thats what a 5spd subaru forester with a turbo 210 hp flat 4 runs in quarter and completely stock!!!!! check this months car and driver issue..............i know its totally off topic but had to post.

 

you gotta remember that C&D times are for outright runs, and not for your normal drag strip runs...But yeah, that is pretty damm fast

 

that MUST be with a clutch-killing, high RPM, AWD launch. no doubt about it.

3.5L maximas are only running 14.3s and 14.4s when they trap out at 97 MPH.

 

Crap, and my dad wanted to get the Forester...

I'm kidding, I love the Max.

 

It's crazy how cars these days are so fast bone stock. You know how you hear about the good old days of the 60s and how fast the cars were? *** that, today is the hayday! Modern cars absolutely destroy the cars of the 60s. Sure maybe a few models of the 60s were good straight line performers but ask those cars to stop or turn a corner. How about put them up some mountain at -20 degrees and ask those cars to run right or even let alone start. How about a car built in the 60s that can do a 12 second 1/4 mile and get 25mpg? I don't think so!

The next time I hear some guy tell me how the muscle car era was the best I am going to flip my lid!

 

That's almost certainly an error. The weight/hp ratio is no where near a 13 second quarter, and no way the trap would be 97 mph on a 13.8 run. I highly doubt that it's faster than a WRX, and 0.2 seconds off an STi.

 

actually, he's right, it is faster than a WRX

 

With that trap speed... thats not possible....

 

Yeah i got that issue a few days ago and said the same thing, WTF!

 

why not, it weighs 3300 lbs, and c&d drivers are brutal on the cars. rev the hell out of the motor, dump the clutch, and let the AWD take over. gets off the line very quickly, but doesn't make all that much hp. makes sense to me anyways

 

the 60' on those cars must be crazy fast, the beauty of no wheelspin

 

Don't flip your lid.

The muscle cars from the 60s were very fast, and VERY powerful, don't underestimate. But they achieved their blistering performance differently.

1) No computer engine controls
2) Carburetors - you had to live with them to really understand that fuel mixture was a compromise, changed at every load/rpm level
3) Ignition points/condensor
4) Heavy vehicles and poor chassis dynamics - lotsa power was wasted, but who cared when so much was being produced?

Also, the SOUND of a belchfire V8 at full throttle, the feel of gears banging against the torque, that's something that is rare these days.

I remember my neighbor's 1968 428 Cobrajet would pull low 13s, not much faster than a Max on paper- but a much wilder ride! One of my closest friends had a 1971 Buick GS 455 Stage 1 with Kenne Bell valve gear mods, he was pulling almost 500 HP and 600 LB of torque thru a THM 400 on a 4000+ LB car. You had to experience this black-on-white beauty to appreciate its capabilities - tap the pedal, burn rubber. Their ain't many around anymore.

Computer engine controls are the greatest thing to happen to the auto and performance auto industry.

 

It's got the exact same 2.5 STI engine, cams, the XT even has the sodium filled valves.

I was blown away when I saw the article, the best deal going for a car with speed (13 second for 25,000) is an SUV.

Horsepower is way underrated on that car.

 

....Unless you have a 2k3 Cobra..

 

Oh, yeah!

I just saw on TV a review of the "new" Mach 1, it's .7 seconds slower than the Cobra to 60 at 5.2 seconds, costs $5k less.

 

Too bad the cobra and Mach1 cant take a corner!

Straight line is their only function.

For the price i would probably buy an Evo or STI.

 

Im not sure if you've driven a 2k3 Cobra..It can take a corner real well, and what it loses against an EVO, it will more than make up as it makes some REAL power coming off the turn !

 

The power was produced through very high compression and big displacement with a fuel waisting carburetor.

I did live with carburetors and have always hated them

There is no doubt they were powerful cars and yes I have experienced many late 60s early 70s muscle cars. One of my favs was a '66 Chevelle with a LS6 454 transplant mated to a Muncie 4 speed.

All in all their only strong points (from a performance stand point)were the 1/4 mile and that was 13-14 seconds on average for your best contenders. On the other hand get behind the wheel of a nicely restored '70 Chevelle or Roadrunner, that is some character.

 

Im just sayin that i think the Evo or STI has a better package
-it handles better, good power, good braking- But its hard to compare the Cobra to the STI. they have were built for different functions..

