If you had any reading comprehension skills you would see that I was discrediting magazine times.

I don't know what the CL runs. But with 260hp I figure it ought to be in the low 14s if it can get hooked and if doesn't weigh over 3800 lbs with driver.

The '96-'98 Cobras came with a 4.6L DOHC engine that was rated at 305hp. It was the '99 Cobras that didn't meet their rated power levels, and Ford issued a recall.

I know of plenty of people with '96-'98 Cobras that ran mid-high 13s bone stock.

What cars run in magazines and what they run in real life are two different things.

I think what you meant to say was that you've seen a new Cobra run about a second quicker than a previous one. Which doesn't mean squat.

Your...uh..."logic" is quite impressive.

I stated that the new ones probably run mid-13s. Therefore, using simple logic, according to my theory new Cobras run...mid-13s!. Stop trying to twist what I say into something completely different, lest you continue to make yourself look foolish.

I can believe that. However I'm not afraid of that car. And neither are most "Ford" guys I know. In fact, we're pretty happy about it because we're hopeful that the stiff competition will motivate Ford to put more performance in the Mustang. And for me, it has given me an immediate goal - to beat them. So far I've raced three LS1s: a new Z28 vs. me in my GN, which I beat in about 1/8-mile; a '98 SS Camaro vs. me in my '88 5.0, which beat me off the line because of wheel spin and he help his lead; a new Trans Am vs. me in my '88 5.0 which we started from a roll, but me a car length ahead. I widened the gap but missed a gear. I quickly got it back in and the TA made up some distance but didn't pass. I was over a car length ahead when we let off.

I have a '94 Escort with 150000 miles. Besides the timing belt breaking at 120000 miles, ZERO problems. '88 Mustang with nearly 140000 miles. I broke three transmissions in it. That's because I raced the car all the time and powershifted. And because the Borg-Warner T-5 is a weak transmission (which is why they didn't use them in the L98-powered (5.7L) F-bodies). And the fuel pump started getting weak at around 60000 miles. It would've been fine if I kept the car at stock power levels, but it was inadequate for a car that was capable of running low 13s. The stock pump is only rated a 88lph or something like that. I upgraded to a 110lph and ran a 13.1@108 with it. I also had a '86 Thunderbird with a 5.0. ZERO problems.

It may be true that you have heard 100x worse stories from Ford owners. So have I. In fact, I've heard 100x worse stories from GM owners too. And Dodge owners. And Toyota, Mitsubishi, Audi and Honda owners. But I'm not as narrow-minded as you and I won't say ALL Fords, GMs, Dodges, Toyotas, Mitsus, Audis and Hondas are POSes because of those stories. Because I've also heard some pretty impressive things among owners of said vehicles as well. For instance, I know of a guy with a 5.0 Mustang that drives it 100s of miles every day. It currently has over 400000 miles on it and the valve covers have never been off. Still running great and never had any major problems. A guy was at the strip last year in a turbo Regal with 250000 miles on it. All stock and no major problems after years of driving it to the strip, racing it, and driving it home.

15 hp in the 13-15-second range is only worth .2 seconds in ET and 2mph at the most.

So if a new Cobra runs mid 13s (let's say 13.5 for the sake of argument), then the "same" car with 15hp less should run no worse than 13.7.

You know that for a fact, huh?

Then how do you explain the fact that numerous '98 GTs have run into the mid and high 14s bone stock? How do you explain that numerous '98 Cobras have run in the high 13s bone stock? Could it be that what you know for a fact may not be 100% accurate? Or are your "facts" are based on Las Vegas elevations?

I've been the owner of my '88 Mustang since it was brand new (January 1988) and I've been a student of "Mustangology" since that time. Although my speciality is 5.0s, I generally know what Mustangs are capable of running, based on a lot of experience as well as empirical and anecdotal evidence.

