More modification, a 95 GT or 95 Cobra

Porich2b · 06-17-2001, 12:17 PM

Seen a 95 Cobra with 50,000 for 15,900, looks like a great buy. But does 95 Cobras have more options to mod than the 95 GT's?

SCOTTLT79 · 06-17-2001, 12:33 PM

Hey,
I got a 95 GT and don't get me wrong, I love it but I would say go with the Cobra. There are probably more options to mod a GT but I would think that is just because the Cobra already has more horses than the GT.
My vote: Cobra
later

------------------
95 Red Mustang GT
Pro 5.0
MAC fenderwall cold air induction kit
Mostly stock(looking to modify)

Unit 5302 · 06-17-2001, 12:43 PM

I wouldn't pay anywhere near 16k for a 95 Cobra. They are nice cars with a lot of potential, but I've seen them for 13k. I've seen the GT's as low as 8k in real good shape.

Hell, I've seen the 96 Cobra's for 15k.

SCOTTLT79 · 06-17-2001, 12:48 PM

yeah
I wasn't really taking that price into consideration when I wrote that first reply, If you can get one cheaper than that, go for it but I've also seen then a lot cheaper than that.

mustang17 · 06-17-2001, 01:18 PM

GT all the way! While the cobra comes with 240hp and the GT only has 215hp, for the difference in price you can make the GT much faster. Both are equally easy to mod.

A mint 95 GT with low miles should be around 10K give or take. For the extra 5k you could build an SN95 that would blow the doors off ANY stock cobra.

If it was a 96-98 cobra I'd get that over the GT.

------------------
1995 GT Black- Edelbrock 6037's,Intake,Edelbrock cam,70mm TB,75mm pro-m,Taylor wires, pulleys,Equal length headers,K&N filter
Flowmaster,3.73's, Eibach pro rate springs
lower control arms Centerforce clutch
New motor in the works!

06-17-2001, 01:40 PM

I just sold my 95 Cobra. Yes they will spank a GT up and down the street, but only if they are both stock. The big difference in the GT and the Cobra are the heads, cam, intake and wheels. If you plan on changing them anyways, definately find a GT.

Good luck.

ps, look in the classifieds, there is a guy named Frank in Chicago that's selling a 94 Cobra for a lot less than the one you saw, with a TON of work done to it. Totally set up for a trophy stock type car. Check it out in the classifieds.

Unit 5302 · 06-17-2001, 03:14 PM

You can compare them stock for stock, or mod for mod. The Cobra will be faster stock, and for $1000 less in mods you can get it into the 12's.

You won't be able to finance $1000 of additional mods.

The Cobra also holds it's resale much better, in some cases is cheaper to insure, and it's definately got a lot more prestige.

The difference between the GT and Cobra are numerous.

Brakes, appearance package, Cobra 73mm MAF, 65mm T/B, Cobra intake, 24lb/hr injectors, Cobra cam (not much better than stock), GT-40 heads, Cobra computer (utter pile of crap).

So basically, you start off with a solid intake and heads for free. The cam is okay as well.

The Cobra may just beat the GT pretty solid stock for stock, but pick up some 19lb injectors off Ebay for $20, a fox computer, and you'll annihilate the GT. Add some good exhaust, a better MAF, and some lower gears, and you should run really high 12's or low 13's with some traction.

Oh and just for the record, the Cobra's are underrated. They'll take a stock GT to the cleaners. We're talking over 1/2 sec when they are driven like a wild man.

[This message has been edited by Unit 5302 (edited 06-17-2001).]

06-17-2001, 03:37 PM

Your right, I forgot about the only thing that Ford didn't forget on the Cobra's... The brakes. I never appreciated them until I just bought this LX, these fox brakes blow, and I have 4 wheel disk. In yet another GT/Cobra comparison, the GT has different springs, a stiffer sway bar, a MORE aggressive cam than the Cobra. The GT will handle much better than the Cobra stock for stock. They wanted the Cobra to have a better ride quality than the GT. Mine went 13.0X's at 103-104 with exhaust and gears basically.

Peace-

PS: the only Cobra to ever come with a 65mm TB is the 93'. The 94-95's had 60mm.

Unit 5302 · 06-17-2001, 05:55 PM

Actually the Cobra cam is more aggressive than the GT. It's about midlane between the stock HO cam and the E cam.

