Ever raced a classic?

Cobain03 · Dec 8, 2004

how does any year cobra compare to a car about like mine..i was thiking of getting a snake but dont want somethin that i would have to upgrade that much. I know the 03 and 04's would prolly leave me but thas the difference between a $7k car and a $30k car

weldonGT · Dec 8, 2004

I had (still have but it is in pieces) a 67 coupe with a 289 that was bored .40 over, 10:1 compression, nearly a .650 lift cam, high rise edel intake, 750cfm carb, full headers...yadda, yadda, yadda....
NO comparison...
The 67 was nice for what it was, but 04 snake would walk it easy, plus the creature comforts etc are much better on the 04.

Cobain03 · Dec 8, 2004

well i knew a 03 or 04 would take it out since those things prolly have over 400 horses since Ford sometimes under rates i think...

what about the 93 or snn95 to 02?

weldonGT · Dec 8, 2004

I can't speak for any other year Cobra, but I did have a 03 Mach1 which, if I'm correct, has the 'old' 4v cobra motors (pre-supercharged). The 03 Mach1 would pull on the '67 I had too...
I think some of this boils down to personal preference....you can def sink some cash into a classic and have a seriously fast car, but it still wouldn't be a Cobra...

Cobain03 · Dec 8, 2004

kinda OT but what kinda gas mileage you get? i know it depends on how many times your foot gets heavy but just normal driving to you..
i get abuot 13 or 14 street use.

weldonGT · Dec 8, 2004

The mach1 I got about 16-17 city...
I've only got about 600miles total on the Cobra so it is still really new but I got about 13 - 14 this last tank, but that should get a bit better once the motor breaks in....if I can keep my foot out of it

wythors · Dec 8, 2004

The difference in ride quality and comfort alone will amaze you if you've never driven a later model mustang. Assuming that what is listed in your signature is all that's been done to your car, any year of Cobra will be a major upgrade for you both in performance and driving experience.

Cobain03 · Dec 8, 2004

yea its all been done

Steedaq · Dec 8, 2004

I don't have a Cobra, but my Steeda is probably similiar powerwise (doesn't mod as well). I raced a near-stock '70 Hemi 'Cuda and smoked him pretty bad. I also ran a built small block '68 Camaro. He had slicks, traction bars, etc.. This was a lot closer race but I still walked him (wasn't from a dig). My girl friend said they weren't real happy.

I've also raced a couple in my stock '99 Stang. I was surprised that I beat a SS396 Nova (probably driver error). I lost pretty bad to a '69 small block Camaro though.

wythors · Dec 9, 2004

Steedaq said:
I
I've also raced a couple in my stock '99 Stang. I was surprised that I beat a SS396 Nova (probably driver error).

I was watching Hot Rod TV on Sunday and they were doing exhaust and headers on the Chevy guy's 68 ss396 Nova. They dyno'd it afterwards and I was shocked that it only pulled 245hp at the rear wheels. I guess they were all torque and not much for horsepower.

Bluehorse · Dec 9, 2004

From the discription of your 65, it sounds like the 289 was originally rated about 225 gross horse power. That would be about 175 net horse power.
With the mods I would say you are in the low 200s in net horse power. This sound about right? You likely weigh in at about 3100 lbs. I had one very similar to it in 1965.

That would put the 99 to 01 cobra or Machs about 100 horse power more than you have, but with about 300 lbs more weight. Big difference in performance, so I think you will like it. Handeling is much better in the new ones.

I still like yours though.

Cobain03 · Dec 9, 2004

well stock weight was said to be around 2700 lbs so yea i dont think another 400 lbs would do much but i dont know abuot weight vs performance stuff. when you are saying net horse, is that at the wheels?

Bluehorse · Dec 9, 2004

In the 60s and early 70s the engines were rated in gross horse power instead of net horse power like they do today. This was at the crank not at the wheels. There's very roughly a 20% difference between the two.

2700# seems a bit low. I believe mine weighed in at just over 3000#.

Cobain03 · Dec 9, 2004

so jsut guessing, how much do you think is being put down at the tire

Bluehorse · Dec 9, 2004

I might need to know a lot more, but if it's as I discribed and you have one of the original type 4 speed manual transmissions, I would say about 180 horse power at the wheels.

Cobain03 · Dec 9, 2004

nope its a 3 spd auto haha man wouldnt a 6 speed be nice

Bluehorse · Dec 9, 2004

A six speed would be gread for sure.

There's a lot of parts you can use to upgrade that engine. Thousands in fact.

The car sure does have the looks though.

stuntin_ · Dec 9, 2004

gross horsepower is with no accesories hooked up to the engine and is measured at the crank...net horsepower from the manufacturer is still at the crank, but with all the accesories(a/c, power steering, alternator etc, etc) hooked up..just to clear that up

Cobain03 · Dec 9, 2004

why dont they just take a finshed car and dyno the thing at the tires...this would solve all the confusion..really, it doesnt really matter what it makes at the crank does it. anyways...how would a sn95 svt's match up to me?

Bluehorse · Dec 9, 2004

It's interesting how much HP the accessories use.
The comparisons are difficult to estimate the HP of some of these older engines in comparison with new ones because some, old and new, are well under rated.
Still, this is fun stuff.

Ever raced a classic?

Active Member

New Member

Active Member

New Member

Active Member

New Member

Get off my lawn!!!

Active Member

Get off my lawn!!!

New Member

Active Member

New Member

Active Member

New Member

Active Member

New Member

New Member

Active Member

New Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency