Hey guys,

Just reporting my latest kill. On my way to work, happened to line up against a 5.0L mustang. Don't know that much about Stangs, assuming it was a 92 or 93.

Anyhow, it was a weird start because I think we were both waiting to see if the other guy wanted to race. Light turns green and we both start off normally, then I speed up a bit and he matches speed. Then he speeds up a bit and I match speed. I speed up some more and this time when he matches my speed I floor it in first. I hear him floor it - can't miss the sound of that 5.0L.

Shift into second with a nice chirp and start to pull ahead. I kept pulling through 2, shifted into 3 rd and shut it down at about 140 km/h with a car length on him and gaining. He went zooming by then slowed down.

I guess they don't have a lot of top-end because it seemed after 100 km/h I was pulling on him even faster, one of the reasons I shut her down so early.

After we decided to drive normally again, I noticed the back of his car said Cobra. Anybody know if "Cobra" actually means anything for this generation Mustang or is it only cosmetics/body cladding?

 

Good run. Though it seems he either didn't know what he was doing or was just playing with you. At 100kmh (around 62mph) that's still rather slow for a real race and he probably didn't push it as hard...

I could be wrong though.

 

I believe that in the late 90's (I think 97) was went the Cobra designation meant something better under the hood. Prior to that it was label under the SVO (Yes I mean SVO) badge. Cobra for those years was just better "options" that were standard.

 

Actually, Ford made the Cobra model on the 4th gen mustangs in 1993. The engine was the 5.0l, except it had a different intake (and maybe some other crap). It dynoed at 245hp instead of the 225hp from the normal GT. If the car you raced was the "old" body style mustang, than it could have been one. The keys are this: It only came in three colors (Red, Black and aqua green), it had a bigger spoiler off the rear deck and the rear taillights were different, as well as the front grille and chin spoiler. In 1995 they came out with the next gen cobra, which also had the 5.0l engine, and that car also had only 245hp vs 215hp of the GT. It wasn't until 1996 that the 4.6l engines replaced the 5.0's and you started to get the basic cobra that you see today (305hp-330hp)

The car itself is pretty darn light if it's a 4th gen cobra. However, like all mustangs, it is not that fast after 90mph. The car was made for low end torque and 0-60, not 80-120.

 

 

I'm just saying, at roughly 60mph i wouldn't consider that "top-end".

 

My friend has a 93(I think) red cobra. It's 245 HP. I've rode in it a lot also when he raced some cars. I just got a 02 6 speed. Maybe I could race him and let everyone know. From just riding in the cobra I think it would be a close race with a 2k2 6 spd.

 

It was definitely red and had a spoiler. I don't remember if it had a chin spoiler or not. I just remember seeing "Cobra" written on the back.

 

In Canada, all the '87-'93 Mustangs GTs were called Cobras, as opposed to the US GTs which were just 'GT's.

 

I happen to own both an older Mustang GT and a 2002 Maxima SE. From a stop, a stock Mustang is very hard to beat (torque = 300+ stock). If the Stang is stock, I feel a Maxima could probably hang with and maybe even pass a Mustang in the top end (I have driven my Stang to 143 MPH). Keep in mind... Mustangs take to power mods like a fish does to water... It doesn't take much to make them *very* fast (ie. $89 underdrive pulleys are dyno proven for 11 RWHP... $900 heads can be good for 70 dyno-proven HP). The market for Mustang mods is also saturated so most Stangs of that era are probably modified to some extent.

It sounds like you beat him pretty easily... maybe his car was an auto? The automatic in Mustangs severely hurts performance... it basically sucks. The 5-speeds are much more fun.

Also, in Canada, all regular Mustang GTs are badged as Cobras.

 

Agree 100% !

 

Thats pretty darn impressive if you are stock and beat a 93 Cobra. The Cobra's had a higher flowing intake manifold and exhaust. It was better at the top end than GT's although still not a "beast" like say..the new LS1's. Can anyone verify what axle ratio the 93 Cobra's came with? I know the GT's had 2.73s which was really was a poor decision by Ford.

It doesn't take much to make them *very* fast (ie. $89 underdrive pulleys are dyno proven for 11 RWHP... $900 heads can be good for 70 dyno-proven HP). The market for Mustang mods is also saturated so most Stangs of that era are probably modified to some extent.

The Maxima's take mods well also, but were you modified at all Eric?. The UR pulley for maxima's make 9hp and 11tq. Which brings me to my next point. A '93 Cobra is not likely to be stock. It's probably changed hands a few times and picked up a few mods here and there by enthusiasts who typically drive these cars. But judging by the outcome of the race, it definitely wasn't heavily modified. Perhaps it was a Mustang "Cobra" driven to the states from Canada.

Good run. Though it seems he either didn't know what he was doing or was just playing with you. At 100kmh (around 62mph) that's still rather slow for a real race and he probably didn't push it as hard...

He said he shut it down around 140km/h.

Just looking in my August '93 Motor Trend issue here, the '93 Cobra is rated at 235hp@5000rpm and 285tq@4000rpm. The quarter mile is listed at 14.6@96.5mph. Strangely enough the '92 GT is rated at 225hp and 300tq. Wonder where the 15lbs of torque went in the Cobra?


