ME VS 01-03 Stang GT

Well i was airbase pkwy last night around 11:45 and this Silver Mustang gets next to me and gives it some gas. It looked like a young guy in the car. He also had 2 people in the car with him. So i threw a rev back. Then he gave it gas again. I knew it was on now. So we were next to eachother and i opened up the cutout. When i did this he immediatly punched it(i guess he though i punched it too). I punched it to. It took a sec but i started to walk past him. This was a 70mph roll. The next was also a 60-70mph roll but this time i was ready and i immediatly started to pull away from him. I put about 1 1/2 cars on him. The very last race was when we were trying to get a red light but it didn't happen. So we went from a 30mph roll or so. I was in 2nd. We both punched it and untill i got into my powerband we were even. But then i started to pull on him. We raced all the way to about 105mph and i had about 2 1/2 cars on him or so. I couldn't tell for sure but i could see his whole car in my rear. I slowed down for him and rolled down my window and gave him a thumbs up. He did the same. He had the disadvantage because of the extra weight in the car but i sort of screwed up and i left my Traction Control on and inbetween shifts the Low Traction light came on. I'm pretty sure that it robbed me of some power between the shifts because the car didn't feel smooth between the shifts. Ecspecially during the 2-3 shift. But either way it was a good race ecspecially since i won.

Good Kills, he would need alot of mods to be putting down your power, and bolt ons wouldnt cut it. Those are great numbers for basically just a catback n a cai..Ill still say stock vs stock both manual the Gt is no race for a good running LT1

Originally posted by Antz97ZNJ
Ill still say stock vs stock both manual the Gt is no race for a good running LT1

I fully disagree, stock vs. stock.

Originally posted by Steve Y
I fully disagree, stock vs. stock. Yor times certainly dont disprove me....and your a few mods shy of stock as it is..

Originally posted by Antz97ZNJ
Yor times certainly dont disprove me....and your a few mods shy of stock as it is..

My mods total about 10-15 rwhp. I don't powershift. I got a crappy 60' time on that run and burned tires hard going into 2nd. It has been argued on this forum countless times and most people agree that an LT1 and a 99+ GT is a drivers race in the 1/4 mile. I have driven the sh** out of a '93 and '94 Z28 both bone stock. The LT1 and the p.i. 4.6 is a great match, stock for stock. Post a poll in the lounge and see what everybody thinks on this subject if you dare.

Originally posted by Steve Y
My mods total about 10-15 rwhp. I don't powershift. I got a crappy 60' time on that run and burned tires hard going into 2nd. It has been argued on this forum countless times and most people agree that an LT1 and a 99+ GT is a drivers race in the 1/4 mile. I have driven the sh** out of a '93 and '94 Z28 both bone stock. The LT1 and the p.i. 4.6 is a great match, stock for stock. Post a poll in the lounge and see what everybody thinks on this subject if you dare.


I have yet to lose to a 99-03 GT but I would agree with you Steve Y. I believe a stock LT-1 and a 99-03 GT will both turn 14.0-14.5 1/4 mile times depending on Launch. Mine stock ran 14.2.

IMHO the Z is a bit easier to launch which gives it the advantage. Well at least my A4 is easier to launch. In fact every GT I race seems like the same race me hooking while the gt spins.

Originally posted by drewstealth
Well i was airbase pkwy last night around 11:45 and this Silver Mustang gets next to me and gives it some gas. It looked like a young guy in the car. He also had 2 people in the car with him. So i threw a rev back. Then he gave it gas again. I knew it was on now. So we were next to eachother and i opened up the cutout. When i did this he immediatly punched it(i guess he though i punched it too). I punched it to. It took a sec but i started to walk past him. This was a 70mph roll. The next was also a 60-70mph roll but this time i was ready and i immediatly started to pull away from him. I put about 1 1/2 cars on him. The very last race was when we were trying to get a red light but it didn't happen. So we went from a 30mph roll or so. I was in 2nd. We both punched it and untill i got into my powerband we were even. But then i started to pull on him. We raced all the way to about 105mph and i had about 2 1/2 cars on him or so. I couldn't tell for sure but i could see his whole car in my rear. I slowed down for him and rolled down my window and gave him a thumbs up. He did the same. He had the disadvantage because of the extra weight in the car but i sort of screwed up and i left my Traction Control on and inbetween shifts the Low Traction light came on. I'm pretty sure that it robbed me of some power between the shifts because the car didn't feel smooth between the shifts. Ecspecially during the 2-3 shift. But either way it was a good race ecspecially since i won.