The biggest influence on a 5.0 5-speed Mustang's ET is the launch. The key to good ETs in a 5.0 is an aggressive launch. But it's very tricky. Too much gas and not enough clutch and the tires will go up in smoke, killing ET. Too little gas and the car will bog off the line, killing ET. The best ETs will result if the launch is at the threshold of tire spin, and that's not easy, especially on the stock street radials or any other street tire with practically any wear on it. This is one reason why so many 5.0 owners are running crappy times at the strip. They're running ~96 mph bone stock yet only getting 14.6 at best.

If a good launch is achieved, then to maximize (or should I say "minimuze"?) the ET one will need to powershift at around 5200rpm.

In my fully-loaded (heavy) 2.73 geared (fuel economy) '88 Mustang GT, I managed a 14.4@93 mph lifing my foot to avoid a breakout. That was also with the improper timing setting that I spoke of earlier. Had I kept my foot in it, and if the timing were set properly, I can see 14.3s @ close to 97mph, which is what I'd consider normal based on what other bone stockers were running. Maybe 14.2s with a fresh set of rubber - my tires had two years' worth of wear on them when I ran that and 60' times sucked.

The '87-'92 Mustangs were rated at 225hp and 300 ft-lbs of torque. Ratings dropped in '93 because Ford said they had a new way of rating them. They also said the engines in reality made the same power. The '93 GTs were rated at 205hp.

In '96 the GTs cames equipped with 4.6L SOHC engines rated at 215hp (theoretically this is 10 more hp than the '87-'93 5.0s). But they were also heavier and the computers weren't as "aggressive". But they were still capable of getting into the 14s. Some guys even managed closed to 14.5s with them. In '98 horsepower was bumped to 225.

Some guys on a Maxima board were telling me that they (the '96-'98 GTs) couldn't run in the 14s. So I posted a message on a couple Mustang boards asking who had a one and what they ran bone stock. Most were between 14.5 and 15.0. Then the Maxima guys ate crow.

Why is it that non-Mustang owners and haters think they know more about Mustangs than the people who own them? Very uncool.

I believe there's a cat on the Corral (his handle is steve_cobra) with a '01 Cobra. Register at http://www.corral.net and visit the "Lounge". Then you'll realize all your misconceptions regarding Mustangs and eventually you'll no longer be ignorant in the matter.

[This message has been edited by lyonsd (edited 05-16-2001).]

Originally posted by SpeedyRonin:

I couldn't find any information on the '98 Cobra, but this is what I found:

Motor Trend: '99 Ford Mustang SVT Mustang Cobra -- 320hp/315tq; 0-60 5.4 sec, 1/4 in 13.9

Road & Track: '99 Ford Mustang SVT Mustang Cobra -- 320hp; 0-60 5.5 sec, 1/4 in 14.1

Now I'm sure a good driver can pull mid- to high 13's from a '99 Cobra -- I just find it hard to believe the same can be done with a '98 model, being that they had 15 less hp/lb-ft tq.

the '98 cobras have a solid rear axle, the '99 and '01 cobras have irs. apparently, launching the irs cobras is a little bit trickier than the live axle versions, and combined with the initial horsepower deficits of the '99s, means that, for a while there, the '98s were actually faster than the newer cars


The times above are nearly identical to a regular Mustang GT -- let's just say .2 seconds faster -- which is strange to me. The Mustang GT only has 260hp and is just a little slower than the Cobra. Not to be sarcastic, but what's so special about the Cobra for that extra $5k? I know they have 17" wheels standard, but what else? [Just asking.]

well, you also get the twin cam 4 valve engine and independent rear suspension, for a start.

I know for a fact that the '98 GT average 1/4 is 15.0 seconds. Taking the above into consideration, I'd figure the '98 Cobra can achieve mid-14's with a good driver.