The Cobra cam isn't the best by any means, but it should make a little more power than the stock HO cam. Somebody help me out with the lift and duration on the Cobra cam. I think it's .530/.530 with a 208/216 duration with a 112LSA on 1.7:1 Cobra roller rockers.

The stock HO cam is like .444/.444 with a 211/211 duration and a 115 LSA. Even if you added 1.7's you'd get B cam lift with less duration. That would make the Cobra cam more aggressive than the stock cam.

As far as the handling, the Cobra featured lower springs, the bigger sway bar, and bigger brakes 17" wheels and more aggressive tires. Ford did go for ride quality, but they also built the car to be more aggressive at handling. I'd like to see the day a stock GT outhandles a Cobra.

[This message has been edited by Unit 5302 (edited 06-17-2001).]

jetuomi · 06-17-2001, 06:15 PM

Hey Porich2b..

I own a 94GT, and I'm biased only because when I want to upgrade, I want to upgrade to a better intake, better cam, better heads (aluminum), and better MAF, along with a handful of other upgrades..
(ie: the 94-95 cobra has iron heads, lousy cam, the decent intake is about all it has going for it).

In terms of suspension, yes, it has springs that are 1/2" lower, but are softer, it has better control arms (stiffer, I believe they are the heavy duty arms from FMS).. AND, of course, its MUCH more rare!

So, if you can save lots of $$$ by getting a used GT (like mine, with burnt out clutch and tranny), then you're laughing.

hope this helps!

------------------
94 Mustang GT (black on black)
K&N, MAC Shifter, FMS 9mm, 0017" rims, 3.27, 13*, MSD Coil, 180* thermostat, Clear Projectors, Euro Corners

Unit 5302 · 06-17-2001, 08:32 PM

So, since GT-40 heads are iron they are crappy?

Guess 12's just aren't good enough for a set of stock heads. Those heads will flow 85% of what Edelbrocks will flow, and that's for free. True, the combustion chambers are too big, but they are still a solid head for street performance. The bigger combustion chambers should be excellent under a few psi of boost too.

Granted, they aren't a match for aftermarket aluminums for all out potential, but I'd certainly take a set.

I'd say he should expect to save about 3-4k vs a Cobra.

[This message has been edited by Unit 5302 (edited 06-17-2001).]

TEXSN95 · 06-17-2001, 08:49 PM

For one thing the springs aren't lower than a gt. I've had 95 gt and cobra at the same time. Yes the spring rates are softer, and the front sway bar is SMALLER..dunno about the rear. The rear LCAs are the same junk as the GTs. As 9Cobra5 said only the 93s came with a 65 TB. The cam is very comparable to the gt..with only very minor differences...not anywhere near 530 lift. Thats more than the E cam or my 2031. But back to the original question, 15,900 ir too much...I wouldnt pay more than 14 for it. As mentioned earlier it's alot easier to sell one and will hold it's value alot better. Go with the cobra, so you dont have to make a fake one. I saw a 2000 Gt with a SVT emblem on the right side of the decklid and the GT emblem where it should be...I just laughed. What a moron.

------------------
Clint L.
White 95 Cobra #3637
58cc GT40X heads with mild porting, Crane 2031 cam, FRPP 65 TB, 1.7s, Cobra intake, homeade cold air, 155lph, pullies, Tokico Illuminas, C springs, GW LCAs, Kenny Brown super subs, Steeda CC plates, aluminum driveshaft, Steeda quadrant, B&M ripper, Kirban FPR, MSD6A, Taylor wires, Mac shorties, off road hpipe, 2 1/2 ultra flows w/ dumps, R hood, Euro clear corners, stock 3.08s
13.61 @ 104.7 w/ 2.22

06-17-2001, 09:58 PM

Alright UNIT 5202.... I really didn't think that you would have it in you to be so inaccurate about a subject that you keep throwing at us. I'll try to type slow to help you digest. I owned a 95' cobra for along time, great car, but it's not a whole lot more than a GT, that's all we are saying. First of all, 60 mm TB on the Cobra's except for the 93. GT40 heads and Cobra intake, great. GT intake and heads should be used for a boat anchor. The cam is milder, the difference in HP was made up for in the heads and intake, they made the cam slightly different to give it more bottom end torque from what I understand to compensate for the heads and cam, regardless... On paper, the cam is less aggressive. Straight from my Cobra files and I quote "Lower-Linear rate springs were used in place of the GT's progressive rate units as well as a smaller stabilizer bar" Like the previous poster pointed out, the control arms were slightly stronger, but still stamped for stuff. The sway bar was a 25mm in the front and 27 mm in the rear on the Cobra, not sure on the GT, although I know it is smaller. .530 lift??? Emissions, Hello, that's almost what the "F" cam has. You ever heard a "F" cam? Ever heard a "F" cam car next to a Cobra? You never even know the Cobra was running..