Hey bro im in vacaville. Be careful on ABP, my buddy got ticketed there..

I think a 99-02 Cobra vs. an LT1 is a good race, but the GT doesn't have enough balls whether it's modded or completely stock. I mean I've seen supercharged GT's not put down 300 horses which is pretty crappy. Ford should have put the 5.4 into the Mustang, then it would have been a much nicer car IMO.

good kill man...im trying to think of anybody i know with a silver gt but cant think of who it may be....abp is one of the funniest places to run....man dude im pissed my paasenger side header is leaking and i cant get it sealed up right so my car has been sitting in the gerage for about 2 weeks.....but imma make it to the meet on the 21st hit me up and come thru to my house if you want to hear my leak and try to help me point it out....

Personally my favorite engine the mustang had was the 5.0 in the 90 or so years.

Originally posted by 97WS6SCharged
I think a 99-02 Cobra vs. an LT1 is a good race, but the GT doesn't have enough balls whether it's modded or completely stock. I mean I've seen supercharged GT's not put down 300 horses which is pretty crappy. Ford should have put the 5.4 into the Mustang, then it would have been a much nicer car IMO.

While I agree with you that Ford should have put the 5.4 in the Mustang, I haven't been doing too badly with the 4.6 .... hell, with my old combination I was pulling 377rwhp/375rwtq and have a little bit more then that through an auto now. :)

Originally posted by 97WS6SCharged
I think a 99-02 Cobra vs. an LT1 is a good race, but the GT doesn't have enough balls whether it's modded or completely stock. I mean I've seen supercharged GT's not put down 300 horses which is pretty crappy. Ford should have put the 5.4 into the Mustang, then it would have been a much nicer car IMO.

Um, hold on there cowboy;)
A 99+GT with just a 6lb blower setup on a CONSERVATIVE tune will put down 320Hp.......
Anyway, you guys obviously dont know ****.
I see it time and time again.
It's funny people like me can run 12's with 2k$(only power mod is steeda pullies) the rest was suspension(that could have been MUCH under 2k, i just cant do my own work, guess i want some warranty).
Anyway, have fun beating my wife when I'm not driving the car, hope i see ya at the light.

Oh, its funny how my bud at work wouldn't race me in his stock TransAm(LT1) when i was stock too :(


*Edit: An the 6lb is NON intercooled there cowboy ;)
**re-Edit: oh ya, a bone stock GT with a 75shot(lets say i knew someone who did this;) puts down 330hp/340tq...........so have fun with those FULL BOLT ON GT'S that lose to the stock LT1's with 1million miles :lol:
You guys are coming full cycle again, getting as bad as the SRT-4 forums..........c'mon now :(

Originally posted by Sephiroth

Anyway, you guys obviously dont know ****.


Play nice now kiddo :shock:

I rather enjoy kicking mustang's asses. Although I have lost to a few. Too bad it took that supercharger you were talking about to do it. Oh yeah by the way this was in my old 98 T/A (no, not the 97 in my sig)

Originally posted by transam41282
Play nice now kiddo :shock:

IToo bad it took that supercharger you were talking about to do it.

Not being funny but have you heard the term "Run what you brung"? That is what immediately comes to mind.

First of all, don't call me cowboy, it sounds homosexual coming from a guy, and I don't want to be assiciated with someone on/in a mustang.

Second, it's not that I don't like the mustang, the lines are good and it's a nice ride and all, but the 4.6 SOHC motor is garbage. Ford rates them at 260 hp and most will dyno 180 at the wheels. The GT is not a performance car. Get over it. Now a cobra with its 4 valve heads and IRS is a much better match for an LT1. It almost always comes down to the driver, but I'd still give the LT1 a bit of an edge cause it has more torque.

Lastly, I can provide at least two national sources of GT's that are supercharged and not making 300 rwhp.

1. Project Nightmare on Horsepower TV... 285(or 6) rwhp

2. An install that National Dragster did on a GT.. 284 rwhp

Both were dynoed on a Dynojet chasis dyno.

Ps. Even Vortech doesn't claim 300 hp on their non intercooled 6-8 PSI kits. On their 10 PSI HO intercooled kit they only claim 323 hp. I'll give them the benefit and say it's rear wheel hp, but I'm skeptical.

Originally posted by 97WS6SCharged
First of all, don't call me cowboy, it sounds homosexual coming from a guy, and I don't want to be assiciated with someone on/in a mustang.