I can offer the timeslips of an admittedly average '98 cobra owner who runs mid 13s. of course, he's also run 17s, but cut him some slack - cobras are only manual, and that gives you at least 3 more places to screw up a run (clutch at launch, 1st to 2nd and 2nd to 3rd shifts) versus an automatic. this fact can cause wide variations in manual runs at the strip (for any car)

Since we're on the subject of Fords, when is the new Cobra going to be released? Any major redesigns to Mustangs -- also Camaros and Firebirds? I heard there's a rumor that they're going to stop producing the current F-bodies, is this true?

the 2001 cobras are out as far as I know.



[This message has been edited by tankmonkey (edited 05-18-2001).]

Thanks for the info guys. I barely have any knowledge on domestics, so I'm gonna stop there. I shouldn't base my observations on just a couple of '98 Cobra kills and numerous pre-99' GT kills, after all they were just street races, not races on the track. Mustangs are really not my problem, it's 90% of the Mustang drivers out there. All of those high school and college kids' parents who bought them the GT or Cobra for their birthday present or whatever think they own the streets -- some even claim to beat Trans Ams and Corvettes, etc. You know what I'm talking about. Well, peace

Patrick

------------------
'01 Black/Tan CL-S w/ Navi & spoiler
AEM CAI
Comptech headers & sway bars
Toyo Proxes T1-S 235/45ZR17 tires
15% tint, Infinity Perfect sub/PPI amp

'97 Acura Integra LS

"You don't need a shopping cart wing to go fast..."

Oh yea, don't forget about the XJ220. That would be a hard kill

[QUOTE]I know for a fact that the '98 GT average 1/4 is 15.0 seconds. Taking the above into consideration, I'd figure the '98 Cobra can achieve mid-14's with a good driver.

I got the timeslips Tankmonkey was talking about, 96-96 Cobras stock s/b around 13.6-13.9 stock. 96-98 GTs are pretty slow stock, around 15.0...

(oh, don't mind the mods in sig, times posted are stock times)...

------------------
------------------
98 Ford SVT Cobra - Black/Tan
#3035 of 5174
13.759 @ 102.41 - 2.015 60' on stock BFGs
K&N(removed silencer)
Gutted MAF
Foglight rewire
Steeda Tri-Ax (Low Setting)
Steeda u/d Pulleys
Steeda T/A (Set @ 14*)
BBK o/r H-pipe with MIL simulators
Kuhmo ECSTA 712s

The new mustang GT's are weak as fuck. their TCS is practically non-existant meaning that they are all over the road within seconds of their clutch-roasting start. the GT's only have what like 260 hp right? thats only 30 hp more. plus they weigh a shit load with that huge engine that produces no torque. plus if the guy misses, then you can take him for sure. I'd rather take a 5.0 myself. Any well kept up 5.0 with a decent driver behind it would smoke any modded out CL-S hands down.

------------------
97 Black on Black 2.2CL
limo tint all around
1 alpine 12 in the trunk powered by an mtx amp

pics soon to come.

i was also wondering if you guys remember why you bought your car. nor because its fast, but because of how nice it is on the inside. thats the main reason or you would have and bought the mustang for $5000 less.

------------------
97 Black on Black 2.2CL
limo tint all around
1 alpine 12 in the trunk powered by an mtx amp

pics soon to come.

huh?

Your a bastard oreo....TYPE-S Envy...a new syndrome...

------------------
2001 Cl-S Black on Black with Navigation
Black Tint all around (15%~45%)
Weapon-R Dragon Filter
Weapon-R Coil-Overs
Koni Adjustable Struts
Comptech Sway Bars
Comptech Headers (hehehe...I got something for you drchang!!)
14.698 @95.977mph....Sears Point Raceway.I think I need a Level 10 Torque Converter!!
Yes, I know I'm going to hell for wasting gas on Civics....
My Peoples

I would never, EVER race a GNX or anything that resembles it. When those things are souped up they can pop wheelies like motorcycles. Wouldn't want to be next to a car that's front bumper raised 5 ft off the ground =0

On a side note, all you guys who live to drag race should take a look into getting GNX's. The guy in the C5 will think your in a granny car and will wonder why your laughing at him... until you flat out blow his doors off that is =)