Like I said, the Cobra is great. Mine went 13.00's with bolt ons, never having taken off the intake or valve covers. Just trying to nail down some differences. The Trans is a little stronger in the Cobra too, but it's still a T5! It'll break eventually.

Unit 5302 · 06-19-2001, 01:45 AM

Okay my turn to talk REAL slow for you. Take a look at the duration on that cam before babbling about how big it is. The duration is less than a stock HO cam on intake. Not to mention the lift is artificially about 10% higher due to the 1.7:1 roller rockers on the Cobra. IE the stock HO cam would have nearly the same lift as a B cam with the 1.7's.

If you are worried about emissions, you'd be much more concered with a B cams duration. 226 duration .480 lift (.514 with 1.7 roller rockers. That equates to a bunch of overlap, and poor idle quality. Since you stupidly brought up the F cam, let me tell you some stuff about it. .512 lift, big *** 226* duration. Great for superchargers, not so great for emissions. Maybe you'd like to see what happens with 1.7's? .550 lift. Now that's a little huge compared to the Cobra cam isn't it? The E cam, has .498 lift with stock 1.6 roller rockers. If you were to add 1.7's you'd be close to .535 lift, and with a 220 duration. That's also huge compared to a .530 lift 208/216. The duration on the Cobra cam is short, and with a 112 LSA it sacrifices higher rpm performance for better emissions and streetability. That's why the Cobra cam sucks for that car. In case you're wondering the Crane 2040 is the E cam, and the Crane 2020 is the Cobra cam. Go ahead and knock yourselves out looking at the specs.

Appearently I was wrong about the sway bar and lowering suspension. I know the 93 Cobra used 4 banger springs in the back. I'm not sure what suspension changes they made to the 96 Cobra, but it sure does slaughter the GT's in those years for skidpad and slalom performance. I merely assumed that since the 93 Cobra handled better, and the 96+ Cobra's handled better that the SN95's 5.0's should have handled better.

[This message has been edited by Unit 5302 (edited 06-19-2001).]

Casper5.0 · 06-19-2001, 02:50 AM

First things first, i wouldn't pay anywhere near 15,xxx for a 95 cobra. I paid 10,000 for my 94, and i love it. It has a nice ride, is much quieter than a fox body (all i can compare to) and plus people that don't know much about cars think they're they are the phattest thing ever.
Now about the cam in the cobra. I'm not sure about the specs, but i know it's the same cam that's used in the crown vics and other cars that are not designed to produce HP. I can't imagine it having lift like .530 from the factory, but i don't have facts to back that. A cam swap is one of the first things i'm doing in mine, i think i'm gonna go with the E. Don't think this really clears anything up, but just another perspective.

06-19-2001, 08:34 AM

Well, I can't agree with you more that the Cobra cam is a pile... I don't think that it can be compared to any of those Motorsport cams though. Any one of those cams would give a 94-95 Cobra a swift kick in the pants. If you would have said 96 cobra suspension to begin with, we could have saved ourselves some typing. I drove a friends 96 cobra vert which you'd think would be even sloppier than a coupe, and it handled a lot tighter than my 95. Reading about it, in 96 they did stiffen them up a bit I guess. Also, the 94-95's didn't even come with a strut tower brace. I put one on, and it helped a bunch.

See ya-

89 Cobra LX · 06-19-2001, 10:43 AM

Unit, I find the below interesting...

"The Cobra may just beat the GT pretty solid stock for stock, but pick up some 19lb injectors off Ebay for $20, a fox computer, and you'll annihilate the GT. Add some good exhaust, a better MAF, and some lower gears, and you should run really high 12's or low 13's with some traction."

I have been wondering why 24lb injectors were installed on the 93-95 Cobras. It seems like it would be way too much injector for that motor combination. Any idea?

