Stock Cobra goes 12.1 at El Cajon!
 

I figured that would get everyones attention.

That is what I heard from a guy I was talking to at Carlsbad last Saturday. Now I have never even heard of a track at El Cajon, much less a 1/4 AND 1/8, where this dude went 12.1 in his stock '03.

Do these tracks exist? Sounded like BS to me, considering I've now seen a half dozen 03's run and none have put down close to that stock.:confused:

Total and complete BS........It has the HP to do it no doubt...but there is noway it would do it on the stock tires.

Someone might have a loose interpretation of "stock".

Later,

Without evidence or a reputable source documenting those times I'd be very skeptical. I've never heard of people lying about their car's perfomance http://www.generationiv.com/ubb/noncgi/rolleyes.gif.

This is a little dated but Popular Mechanic's did an interesting comparison in 1997 between 70's muscle cars and today's high-tech runners.

If you disagree with these results, don't flame me. Email Popular Mechanics...

The direct link is below:
http://popularmechanics.com/automoti...rs/print.phtml

The results are as follows:
1. 1997 Dodge Viper 11.97 @ 118.88 mph
2. 1987 Buick Turbo-T 12.52 @ 110.35mph
3. 1970 Buick GS Stage 1 12.56 @ 111.78mph
4. 1979 Chevelle LS6 454 13.35 @ 104.16mph
5. 1970 Plymouth Hemicuda 13.75 @ 101.24mph
6. 1997 Ford Mustang Cobra SVT 13.89 @ 101.92mph
7. 1969 Ford Mustang Mach 1 13.99 @ 101.83 mph
8. 1997 Pontiac Firehawk 14.21 @ 96.40 mph
9. 1997 Chevrolet Camaro Z28/SS 14.45 @ 98.19 mph
10. 1974 Pontiac Trans Am SD-455 14.31 @ 105.03 mph
11. 1962 Chevrolet Bel Air 409 14.55 at 99.05 mph
12. 1965 Pontiac GTO tri-power 14.56 @ 104.67
13. 1970 Oldsmobile 442 W-30 14.80 @ 97.47mph

Theres no track in El Cajon. Maybe hes talking about the 1/8th miles at Qualcomm and did a shitty *** conversion.

Skyler

That is total BS about a track in El Cajon. also I have yet to see a 03 cobra at qualcomm so i think hes full of it. besides even if he did do a conversion theres no way with how shitty qualcomm is :rolleyes:

Thanks guys. I figured as much from a guy who's plate referred to VTEC's. I mean really, why put something like that on a Cobra?:confused:

It's no wonder why he wasn't running that day.

Interesting... anyone know how accurate the 1987 Buick Turbo-T is? Cause 12.52 @ 110.35mph stock is pretty sweet to me. I was going to buy one for $6000 Canadian that was pretty mint, but I bought my Pace Car instead. I'm thinking of buying a Grand National or a Regal T-Type next spring, esepcially with those times. :D

§am.

Just curious why 20lbsboost put all those times down. That has nothing to do with the 2003 Cobra. Other than it is a car.

They dont run near that stock. Alot of guys cant even get out of the 14's with stock grand nationals.

Trust me I live at the track,

I was bored is why. No, it didn't directly relate to the 2003 Cobra, but it did reflect a reputable and unbiased reflection of published times of stock (or mostly stock) vehicles. No harm, no foul. :(

You are absolutely right. I just came back from a GN vs Mustangs Shootout last Sunday at Englishtown in 60 degree weather at sea level. I video-taped over 100 passes of GNS and 95 % ran low 12s and the stock ones were running high 13s to low 14s. The first race I taped had an 89 TTA vs an 87 GN(both looked brand new) and both ran low 12s with some light modifications. I saw quite a few up close in the lot and I'm planning to build one(87 GN) for my wife:D

I remember that article. The Buick wasn't bone stock. It may have had a few bolt ons, but I know that he did have the boost cranked up.

--nathan

You'd have to read the article (I put a link to it directly) to get all the details on their test cars.

Everyone has an interpretation of "stock". Most of the cars tested were not original "factory bone stock". The one's changed had very minor alterations. According to the article, the only changes made to the Regal from completely original GM delivery were the following; gutted cat, more boost and 140,000 miles (no bolt-ons).

A factory GN/turbo Regal ran 13.8-14.2 in magazine road tests back in '86-'87. Launching a GN as opposed to a V-8 is quite different and personally, I feel these #'s are somewhat high due to inexperienced drivers, so be it.

If you look at this video of these clowns from ASC/Mclaren trying to launch the GNx it's pretty evident. This is the famous GNx vs. Corvette video ASC made in 1987 during the development of the GNx: http://www.krif.com/tta/Movies/gnxvette[1].mpeg

This is all about documenting real times from real cars (part of the original post). The proof's in the pudding....irrefutable evidence. I'm skeptical of "so and so said his car ran this", and "those cars ran xx.xx" without seeing something to back it up.

I've seen quite a few of these run at my local track too. Some modded (12's), some really really modded (10's) and some near stocker's that can't get out of their own way (read - high 14's).

About a month ago at a private test and tune at Norwalk Raceway Park, I was pitted next to a guy that had one. Real nice guy, we talked throughtout the day about my Mustang and his GN. He had the boost turned up, a different stall, extra fuel delivery, slicks, and some other goodies and was turning mid 12's. He said his best run stock was in the low 14's on a cold day.

E

Lightly Modded??
 

It sounds like a "lightly" modded GN would be a new exhaust system and bumping the boost up to 25 lbs or so. Yeah, that's lightly modded, two minor tweaks, but 25 POUNDS OF BOOST. Come on, that not so light. To me STOCK is NO changes, no exhaust, no new pulleys, no boost change, no cold air, no BOOST changes, street tires.

Re: Lightly Modded??
 

I can appreciate your comments. But then the 70's muscle cars should have run on their 14"-15" bias ply tires too and they didn't. No changes to any car should mean no changes to the car at all from the 60's and 70's. I'm not sure if changing the boost would be any different than changing the tire pressure in your tires? Some turbo Regals were delivered with adjustable wastegate rods, so you can adujst your boost. I know my TTA has a factory original adjustable rod and I haven't looked on my GN yet. I understand all had adjustable rods if manufactured after November 1987.

As far as the test Regal, the article says: "With the exception of the aftermarket boost gauge stuck to its steering column and the illegal elimination of its catalyst, Bob Hansen's 1987 Buick Regal T-Type is all stock. And with the stock 15 psi of turbo boost, it runs the quarter mile, according to Hansen, in 13.80 seconds–exactly what we remember them running a decade ago. But Hansen cranked up his boost to 22 psi for this test, filled the tank with 100 octane (no lead) and tore off runs in the mid-12s all day, with a best pass of 12.52 at 110.35 mph.

Good discussion, perhaps time for a new thread?

I did not mean to come across rude 20lbsboost. I was just wondering. The 2003 runs with a real good drive stock 12.9ish.

No problem, I didn't take it that way in case any of my replies sounded terse, and if they did I apologize.

A 12.9 is one helluva time for "out of the box"! I'd like to see the car evaluated by some unbiased performance magazines. I read on a GNX page recently that "insiders" said engineers specially prep the cars for editors to test by commonly upping the performance by installing non-stock chips and other minor engine tweaks. Noooo.....that would never happen!

I think we're all reasonable people here and would agree there are many factors contributing to differing times with the same car. Some variables could include weather conditions, elevation, driver, track, car, gas, etc.

Ok, enough. Back under my rock.......