We bought our car because it can compare to most V8 (Mustang GT, Mercedes 430, BMW 540, etc.) performance and handling specs (if not, then just add a couple of bolt-ons, which should cost no more than $2000), with most of the luxuries of a Lexus, Mercedes, BMW, etc. without having to break our bank. This shouldn't be the car to dream of, although it is a cheaper alternative to the person who is saving every penny for that BMW 330ci. Think of it as a reliable, luxury (and quick) domestic. For $30k, that's a steal if you ask me (and that's why it's in my garage right now ).

Patrick

------------------
'01 Black/Tan CL-S w/ Navi & spoiler
AEM CAI
Comptech headers, springs & sway bars
Toyo Proxes T1-S 235/45ZR17 tires
15% tint, Infinity Perfect sub/PPI amp

'97 Acura Integra LS

"You don't need a shopping cart wing to go fast..."

WELL YOU GUYS WITH THE BORING CL-S'S CANT BEAT ANYTHING VERY FAST ID SAY. OR SHOULD I SAY TO ME VERY FAST.

------------------
1.2001 GS430 HKS exhaust, TRD headers, 19in Konings, H&R springs.
2.2001 Corvette Z06 Doug Thorley headers, Borla cat back exhaust, 18in Team Loco's, Eibach Springs, Koni adj. shocks.
3.1998 328i (for now), 18in. Fittipaldi's.
4.soon maybe a TL-S

Learn how to fucking talk bitch. Your post doesn't make sense at all.

hey zoom zoom fuck, you proclaim to have all these cars i would love to see some pics...please do not show me some pics that you took in a dealer show room or out in a publix's supermarket parking lot....also why do you post here when you do not even have a fucking acura you must have a lot of time on your hands....i am also sure that all the cars you say you have are all in mini version like (matchbox)cars or are in the magazines you read....i also presume your about 14 and feel the need to make your manhood evident but in your case your'e just a little punk that likes to talk lies and bullshit....your a big dickhead

------------------
"EVERY SECOND A DUMBASS IS BORN"

yeah learn how to talk btw who puts konigs on a brand new gs430 and they are spelled konigs not konings cockmaster

------------------
2001 3.5 cl type s,custom voltage blue paint job, comptech headers, 18 inch ssr agle strusse rims(painted voltage blue with chrome lip), greddy evo exhaust, cross drilled rotors, pioneer avx 7000 tv, dvd player, camera, aem cold air intake,nos fuel pressure regulator, piaa ion yellow fog lights, slammed on nex suspension (level ten torque converter, dommed topped pistons, mdx crankshaft, rods , bearings, heads ported and polished,type r powder coated red engine covers
INFECTED WITH POST WHORE SYNDROME

You should think about changing your handle to the way you must feel about yourself:

DOOM, NO-ZOOM, GLOOM, WIPED-MYSELF-WITH-A-BROOM




------------------
Silver 2001 CL-S with NAVI

• Toyo T1S 235/45ZR17-97W* Proxies on 17x8" SSR Competition wheels (50 lbs less than stock)
• Comptech headers & sways
• Silver AEM CAI
• 14 coats of Zaino magic
• NEUSPEED Upper Strut Tie Bar ordered
• Stainless Brake lines coming (Brembos?)
• V1 ordered

don't waste your time on this a-hole, he gets off on it.


------------------
01 BLK/BLK CL-S, FACTORY SPOILER, K/N DROP IN V-1
dom 11/00, g-tech
98 INFINITI I30T(auto)
99 MAXIMA SE(auto)
lazy shifter

anyways, getting back on the subject...
can the cl-s stock smoke the mercedes slk and clk? sorry, i dont have their stats handy...i would like to know the slk and clk's 1/4 times...
i wouldnt be surprised if the slk and clk can smoke the cl-s....they are different price classes...and perhaps more luxurious?


(excuse me if im talking out of my ass)