------------------
Eric - 89 Mustang LX coupe

302 - Cobra Intake - GT40p heads - TFS stage 1 cam - FRPP 1.6 roller rockers - Naturally Aspirated

3.73 gears - KYB shocks and struts - Eibach springs - HPM Mega-bite Jr lower control arms - HPM upper control arms

90dpscoupe · 06-19-2001, 01:50 PM

Come on unit....low 13's high 12's just for a computer swap, injectors, grs and exhaust? remember we are talking about an sn95 body, so many people on here are saying they have heads, cam, exhaust, but only going low 14's mid 13's in a sn95, i just thought you knew this stuff better than that, "traction"

lol LOTS of traction launching 4500, 4.10 grs, longtubes, computer swap, maybe 13.40's

------------------
90 lx coupe: 175k miles, steeda water pump pully, hurst shifter, Mac cold air fenderwell, accel supercoil, ADS chip, aluminum D/S, Black magic fan, 3.27grs.
Best time: 13.9116(on 225/60/15 firehawks)
Best mph: 98.17
Best 60': 1.9607

next mods: subframes, mac h-pipe

PureStreet · 06-19-2001, 02:22 PM

Low 13's are easy with exhaust and gears. I went 13.08-13.15 all day long in my 95 cobra with drag radials and stock suspension. The difference is the guy with the after market heads and cam probably has a bunch of cash and can't drive. Mine had short tube headers, 3.73's, mass air, pulleys, chip (instead of a new computer) and a couple other bolt on's. It went 13.60's on the eagle GSC's. And as for the 19 pounders, that's a toss up. That car made 270 at the wheels which is a bit over 300-310 at the crank, well within the 24 pound range.

Peace.

Unit 5302 · 06-19-2001, 06:01 PM

Here's the deal with the 5.0 Cobra's. They were underrated at 240hp. The computer is literally costing them 20+hp. The computer they have stays in closed loop for 7 sec, or nearly an 1/8 mile before it goes out of emissions mode. That kills the acceleration curve. LOL. The car is still trying to pass emissions at 70mph with the pedal to the floor.

The reason why the Cobra's got 24 lb injectors is beyond me. 19lb injectors are fully capable of supporting 350hp. I think it was just a "cool" thing.

Most people are able to dyno 260rwhp with the 5.0 Cobra's with just exhaust, and a couple other little bolt ons. Adding an E cam to the Cobra can produce over 300hp, and that will put you into the real low 13's/high 12's with gears and traction.

You may want to run the idea an SN95 needs cam, heads, intake to run 13's past Mustangbelle306. Her 94GT was able to rip off a 14.0 run with 4.10's & exhaust. How many times have you seen your car quoted as a mid 14 car 90dpscoupe? I know for a fact there are a ton of people running 15's with their fox 5.0's. Even some people with SD. I can't fathom for the life of me why, but appearently they do. My tired 87GT pulled off a 14.19 on the Gtech at 103.8mph. Take 4mph off for high reading, and that's still 100mph trap. I wasn't even tuned. The dumb plugs, cap and rotor were so bad it had a slight miss on low rpm acceleration. Air filter needed cleaning, and I had 100lbs of **** in the back. Running near stock with 146k. In fact, with my 2.95:1 1st gear ratio, I was actually a lot slower out of the hole than with the stock tranny. If the Gtech is anywhere near accurate, with a gear swap, and a tuneup (which has now been done) I've got a mid 13 Stang. You never know until you run it, but that's crazy for the kind of mileage I have, and the feeble amount of mods.

If you put a cam/heads/intake combo on an SN95, and you do it right with a matched combo, with a good driver it's inexcusable to run anything higher than a mid 13. The car is well capable of running high 14's from the factory.

06-17-2001, 12:17 PM	#1
Porich2b Registered Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Posts: 3	More modification, a 95 GT or 95 Cobra Seen a 95 Cobra with 50,000 for 15,900, looks like a great buy. But does 95 Cobras have more options to mod than the 95 GT's?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Rare Mustangs....Got One?	1969Mach1	Blue Oval Lounge	22	09-25-2010 04:59 AM
What's the Difference between 95 GT and 95 Cobra	Ron Brooks	Windsor Power	14	05-25-2005 04:43 PM
Mustang Cobra GT	TransAm86	Blue Oval Lounge	4	11-26-2002 04:05 PM
help me decide cobra or GT	ex-lt1-guy	Modular Madness	38	08-06-2002 07:33 PM
94/95 GT vs. 94/95 Cobra Performance	95mustanggt	Blue Oval Lounge	2	03-05-2001 02:45 PM

