Ditto!Pitch Black said:Im also considering going back to the 96-98 4.6's, but I'd ONLY go DOHC!
Do you really think so? Honestly, ther're amongst the slowest year Cobra's going. Couldn't crack 13's to save it's life. Not taking away from the rest of the car, but a powerhouse, it was not.95CobraStang said:It was severly underrated at 240hp and 285 tq. It was a blast to drive. It had the 5.0 motor. No probs with it whatsoever.
reeber said:... Also, being a modular engine, it can take much more horsepower on the short block than a 5.0 can...
I think he forgot to mention "after you upgrade the pistons and rods."302 coupe said:thats absolutely hilarious
Gearbanger 101 said:Do you really think so? Honestly, ther're amongst the slowest year Cobra's going. Couldn't crack 13's to save it's life. Not taking away from the rest of the car, but a powerhouse, it was not.
Pitch Black said:How would you compare the 95 and your 01?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not downing your car. I was just touching on the fact that it could have easily been made so much better had Ford not been so concerned about playing the numbers game with the transition of the Fox/SN-95 chassis. FWIW, the GT of the same year was actually Ford rated at 215hp, not 225hp, due to the lower profile, more restrictive T-Bird intake manifold and a couple of other small odds and ends. The problem with the Cobra is that although it’s chalked full of go fast goodies, it’s saddled with (although better than the stock for that year) a more restrictive version of the Cobra intake manifold that was introduced on the earlier Fox based Cobra, less than stellar profiles of the ’93 Thunderbird/Cougar camshaft and a computer that pulls timing and fuel like crazy under hard acceleration. Although I admit, they’re probably underrated a little, I wouldn’t bet it’s by more than about 20-25fwhp. These cars would have pulled a lot harder from the factory had they been saddled with the stock GT cam and computer. Still an awesome car, it’s just that ford left a lot of room on the table for improvement power wise.95CobraStang said:O I definately believe so. When comparing to the GT of the same year (rated 225), with only 15 hp less. You gotta think about it: Cobra intake, different cam, 24lb injectors instead of 19...and a few more things. How are you gonna tell me it is only 15 more hp at the fly than a GT of that year? I never dynoed it, but when driving a supposedly 225 hp GT and my 240 hp Cobra, it was night and day. It also responded great to just an off road h-pipe.
I definately don't call it fast by modern Cobra standards, as it was most definately not...but that wasn't the question anyway. I also know that it is not a 4v, which is the cars you are comparing it to. Lastly, it does not carry a price tag much higher than a GT of the same year.
Gearbanger 101 said:Don’t get me wrong, I’m not downing your car. I was just touching on the fact that it could have easily been made so much better had Ford not been so concerned about playing the numbers game with the transition of the Fox/SN-95 chassis. FWIW, the GT of the same year was actually Ford rated at 215hp, not 225hp, due to the lower profile, more restrictive T-Bird intake manifold and a couple of other small odds and ends. The problem with the Cobra is that although it’s chalked full of go fast goodies, it’s saddled with (although better than the stock for that year) a more restrictive version of the Cobra intake manifold that was introduced on the earlier Fox based Cobra, less than stellar profiles of the ’93 Thunderbird/Cougar camshaft and a computer that pulls timing and fuel like crazy under hard acceleration. Although I admit, they’re probably underrated a little, I wouldn’t bet it’s by more than about 20-25fwhp. These cars would have pulled a lot harder from the factory had they been saddled with the stock GT cam and computer. Still an awesome car, it’s just that ford left a lot of room on the table for improvement power wise.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?