Answer to the 390 H.P Cobra!!!! - Page 3

Unit 5302 · 06-09-2002, 11:10 PM

For Ford to push the envelope, they'll have to put a quality bottom end into the cars. Doesn't seem like something they're focusing on lately. The 4.6's have junk bottom end parts, and they've even had problems (LOTS) with the cranks on their 5.4 truck engines.

The 4.6L isn't a base engine, either. That's the 232ci 190hp 3.8L. That makes .82hp per cubic inch.

By the way, the bashing on the Mustang II is way out of place as well. It may have been much like a Pinto, but it kept the name alive while many musclecars completely died. For it's day, the Mustang II was a good handling, light, quick little car. The 139hp 302 V-8 didn't make for extreme performance by any means, but the curb weight of the car was somewhere in the neighborhood of 2700lbs, which made it's 248lb/ft of torque capable of moving the little car out okay. It was right on with the shitty *** junker F body back then too. Less hp, but a hell of a lot less weight. The little Mustang II also had a cool interior, nice gauges, and a comfortable ergonomic setup. Options like a tration lok rear end, 302 (5.0) V-8, 4spd manual or C4 automatic, rally sport interior, and appearance packages kept it right with everything else from that era. My first car was a 1977 Mustang II with the rally pack gauges, brushed aluminum gauge bezels, 302 V-8, and C4 auto. It was a neat little fastback and had 180,000 short trip miles when we had it hauled away. Still ran great too, the body was just shot.

HawkCMC · 06-10-2002, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MiracleMax
LS1 V8 in SS trim 346 cid @ 320 = .92 hp per cid

4.6 SOHC in GT trim 281 cid @ 260 = .92 hp per cid

Max that is a good comparison and I'm not bashing it, but thats factory ratings, 2001 and 2002 ls1's are putting an average of 315 to the rear wheel. Which equals about 370 to the crank with 15% drivetrain loss.

So .... 346 cid @ 370 = 1.069 hp per cid

BTW I have seen plenty of ls1's in the 100k mile ranges, none with problems, and you cant say the motor is anything but state of the art. Ls1 heads set new records for flow charactaristics for any head ever put on a stock motor with 2 valves per cylinder. I dont want to start a war of manufactuers (not sure on spelling) but if GM did ever make 4 valves per cylinder with the same technology that they use in ls1 heads, and maybe even put a supercharger on it like the new Cobra is getting, those damn cars would be damn near unstopable in stock format unless it was from an exotic car priced in the 6 figures.

CMC

wally6761 · 06-10-2002, 09:59 AM

yes, i meant 4.6, but got carried away by some of the idiotic comments i was reading. all i want is people to to stop saying 'ford is great, everyone else sucks'. it makes ford fans look bad. there's a lot of other great cars out there. if you want to be a ford fan, that's great, but be a car fan too. you can celebrate your own stuff with bashing others.

wally6761 · 06-10-2002, 10:00 AM

correction, meant WITHOUT bashing others.

MiracleMax · 06-10-2002, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by HawkCMC

Max that is a good comparison and I'm not bashing it, but thats factory ratings, 2001 and 2002 ls1's are putting an average of 315 to the rear wheel. Which equals about 370 to the crank with 15% drivetrain loss.

So .... 346 cid @ 370 = 1.069 hp per cid

Well its the only reliable figure I have. If this is the case then the manufacturers are playing that number's game again (Ford included with the S/C cobra) which makes a valid comparison nothing but bunk!

As for factory ratings, I believe that they are the best average power produced by the engines (to acount for production tolerences) at whatever SAE testing method is in use now. If I'm not mistaken (which could very well be the case), current OE engine dyno runs call for 80 degree cell temperatures rather than a cool 70 or 68 degrees. I dunno if humidity and vapor standards were adjusted too.

I'd very much like to see a stock LS1 tested on an engine dyno using whatever standard most engine builders use currently. If I were to lay down the rules for the engine test. I would say blueprint them and run'em with accessories and stock exhaust.

Unit 5302 · 06-10-2002, 08:09 PM

I'd be curious to know what the modifications were made after 2000 to increase it by 30rwhp. Generally, there is closer to 17-18% loss on new manual transmissions.

There is a new artform out there. It's called BS dyno pulling. A lot of the new dyno's allow you to enter parameters which skew the output, and a lot of shops are more than eager to show inflated numbers because everybody wants to see their car pulling serious power. I feel this is the sole reason for the mystical increase of 40hp.

The LS1 isn't notably faster now than it was. An increase of 30rwhp would make most of them borderline 12 cars at more like 109-110mph traps. I haven't heard of that trend.

I can say the LS1's valvetrain is weak, and contrary to what I'm being told, I don't believe it's gonna last past 100k. 10.5:1 compression is HELL on piston rings.

HawkCMC · 06-11-2002, 08:12 AM

You guys are so proud and to afraid to acctually consider that a GM car might just be better then yours. At least I took the time to come over here and attempt to learn about your cars and to help you guys in forums and offer what knowledge I know. But like usual you have to turn this into a my car is better then yours. Its proven that these cars dyno 310 - 315 average at the rear. Modifications over prior years were the addition of the ls6 intake, ls6 block, a new revised cam, and new cast iron exhaust manifolds that out flow the old cast steel ones. So if you figure 17-18% for a manual that means they are putting even more to the crank then I calculated. The only week factor in the ls1 valve train are the push rods, no over revving no problems. and the current ls1 has 10.1:1 compression not 10.5:1. BTW How many mustang cobras have you seen get into the 12's stock?
CMC

TruBluePony · 06-11-2002, 09:50 AM

I believe that the GM cars are faster in stock trim but in no way better. If you take into account everything besides just the horsepower(looks, interior, ride and handling and overall quality) the Mustang wins hands down. And I think you will find that since this is a Mustang board almost everyone who is a member here(with the exception of our GM brother's who come here) would agree, otherwise they would be driving GM's. In fact I would venture to say the rest of the country would agree since it is the GM cars which are being discontinued due to bad sales. Also if you take into account the price differential in the two makes a Mustang owner could take the money saved and invest it in some mods and then be faster also, but that's hypothetical.

As far as the Cobra being able to run 12's stock I don't have that answer at hand. But i do know the Mach 1 ran a 12.97 at FFW in Atlanta so I would assume that the 2003 Cobra can definitely run a 12. So a GM car is faster stock. Whoopee.

Hammer · 06-12-2002, 07:22 PM

Well folks,
I think this thread has served out its life...

After looking everything over, its hard for me to understand someone who comes over to a Mustang board, sings praises about a GM vehicle, and then becomes surprised that some do not agree with their asessment....

Its easy to see that the LS1 makes great power off the showroom floor. To be honest, I don't see anyone debating that...

Some F bodies that I've seen on the dyno pull numbers more or less consistant with the published stats from GM. (although they do seem to average on the high side) I have also seen some stock F-Bodies that put out numbers considerably higher than the norm, with absolutely no explaination as to why. I'm not a mechanic, nor an expert on these cars. All I can say is that there seems to be a WIDE margin of what to expect from these things in a stock configuration...

We have to remember that car makers are in the business of selling cars.... the F-Bodies didn't sell, so they are going away.

The reasons for this are varied from reports of poor build quality, shakes and rattles, crappy rear end, all the way to some who think they are just plain ugly...

Just as I would never buy a riced out 800 hp Civic, some would rather be slower than an LS1 and drive a stock Mustang.
Some don't even care what 1/4 mile time their car runs... (although I could never be one of those..

)

All are welcome here to discuss the Mustang, no matter what they happen to drive, that's what makes this forum interesting.

I definately respect the LS1 and I make no judgements on those who drive them. (Although sometimes I have had to roll my eyes when some idiot gives me the old LS1 can "leap tall buildings in a single bound" speech)

At the track it doesn't matter what you drive, it matters who crosses the line first.... but if I cross the line first in a Mustang, so much the better...

06-10-2002, 09:59 AM	#43
wally6761 Registered Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: St Louis Posts: 47	pardon me yes, i meant 4.6, but got carried away by some of the idiotic comments i was reading. all i want is people to to stop saying 'ford is great, everyone else sucks'. it makes ford fans look bad. there's a lot of other great cars out there. if you want to be a ford fan, that's great, but be a car fan too. you can celebrate your own stuff with bashing others.

06-11-2002, 08:12 AM	#47
HawkCMC Registered Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Bartlett, Illinois Posts: 8	You guys are so proud and to afraid to acctually consider that a GM car might just be better then yours. At least I took the time to come over here and attempt to learn about your cars and to help you guys in forums and offer what knowledge I know. But like usual you have to turn this into a my car is better then yours. Its proven that these cars dyno 310 - 315 average at the rear. Modifications over prior years were the addition of the ls6 intake, ls6 block, a new revised cam, and new cast iron exhaust manifolds that out flow the old cast steel ones. So if you figure 17-18% for a manual that means they are putting even more to the crank then I calculated. The only week factor in the ls1 valve train are the push rods, no over revving no problems. and the current ls1 has 10.1:1 compression not 10.5:1. BTW How many mustang cobras have you seen get into the 12's stock? CMC __________________ 1999 Firehawk SLP Lid, Holley Filter Thunder 224 112 lsa Cam Hooker LT Jet Hot Headers, Custom Y Pipe. BMR STB,LCA,SFC,LCA Brackets,Panhard Rod