06-17-2001, 12:33 PM	#2
SCOTTLT79 Registered Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Raynham, Ma, USA Posts: 189	Hey, I got a 95 GT and don't get me wrong, I love it but I would say go with the Cobra. There are probably more options to mod a GT but I would think that is just because the Cobra already has more horses than the GT. My vote: Cobra later ------------------ 95 Red Mustang GT Pro 5.0 MAC fenderwall cold air induction kit Mostly stock(looking to modify)

06-17-2001, 12:43 PM	#3
Unit 5302 Registered Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 5,246	I wouldn't pay anywhere near 16k for a 95 Cobra. They are nice cars with a lot of potential, but I've seen them for 13k. I've seen the GT's as low as 8k in real good shape. Hell, I've seen the 96 Cobra's for 15k.

06-17-2001, 12:48 PM	#4
SCOTTLT79 Registered Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Raynham, Ma, USA Posts: 189	yeah I wasn't really taking that price into consideration when I wrote that first reply, If you can get one cheaper than that, go for it but I've also seen then a lot cheaper than that.

06-17-2001, 01:18 PM	#5
mustang17 Registered Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Concord, MA, USA Posts: 264	GT all the way! While the cobra comes with 240hp and the GT only has 215hp, for the difference in price you can make the GT much faster. Both are equally easy to mod. A mint 95 GT with low miles should be around 10K give or take. For the extra 5k you could build an SN95 that would blow the doors off ANY stock cobra. If it was a 96-98 cobra I'd get that over the GT. ------------------ 1995 GT Black- Edelbrock 6037's,Intake,Edelbrock cam,70mm TB,75mm pro-m,Taylor wires, pulleys,Equal length headers,K&N filter Flowmaster,3.73's, Eibach pro rate springs lower control arms Centerforce clutch New motor in the works!

06-17-2001, 01:40 PM	#6
9Cobra5 Guest Posts: n/a	I just sold my 95 Cobra. Yes they will spank a GT up and down the street, but only if they are both stock. The big difference in the GT and the Cobra are the heads, cam, intake and wheels. If you plan on changing them anyways, definately find a GT. Good luck. ps, look in the classifieds, there is a guy named Frank in Chicago that's selling a 94 Cobra for a lot less than the one you saw, with a TON of work done to it. Totally set up for a trophy stock type car. Check it out in the classifieds.

06-17-2001, 03:14 PM	#7
Unit 5302 Registered Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 5,246	You can compare them stock for stock, or mod for mod. The Cobra will be faster stock, and for $1000 less in mods you can get it into the 12's. You won't be able to finance $1000 of additional mods. The Cobra also holds it's resale much better, in some cases is cheaper to insure, and it's definately got a lot more prestige. The difference between the GT and Cobra are numerous. Brakes, appearance package, Cobra 73mm MAF, 65mm T/B, Cobra intake, 24lb/hr injectors, Cobra cam (not much better than stock), GT-40 heads, Cobra computer (utter pile of crap). So basically, you start off with a solid intake and heads for free. The cam is okay as well. The Cobra may just beat the GT pretty solid stock for stock, but pick up some 19lb injectors off Ebay for $20, a fox computer, and you'll annihilate the GT. Add some good exhaust, a better MAF, and some lower gears, and you should run really high 12's or low 13's with some traction. Oh and just for the record, the Cobra's are underrated. They'll take a stock GT to the cleaners. We're talking over 1/2 sec when they are driven like a wild man. [This message has been edited by Unit 5302 (edited 06-17-2001).]

06-17-2001, 03:37 PM	#8
9Cobra5 Guest Posts: n/a	Your right, I forgot about the only thing that Ford didn't forget on the Cobra's... The brakes. I never appreciated them until I just bought this LX, these fox brakes blow, and I have 4 wheel disk. In yet another GT/Cobra comparison, the GT has different springs, a stiffer sway bar, a MORE aggressive cam than the Cobra. The GT will handle much better than the Cobra stock for stock. They wanted the Cobra to have a better ride quality than the GT. Mine went 13.0X's at 103-104 with exhaust and gears basically. Peace- PS: the only Cobra to ever come with a 65mm TB is the 93'. The 94-95's had 60mm.

