gt-40 vs cobra intake

[Dark_5.0]

The GT-40/Cobra/explorer intake are all pretty much the same. They all three share the same lower intake.

The GT-40 intake looks nice but the cobra and explorer intakes are better IMO.

The GT-40 upper intake doesnt have any room for future porting.

The explorer intake is the cheapest of the three at 150-200 bux and it performs equaly as well if not better. I have had all three and I prefer the cobra intake. It looks better than the explorer and had extra meat for some port work unlike the GT-40.

[Gs835.8Stang]

I have to agree with Dark5.0. I had each of them (GT 40 and Cobra) on a 89 convertable at one point or another and there was virtually no performance difference between the two of them. The car ran a 13.10 with the Gt 40 and a 13.20 with the cobra, MPH was virtually the same at 107 GT and 104 with the cobra, both of those were best times, no slicks and I couldn't hook up at all. I walked it out of the hole, but still spun pretty badly till the top of 3rd gear, I think I had like a 2.10 60 FT time) I like the cobra best as well, the GT40 may be a couple of pounds lighter, but that's about it. Honestly, if I were you, I would look into Edelbrock's intakes for the 5.0. Their performer RPMII is a damn nice intake that performs well. (A friend of mine works for a speed shop, and I have seen various ones dyno tested), just some food for thought.

[blue50lx]

There is an article about them two intakes in the newest 5.0 magazine. Comparing them both and tell which is better for whatever reasons.

[tmoss]

The GT40/Cobra/Explorer is a better intake for heads with less than 170-180cc runners. One of my customers switched to an RPMII and lost torque and HP across the rpm band..........

[Dark_5.0]

Originally Posted by tmoss

The GT40/Cobra/Explorer is a better intake for heads with less than 170-180cc runners. One of my customers switched to an RPMII and lost torque and HP across the rpm band..........

Do I need a different intake?

My heads have 192cc runners.