Some people like going straight, feeling the pull and launchs. Others like holding a corner and feeling G's

 

Although the Cobra chassis was designed in 1979 it does ok with it's IRS bolted on. Weight distribution is a joke with that big iron engine up front, king of like a FWD car

 

I beg to differ. A Cobra and a Mach 1 can handle very well. As good as a 350Z (if you read a recent comparo).

I have even seen a Firebird WS6 on a very tight autox, and he did pretty well. All these rumours that Mustangs and F-body's cannot handle are unfounded. They can and do handle well!

 

Very Good!!!

Besides anyone who wants to test their car lines them up in a straight line. You will never see two people who are arguing over who's car is faster go to a corner and say "let's see who can go around that faster." Using the usual, "well my car can handle better than yours" is the same excuse for having a slower car as "my car has more hp per liter."

The Cobra has crazy potential for very little money, doesn't have a boy racer wing on it, and it would not be walked by a neon SRT-4 on the highway.

 

You guys don't know much about drag racing, huh? Trap speeds go down dramatically when you ae actually hooking. I was running 13.6's@97-98mph in my Mustang, with 1.80 60's. MPH has little do do with 1/4 mile racing, it's just a number.

 

Well you will see poeple arguing over who can turn faster at the auto-x! Btw, the class champion over here is a lady in a 95 Mustang V6.

Here's a video of the Firebird on the auto-x course:
http://individual.utoronto.ca/anooj/...ebird_divx.avi

For reference, here's a video of me in my stock Maxima on worn out all-seasons on the same course:
http://individual.utoronto.ca/anooj/...axima_divx.avi

 

I totally agree.

None of the specs on this car netout to a 13.8sec ET OR a 97mph trap!!! The testers @ C/D must have have been drafting off a Ferrari Enzo.

 

Anybody talking about autox:

Autox IMO is a bad example of how a car "handles". A real roadcourse is a much better example. Anyone with road racing experience knows what I mean and I don't want to type my fingers numb explaining myself.

 

True, because the car's performance heavily depends on the course. But at the same course, you can compare one car's time to another.

Too add to the road courses, I have also seen a few F-bodies and Mustangs at MOSPORT International Raceway here in Canada. I don't know how well they did since it was lapping day.

 

Put down your crack pipe and sober up. The Cobra is built to be more as a twisties car than a drag car. If they wanted it to be straight line only it would have come with a solid rear axle like in the GT.

 

 

 

Ok i know the Cobra does not handle like ****, infact they got great reviews from C&D "best mustang ever produced"! Yes, have driven and been in my friends black 03 and its an awesome sports car with gobs of torque, very short throws with the gears, a stiff suspension and clutch.
(got to put all your weight into the dang thing) Its an bada$$ car


All im doing is comparing it to an STI's AWD standard of handling thats all! I just think a STI or EVO is a little better package and cheaper (depending on the dealer). Thats my opinion...

 

Like I asked, I was wondering if he has driven one. It is in no way like my 89 LX . This beast is made to handle, come off the turn and still hand you your lunch. Dave is right on the trap speed issue. My WS6 handled like a **** , so Im not sure what your talking about. I know import lovers have always pointed to that when they bash the V8's that hand them their lunch for years....

 

It's pretty much unfair to compare anything to the EVO or STI in handling. Have you seen the video named "JDM vs. the World" ? The EVO was in 3rd place trailing the heels of the Skyline GT-R which in turn was all up in the Porsche 911 Turbos' a$$ in the turns.

 

Where can I find this video?

 

What it comes down to is that I dont care how fast an EVO is , or how it handles.... It looks like a ricer car....Its what Civic owners graduate to , when they cash in their trust funds....

 

racingflix.com

 

That's the great thing about AWD... They can just grip right off the line and get a 60ft of like less then 1.8. That's if they know ow-to launch.

 

Too bad Ford doesn't know how to make big HP without a supercharger.

 

"Motortrend: August 2003

Subaru Forester 2.5 XT
2.5L/210hp turbocharged H-4, DOHC, 4 valves/cyl

0-60 = 8.5 sec."

Detuned STI engine. Not a 13sec quarter mile car. Sorry.

 

In all fairness, the 2000 Cobra R had an N/A 5.4L V8 that put out a similar 385hp/385lb-ft. However, John Coletti (SVT's Chief Engineer) felt that the S/C 4.6L is a bit more civilized than the NA 5.4L.

As for handling, a Cobra is NOT some ill-handling V6 Mustang; it WILL outhandle most performance cars from Japan's automakers, twisty roads or not.

My $.02!!