06-17-2001, 05:55 PM	#9
Unit 5302 Registered Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 5,246	Actually the Cobra cam is more aggressive than the GT. It's about midlane between the stock HO cam and the E cam. The Cobra cam isn't the best by any means, but it should make a little more power than the stock HO cam. Somebody help me out with the lift and duration on the Cobra cam. I think it's .530/.530 with a 208/216 duration with a 112LSA on 1.7:1 Cobra roller rockers. The stock HO cam is like .444/.444 with a 211/211 duration and a 115 LSA. Even if you added 1.7's you'd get B cam lift with less duration. That would make the Cobra cam more aggressive than the stock cam. As far as the handling, the Cobra featured lower springs, the bigger sway bar, and bigger brakes 17" wheels and more aggressive tires. Ford did go for ride quality, but they also built the car to be more aggressive at handling. I'd like to see the day a stock GT outhandles a Cobra. [This message has been edited by Unit 5302 (edited 06-17-2001).]

06-17-2001, 06:15 PM	#10
jetuomi Registered Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Waterloo, ON, Canada Posts: 214	Hey Porich2b.. I own a 94GT, and I'm biased only because when I want to upgrade, I want to upgrade to a better intake, better cam, better heads (aluminum), and better MAF, along with a handful of other upgrades.. (ie: the 94-95 cobra has iron heads, lousy cam, the decent intake is about all it has going for it). In terms of suspension, yes, it has springs that are 1/2" lower, but are softer, it has better control arms (stiffer, I believe they are the heavy duty arms from FMS).. AND, of course, its MUCH more rare! So, if you can save lots of $$$ by getting a used GT (like mine, with burnt out clutch and tranny), then you're laughing. hope this helps! ------------------ 94 Mustang GT (black on black) K&N, MAC Shifter, FMS 9mm, 0017" rims, 3.27, 13, MSD Coil, 180 thermostat, Clear Projectors, Euro Corners

06-17-2001, 08:32 PM	#11
Unit 5302 Registered Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 5,246	So, since GT-40 heads are iron they are crappy? Guess 12's just aren't good enough for a set of stock heads. Those heads will flow 85% of what Edelbrocks will flow, and that's for free. True, the combustion chambers are too big, but they are still a solid head for street performance. The bigger combustion chambers should be excellent under a few psi of boost too. Granted, they aren't a match for aftermarket aluminums for all out potential, but I'd certainly take a set. I'd say he should expect to save about 3-4k vs a Cobra. [This message has been edited by Unit 5302 (edited 06-17-2001).]

06-17-2001, 08:49 PM	#12
TEXSN95 Registered Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: college station, tx Posts: 143	For one thing the springs aren't lower than a gt. I've had 95 gt and cobra at the same time. Yes the spring rates are softer, and the front sway bar is SMALLER..dunno about the rear. The rear LCAs are the same junk as the GTs. As 9Cobra5 said only the 93s came with a 65 TB. The cam is very comparable to the gt..with only very minor differences...not anywhere near 530 lift. Thats more than the E cam or my 2031. But back to the original question, 15,900 ir too much...I wouldnt pay more than 14 for it. As mentioned earlier it's alot easier to sell one and will hold it's value alot better. Go with the cobra, so you dont have to make a fake one. I saw a 2000 Gt with a SVT emblem on the right side of the decklid and the GT emblem where it should be...I just laughed. What a moron. ------------------ Clint L. White 95 Cobra #3637 58cc GT40X heads with mild porting, Crane 2031 cam, FRPP 65 TB, 1.7s, Cobra intake, homeade cold air, 155lph, pullies, Tokico Illuminas, C springs, GW LCAs, Kenny Brown super subs, Steeda CC plates, aluminum driveshaft, Steeda quadrant, B&M ripper, Kirban FPR, MSD6A, Taylor wires, Mac shorties, off road hpipe, 2 1/2 ultra flows w/ dumps, R hood, Euro clear corners, stock 3.08s 13.61 @ 104.7 w/ 2.22