Jesse

 

I know where the power went.... That 225 HP/ 300 torque rating was done for the 1987 model year. The cars were unchanged in 1988 (except for California cars, which changed to a mass air flow meter from a speed-density intake). Starting in 1989, all Stangs got the mass air metering system which resulted in a 3 HP loss. This mass air system cost a few Horsepower but made the cars easier to modify. Anyway, each year, Ford made "improvements" to the engine to deal with noisy valves and such.... Each of these running changes resulted in some lost ponies. To top that off, Ford changed the way they measured horsepower in 1993... which caused the HP & torque numbers to decline further on paper.

 

i agree with that one, the mustang when modded right will haul a$$ but the auto does hurt performance a friend of mine has a 96 gt auto and im in a 2k max auto weve ran a few times and ive won each time but on the other had i had my a$$ handed to me by another guy in town with a 96 gt 5spd but his was also modded out too

 

No mods, purely stock.

It sounds like I went up against regular GT Mustang given that "Cobra" doesn't appear to mean anything in Canada for that generation.

I'm pretty sure he was manual, but I could be wrong. Either way, it was a good run. Almost as good as the time I went up against a Firebird Formula V8.

 

After 9 years those Stangs are lucky to be running on 7 cylinders

 

Not so....

I have 2 89 5.0's, both on the original engines, one is stock and has the original automatic and original sparkplugs and runs 9.7 in the 1/8th mile, and the other one is supercharged and runs mid/low 12's w/75,000 miles. Those engines can take a ton of abuse and still run great.

--Ray

 

The 5 liter engines in Mustangs of that era are known to be bullet nearly proof. The block is safe up to 600 HP before it needs strengthening.

 

How come Mustangs/Camaro's take so well to mods? Is it becuase they are RWD? Is it becuase they usually have more displacement?

It's kindof a downer to have FWD...I always wonder how we would perform if we had RWD.

 

Here on the .ORG we're always debating about the Max and the TL-S/CL-S...if only we had RWD too...

 

I have a theory... mods usually improve upon or remove some sort of restriction in the design of a stock motor. They make an engine run more efficiently. The smaller displacement of a 6 cylinder engine requires that designers spend more time refining their design...removing flow restrictions...enhancing timing etc.. There is less room for improvement (so there is less response to mods). In a way, our 6 pot Maximas are already "tweaked" from the factory because they HAVE to be to make power. Lets face it... 255 HP from a 3.5 engine is pretty darn good. The V8s found in Mustangs/Cam-Birds have more displacement so efficiency is not as big an issue for designers... They inherently make more power due to their size. What this leaves is more room for improvement so these engines seem to "respond" better to mods but what is really happening is that their was just a lot more room for improvement.

Case in point: By simply bolting on a set of heads on a '87 to '95 Mustang, you can pick up 70 HP (no joke). This seems great but what it really amounts to is a design weakness. Why didn't they just bolt these on at the factory?? On a smaller engine... designers HAVE to address head flow issues if they want to make "stock" power.

This fact is becoming less true with recent V8s. The 2003 Mustang Cobra will produce 390 horses. I'm willing to bet this engine will not respond as well to mods because a lot of refining has been done to the engine before it ever gets produced.

Does this mean that 6 cylinder cars or that new Cobra won't respond to mods? Of course not. There will always be room for improvement.

Also, displacement is tough to beat... mod for mod, a bigger motor will always produce more power. Force 6 lbs of air into a 6 cylinder... you get more power. Force 6 lbs of air into a V8, you get A LOT more power.


just my $.02

 

Hey Soundmike,
Just wanted to comment on your headlights....looks great! Did you modify the inside of your headlights to be blacked out? How hard was it to do?

 

Man that answered my question 100%. Thanks.


More displacement also results in more torque correct? Like the Honda S2000...240HP 4cyl. engine is awesome, but it only puts out 155lb.-ft of torque. Cylinders and especially the displacement seems to have a big say in how torquey your motor is, and American cars usually dominate in this field.

 

The reason the 5.0's take mods so well is that Ford choked them severely from the factory.

 

We've figured that one out already but thanks

 

Since they haven't made 5.0's for almost 8yrs now, does that apply to the 4.6's as well?

 

I think the first 4.6's were quite choked, as then only put out something like 215 hp. A few years later they opened them up to 260 hp. Specific horsepower still seems low given the Max makes roughly the same with 1.1 L less.

 

Remember, the max has 4 valves per cylinder, and DOHC. Even the new GT's 4.6 is just a 2 valve per cylinder engine with one overhead cam. Last years 4.6 (32v) cobra engine is a better example and more comparable to the 3.5 max engine.

if you look at rear wheel hp

3.5 24v = 205/3.5 is 58.6 hp/liter
4.6 32v = 280/4.6 is 60.9 hp/liter

Or even claimed engine:

3.5 24v = 255/3.5 = 72.9 hp/ltr
4.6 32v = 320/4.6 = 69.6 hp/ltr

It appears that the Cobra has a more efficient transmission.

--Ray

 

 

Yes, I know, maybe my post jumped around too much.

I was saying that the 4.6 GT's engine is SOHC and 2V per cylinder, that is why I was saying comparing the specific output of the Cobra DOHC / 4 valve per cylinder engine is more appropriate to the 3.5 Max engine.

--Ray

 

ah!