Re: I've gotta admit it, Ford has got their shit together.

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

  1. Driven a Mustang at 160 mph+? Well if it's modified, it's a whole new story. Don't chomp down my neck, I'm a Mustang guy, but I'd never go that fast in (just) a Mustang.
     
  2. Sometimes they do the right things.<!-- Signature -->
     
  3. 69 stang, Ford claims a top speed of 175, but it's max stability is 155. It's electronically limited. At 175, the car will not stay to the road well enough because of it's terrible aerodynamics, that's not good engineering. And 80 horse power to the liter is not really good engineering seeing as you have a supercharger. If they were good engineers, they would get that NA
     
  4. Yo, this thing's not to be compared to Vettes or Vipers. It's in it's own class now, as are they. Besides, I think that it'll fall apart or take off at 175+, if it even goes that fast, which I doubt. It'll definitely be unstable, whereas the vette and viper are more structurally sound.
     
  5. have any of u driven a mustang past the 150mph mark...i have and i must say the car is very firm on the ground...i hit 160mph before i entered a right hand turn which i had to slow down to 45mph very fast...thank god for brembo racing brakes huh...it felt more stable than the camaro at high speeds, unfortunatly my friend is a camaro guy...dont matter my 5.0 has his anyday of the week.

    Any how talking about hp/L what about ur 5.4L camaro engine...it pumps out 310hp...thats 57hp/L the mustang when naturally aspired in the mustang gt gets 58.7hp/L with the billet mustang....so who is ahead in technology?????

    and this one with the supercharger gets 84.5hp/L leaving the camaro in the dust.

    To bad HP/L, means oh EXACTLY SHIT. HP/L has no meaning what so ever, ur taking the account of hp per volume of engine??? what the fck is that...if u want something to compare make use comparing hp/ton or torque/ton or hp/torque or things like that not hp/L thats proves nothing of a car or engine<!-- Signature -->
     
  6. This is one bard aresd mustang, and wait till the new ford V8 comes out, it will be making more power than u can dream of.

     
  7. I've gotta admit it, Ford has got their shit together.

    I've always liked Camaro SS over the Cobra but this is one bad ass car here. Ford or SVT or whatever is moving in the right direction. 390hp/390lb torque with a 6 speed and a 6500 RPM redline is damn good. If I could change anything I would throw in a 5.0 or a 5.4(3?) instead of a 4.6 and make it NA, get rid of those McPherson struts, and drop the weight a little.
     
  8. Nothing is wrong with struts.
    Go ask someone who owns a 911 Turbo.

    And the big weight is only because the 4.6 is *huge*
    It's bigger than an old school big block.
     
  9. Ya but its kind of tight that ford is getting this much hp out of a little 4.6, thats some damn good engineering. Besides in the next few years the mustang is gonna get bumped up to a 5.4 .

    Isnt this cobras top speed estimated at 175+, thats faster than a corvette and catching the viper.
     
  10. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from EliteWolverine</i>
    <b>have any of u driven a mustang past the 150mph mark...i have and i must say the car is very firm on the ground...i hit 160mph before i entered a right hand turn which i had to slow down to 45mph very fast...thank god for brembo racing brakes huh...it felt more stable than the camaro at high speeds, unfortunatly my friend is a camaro guy...dont matter my 5.0 has his anyday of the week.

    Any how talking about hp/L what about ur 5.4L camaro engine...it pumps out 310hp...thats 57hp/L the mustang when naturally aspired in the mustang gt gets 58.7hp/L with the billet mustang....so who is ahead in technology?????

    and this one with the supercharger gets 84.5hp/L leaving the camaro in the dust.

    To bad HP/L, means oh EXACTLY SHIT. HP/L has no meaning what so ever, ur taking the account of hp per volume of engine??? what the fck is that...if u want something to compare make use comparing hp/ton or torque/ton or hp/torque or things like that not hp/L thats proves nothing of a car or engine</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    It is stable at 150 mph compared to a shopping cart<!-- Signature -->
     
  11. I've had so much trouble with McPherson struts that I just gave up on them.

    Camaro is, was, 5.7L. And Chevy makes some bad ass engines so don't go raggin on them. My wish is for ford to go NA and match Chevy. Until then show me any Ford engine as bad ass as the one in the 405/405/350 Z06 which also can attain 28 MPG.
     
  12. I own a Mustang GT and have gotten it to 150mph and not any lift, and it felt pretty secure.
     
  13. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from Mark</i>
    <b>69 stang, Ford claims a top speed of 175, but it's max stability is 155. It's electronically limited. At 175, the car will not stay to the road well enough because of it's terrible aerodynamics, that's not good engineering. And 80 horse power to the liter is not really good engineering seeing as you have a supercharger. If they were good engineers, they would get that NA</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    HP/Liters means nothing. Mark, you're acting like a dumb import fan. But if you say that you must think the camaro is badly engineered because it gets 57, not 80 hp/Liter.
     
  14. I have to admit i am not much of a ford fan but this new mustang impresses me. U stupid ppl taklin about the hp per litre who cares about that it has 390hp in it and it compares to a vette it isn't supposed to. If u want to make a comparison to gm u should b comparing it to the camaro and this would smash it.<!-- Signature -->
     
  15. Mark...if you care to talk hp per litre, a stock naturally apirated 2001 Cobra has the same as a 2001 Corvette (actually a couple tenths of a hp more), and about 12hp more per litre than a 2001 Camaro SS. Also, just because its speed limited doesnt mean Ford did it because its unstable. They dont want people taking their damned cars out on the I-5 North and running them at 175 miles per hour. My friends new Dodge pickup is limited at 92mph...I doubt it is "unstable" upwards of 100
     
  16. hp/displacement doesn't mean shit, its hp/weight that really makes a difference.
     
  17. Horsepower to weight means something, but again, it's not everything.

    Take a Camaro SS vs Civic Si for racing the quarter mile.
    Camaro's weight/hp - 3450/320 - 10.78lbs/hp
    Civic's weight/hp - 2590/160 - 16.19lbs/hp

    Now give the Civic 240hp which would equal the power/weight ratio of the Camaro's.
    The Civic will now run low 14s(even that's optimistic) instead of high 15s with it's extra 80hp, and the Camaro will still run 13 flat.

    So there ya go, turbo'd Civic with 240hp, equal power to weight ratio of an LS1 F-body, and still easily a full second slower in the quarter mile. Even though it's lighter and has better hp/litre, it'll still get it's ass handed to it.
     

Share This Page