06-17-2001, 09:58 PM	#13
9Cobra5 Guest Posts: n/a	Alright UNIT 5202.... I really didn't think that you would have it in you to be so inaccurate about a subject that you keep throwing at us. I'll try to type slow to help you digest. I owned a 95' cobra for along time, great car, but it's not a whole lot more than a GT, that's all we are saying. First of all, 60 mm TB on the Cobra's except for the 93. GT40 heads and Cobra intake, great. GT intake and heads should be used for a boat anchor. The cam is milder, the difference in HP was made up for in the heads and intake, they made the cam slightly different to give it more bottom end torque from what I understand to compensate for the heads and cam, regardless... On paper, the cam is less aggressive. Straight from my Cobra files and I quote "Lower-Linear rate springs were used in place of the GT's progressive rate units as well as a smaller stabilizer bar" Like the previous poster pointed out, the control arms were slightly stronger, but still stamped for stuff. The sway bar was a 25mm in the front and 27 mm in the rear on the Cobra, not sure on the GT, although I know it is smaller. .530 lift??? Emissions, Hello, that's almost what the "F" cam has. You ever heard a "F" cam? Ever heard a "F" cam car next to a Cobra? You never even know the Cobra was running.. Like I said, the Cobra is great. Mine went 13.00's with bolt ons, never having taken off the intake or valve covers. Just trying to nail down some differences. The Trans is a little stronger in the Cobra too, but it's still a T5! It'll break eventually.

06-19-2001, 01:45 AM	#14
Unit 5302 Registered Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 5,246	Okay my turn to talk REAL slow for you. Take a look at the duration on that cam before babbling about how big it is. The duration is less than a stock HO cam on intake. Not to mention the lift is artificially about 10% higher due to the 1.7:1 roller rockers on the Cobra. IE the stock HO cam would have nearly the same lift as a B cam with the 1.7's. If you are worried about emissions, you'd be much more concered with a B cams duration. 226 duration .480 lift (.514 with 1.7 roller rockers. That equates to a bunch of overlap, and poor idle quality. Since you stupidly brought up the F cam, let me tell you some stuff about it. .512 lift, big *** 226* duration. Great for superchargers, not so great for emissions. Maybe you'd like to see what happens with 1.7's? .550 lift. Now that's a little huge compared to the Cobra cam isn't it? The E cam, has .498 lift with stock 1.6 roller rockers. If you were to add 1.7's you'd be close to .535 lift, and with a 220 duration. That's also huge compared to a .530 lift 208/216. The duration on the Cobra cam is short, and with a 112 LSA it sacrifices higher rpm performance for better emissions and streetability. That's why the Cobra cam sucks for that car. In case you're wondering the Crane 2040 is the E cam, and the Crane 2020 is the Cobra cam. Go ahead and knock yourselves out looking at the specs. Appearently I was wrong about the sway bar and lowering suspension. I know the 93 Cobra used 4 banger springs in the back. I'm not sure what suspension changes they made to the 96 Cobra, but it sure does slaughter the GT's in those years for skidpad and slalom performance. I merely assumed that since the 93 Cobra handled better, and the 96+ Cobra's handled better that the SN95's 5.0's should have handled better. [This message has been edited by Unit 5302 (edited 06-19-2001).]

06-19-2001, 02:50 AM	#15
Casper5.0 Registered Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Stillwater, OK Posts: 107	First things first, i wouldn't pay anywhere near 15,xxx for a 95 cobra. I paid 10,000 for my 94, and i love it. It has a nice ride, is much quieter than a fox body (all i can compare to) and plus people that don't know much about cars think they're they are the phattest thing ever. Now about the cam in the cobra. I'm not sure about the specs, but i know it's the same cam that's used in the crown vics and other cars that are not designed to produce HP. I can't imagine it having lift like .530 from the factory, but i don't have facts to back that. A cam swap is one of the first things i'm doing in mine, i think i'm gonna go with the E. Don't think this really clears anything up, but just another perspective.

06-19-2001, 08:34 AM	#16
9Cobra5 Guest Posts: n/a	Well, I can't agree with you more that the Cobra cam is a pile... I don't think that it can be compared to any of those Motorsport cams though. Any one of those cams would give a 94-95 Cobra a swift kick in the pants. If you would have said 96 cobra suspension to begin with, we could have saved ourselves some typing. I drove a friends 96 cobra vert which you'd think would be even sloppier than a coupe, and it handled a lot tighter than my 95. Reading about it, in 96 they did stiffen them up a bit I guess. Also, the 94-95's didn't even come with a strut tower brace. I put one on, and it helped a bunch. See ya-