06-12-2002, 07:22 PM	#49
Hammer AKA "Dr. Evil" Join Date: Feb 1999 Location: South Fork Ranch Posts: 1,721	Well folks, I think this thread has served out its life... After looking everything over, its hard for me to understand someone who comes over to a Mustang board, sings praises about a GM vehicle, and then becomes surprised that some do not agree with their asessment.... Its easy to see that the LS1 makes great power off the showroom floor. To be honest, I don't see anyone debating that... Some F bodies that I've seen on the dyno pull numbers more or less consistant with the published stats from GM. (although they do seem to average on the high side) I have also seen some stock F-Bodies that put out numbers considerably higher than the norm, with absolutely no explaination as to why. I'm not a mechanic, nor an expert on these cars. All I can say is that there seems to be a WIDE margin of what to expect from these things in a stock configuration... We have to remember that car makers are in the business of selling cars.... the F-Bodies didn't sell, so they are going away. The reasons for this are varied from reports of poor build quality, shakes and rattles, crappy rear end, all the way to some who think they are just plain ugly... Just as I would never buy a riced out 800 hp Civic, some would rather be slower than an LS1 and drive a stock Mustang. Some don't even care what 1/4 mile time their car runs... (although I could never be one of those..) All are welcome here to discuss the Mustang, no matter what they happen to drive, that's what makes this forum interesting. I definately respect the LS1 and I make no judgements on those who drive them. (Although sometimes I have had to roll my eyes when some idiot gives me the old LS1 can "leap tall buildings in a single bound" speech) At the track it doesn't matter what you drive, it matters who crosses the line first.... but if I cross the line first in a Mustang, so much the better... __________________ Uncle Sam "What the hell is up with all the gauges? Calling Captain Kirk, your ride awaits... Phasers on stun...."

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Raced a 02' Saleen, 01' cobra, and a freaky LS-1.	Dark_5.0	Stang Stories	29	08-23-2002 07:12 PM
Got in Several races with a 99, or 01 Cobra Vert.	Mercury	Stang Stories	3	11-25-2001 03:20 PM
Cobra Computer	Bangin Gears	Windsor Power	1	04-30-2001 02:38 AM
Safety Recall for 1999 Cobra and 2000 Cobra R	JoeJ	Special Production	0	04-13-2001 08:18 PM

06-09-2002, 11:10 PM	#41
Unit 5302 Registered Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 5,246	For Ford to push the envelope, they'll have to put a quality bottom end into the cars. Doesn't seem like something they're focusing on lately. The 4.6's have junk bottom end parts, and they've even had problems (LOTS) with the cranks on their 5.4 truck engines. The 4.6L isn't a base engine, either. That's the 232ci 190hp 3.8L. That makes .82hp per cubic inch. By the way, the bashing on the Mustang II is way out of place as well. It may have been much like a Pinto, but it kept the name alive while many musclecars completely died. For it's day, the Mustang II was a good handling, light, quick little car. The 139hp 302 V-8 didn't make for extreme performance by any means, but the curb weight of the car was somewhere in the neighborhood of 2700lbs, which made it's 248lb/ft of torque capable of moving the little car out okay. It was right on with the shitty *** junker F body back then too. Less hp, but a hell of a lot less weight. The little Mustang II also had a cool interior, nice gauges, and a comfortable ergonomic setup. Options like a tration lok rear end, 302 (5.0) V-8, 4spd manual or C4 automatic, rally sport interior, and appearance packages kept it right with everything else from that era. My first car was a 1977 Mustang II with the rally pack gauges, brushed aluminum gauge bezels, 302 V-8, and C4 auto. It was a neat little fastback and had 180,000 short trip miles when we had it hauled away. Still ran great too, the body was just shot.

06-10-2002, 10:00 AM	#44
wally6761 Registered Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: St Louis Posts: 47	correction, meant WITHOUT bashing others.

06-10-2002, 08:09 PM	#46
Unit 5302 Registered Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 5,246	I'd be curious to know what the modifications were made after 2000 to increase it by 30rwhp. Generally, there is closer to 17-18% loss on new manual transmissions. There is a new artform out there. It's called BS dyno pulling. A lot of the new dyno's allow you to enter parameters which skew the output, and a lot of shops are more than eager to show inflated numbers because everybody wants to see their car pulling serious power. I feel this is the sole reason for the mystical increase of 40hp. The LS1 isn't notably faster now than it was. An increase of 30rwhp would make most of them borderline 12 cars at more like 109-110mph traps. I haven't heard of that trend. I can say the LS1's valvetrain is weak, and contrary to what I'm being told, I don't believe it's gonna last past 100k. 10.5:1 compression is HELL on piston rings.

06-11-2002, 09:50 AM	#48
TruBluePony Registered Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Cincinnati, Ohio Posts: 57	I believe that the GM cars are faster in stock trim but in no way better. If you take into account everything besides just the horsepower(looks, interior, ride and handling and overall quality) the Mustang wins hands down. And I think you will find that since this is a Mustang board almost everyone who is a member here(with the exception of our GM brother's who come here) would agree, otherwise they would be driving GM's. In fact I would venture to say the rest of the country would agree since it is the GM cars which are being discontinued due to bad sales. Also if you take into account the price differential in the two makes a Mustang owner could take the money saved and invest it in some mods and then be faster also, but that's hypothetical. As far as the Cobra being able to run 12's stock I don't have that answer at hand. But i do know the Mach 1 ran a 12.97 at FFW in Atlanta so I would assume that the 2003 Cobra can definitely run a 12. So a GM car is faster stock. Whoopee.