't know much about any of them to be honest. But yes, I agree with you completeley, it is a marvle of modern engineering, but like my signature says, just because I do not like it, does not mean it is bad. I just said that it was not practical, but then again it is a F1 car so no one expects it to be a daily driver.