06-19-2001, 10:43 AM	#17
89 Cobra LX Don Corlione Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Omaha NE USA Posts: 491	Unit, I find the below interesting... "The Cobra may just beat the GT pretty solid stock for stock, but pick up some 19lb injectors off Ebay for $20, a fox computer, and you'll annihilate the GT. Add some good exhaust, a better MAF, and some lower gears, and you should run really high 12's or low 13's with some traction." I have been wondering why 24lb injectors were installed on the 93-95 Cobras. It seems like it would be way too much injector for that motor combination. Any idea? ------------------ Eric - 89 Mustang LX coupe 302 - Cobra Intake - GT40p heads - TFS stage 1 cam - FRPP 1.6 roller rockers - Naturally Aspirated 3.73 gears - KYB shocks and struts - Eibach springs - HPM Mega-bite Jr lower control arms - HPM upper control arms

06-19-2001, 01:50 PM	#18
90dpscoupe Registered Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: sanantonio, Tx, usa Posts: 1,407	Come on unit....low 13's high 12's just for a computer swap, injectors, grs and exhaust? remember we are talking about an sn95 body, so many people on here are saying they have heads, cam, exhaust, but only going low 14's mid 13's in a sn95, i just thought you knew this stuff better than that, "traction" lol LOTS of traction launching 4500, 4.10 grs, longtubes, computer swap, maybe 13.40's ------------------ 90 lx coupe: 175k miles, steeda water pump pully, hurst shifter, Mac cold air fenderwell, accel supercoil, ADS chip, aluminum D/S, Black magic fan, 3.27grs. Best time: 13.9116(on 225/60/15 firehawks) Best mph: 98.17 Best 60': 1.9607 next mods: subframes, mac h-pipe

06-19-2001, 02:22 PM	#19
PureStreet Registered Member Join Date: Apr 1999 Location: Ashburn, VA US Posts: 294	Low 13's are easy with exhaust and gears. I went 13.08-13.15 all day long in my 95 cobra with drag radials and stock suspension. The difference is the guy with the after market heads and cam probably has a bunch of cash and can't drive. Mine had short tube headers, 3.73's, mass air, pulleys, chip (instead of a new computer) and a couple other bolt on's. It went 13.60's on the eagle GSC's. And as for the 19 pounders, that's a toss up. That car made 270 at the wheels which is a bit over 300-310 at the crank, well within the 24 pound range. Peace.

06-19-2001, 06:01 PM	#20
Unit 5302 Registered Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 5,246	Here's the deal with the 5.0 Cobra's. They were underrated at 240hp. The computer is literally costing them 20+hp. The computer they have stays in closed loop for 7 sec, or nearly an 1/8 mile before it goes out of emissions mode. That kills the acceleration curve. LOL. The car is still trying to pass emissions at 70mph with the pedal to the floor. The reason why the Cobra's got 24 lb injectors is beyond me. 19lb injectors are fully capable of supporting 350hp. I think it was just a "cool" thing. Most people are able to dyno 260rwhp with the 5.0 Cobra's with just exhaust, and a couple other little bolt ons. Adding an E cam to the Cobra can produce over 300hp, and that will put you into the real low 13's/high 12's with gears and traction. You may want to run the idea an SN95 needs cam, heads, intake to run 13's past Mustangbelle306. Her 94GT was able to rip off a 14.0 run with 4.10's & exhaust. How many times have you seen your car quoted as a mid 14 car 90dpscoupe? I know for a fact there are a ton of people running 15's with their fox 5.0's. Even some people with SD. I can't fathom for the life of me why, but appearently they do. My tired 87GT pulled off a 14.19 on the Gtech at 103.8mph. Take 4mph off for high reading, and that's still 100mph trap. I wasn't even tuned. The dumb plugs, cap and rotor were so bad it had a slight miss on low rpm acceleration. Air filter needed cleaning, and I had 100lbs of **** in the back. Running near stock with 146k. In fact, with my 2.95:1 1st gear ratio, I was actually a lot slower out of the hole than with the stock tranny. If the Gtech is anywhere near accurate, with a gear swap, and a tuneup (which has now been done) I've got a mid 13 Stang. You never know until you run it, but that's crazy for the kind of mileage I have, and the feeble amount of mods. If you put a cam/heads/intake combo on an SN95, and you do it right with a matched combo, with a good driver it's inexcusable to run anything higher than a mid 13. The car is well capable of running high 14's from the factory.