Second, it's not that I don't like the mustang, the lines are good and it's a nice ride and all, but the 4.6 SOHC motor is garbage. Ford rates them at 260 hp and most will dyno 180 at the wheels. The GT is not a performance car. Get over it. Now a cobra with its 4 valve heads and IRS is a much better match for an LT1. It almost always comes down to the driver, but I'd still give the LT1 a bit of an edge cause it has more torque.

Lastly, I can provide at least two national sources of GT's that are supercharged and not making 300 rwhp.

1. Project Nightmare on Horsepower TV... 285(or 6) rwhp

2. An install that National Dragster did on a GT.. 284 rwhp

Both were dynoed on a Dynojet chasis dyno.

Ps. Even Vortech doesn't claim 300 hp on their non intercooled 6-8 PSI kits. On their 10 PSI HO intercooled kit they only claim 323 hp. I'll give them the benefit and say it's rear wheel hp, but I'm skeptical.


:Owned: GET EM!

97WS6SCharged ,

Im not trying to be an ass here with you , but you say all of this about the 4.6 and really dont know the motor or its capabilities.
My 2001 Gt nicknamed Casper had just over 800 miles on it when we took it down to Darlington International Speedway in SC roughly two years ago and I never even saw a 14 second slip.

I raced a few LT1s there and have it on video tape where two were stock like me and (granted I drove better than them) I kicked some ass that day.

first run...Casper 8.99 @ 79mph / 95 LT1 9.22 @ 79mph
13.97 @ 100mph / 14.19 @ 99mph

2nd run Casper 9.04 @ 78mph / 97 LT1 9.01 @ 80mph
13.99 @ 100 mph / 13.97 @ 101 cat back

3rd was my best Casper 8.96@ 80 / 93 LT1 9.45 @ 74 mph
13.93 @ 101 mph / 14.59 @ 95 mph



Now I am smart enough to know that all LT1s cant be categorized by that day , but also all GTs cant either.
I have a friend that drove his GT to an incredible time that many here will not believe....hell its hard for me to believe, but he is no liar and I know the mods on his car. He ran a 13.61 @ 101 mph power shifting the piss out of his 01 GT with the only mod bieng a cold air densacharger and a bassani catted high flow X pipe.
Everything else was factory, even the mufflers.
It all goes to show you that if you can really drive your machine to its potential and you have excellent conditions you might be suprised with whatever make you drive.

Take it easy.

Mike

Originally posted by 97WS6SCharged
I think a 99-02 Cobra vs. an LT1 is a good race, but the GT doesn't have enough balls whether it's modded or completely stock. I mean I've seen supercharged GT's not put down 300 horses which is pretty crappy. Ford should have put the 5.4 into the Mustang, then it would have been a much nicer car IMO.

My car when stock vs. a stock LT1 is a driver's race. This has been proven over and over. How can you say a modded GT is no match for an LT1? The sky is the limit to modding any car. A 99+ Cobra is a little faster than an LT1. I've seen supercharged Stangs like mine do 500 rwhp with blower, intercooler, MAF, race fuel, and a few other very minor items. But you are definately correct on the 5.4 thing!

Originally posted by 97WS6SCharged
First of all, don't call me cowboy, it sounds homosexual coming from a guy, and I don't want to be assiciated with someone on/in a mustang.

Second, it's not that I don't like the mustang, the lines are good and it's a nice ride and all, but the 4.6 SOHC motor is garbage. Ford rates them at 260 hp and most will dyno 180 at the wheels. The GT is not a performance car. Get over it. Now a cobra with its 4 valve heads and IRS is a much better match for an LT1. It almost always comes down to the driver, but I'd still give the LT1 a bit of an edge cause it has more torque.

Lastly, I can provide at least two national sources of GT's that are supercharged and not making 300 rwhp.

1. Project Nightmare on Horsepower TV... 285(or 6) rwhp

2. An install that National Dragster did on a GT.. 284 rwhp

Both were dynoed on a Dynojet chasis dyno.

Ps. Even Vortech doesn't claim 300 hp on their non intercooled 6-8 PSI kits. On their 10 PSI HO intercooled kit they only claim 323 hp. I'll give them the benefit and say it's rear wheel hp, but I'm skeptical.

You don't want to be associated with Mustangs? It could be a lot worse.

You are obviously talking about the '96-98 4.6s. Those things put down about 190 rwhp stock. I've seen 323 rwhp out of 1 with a 12 psi intercooled procharger. The '99+ GTs put down about 230 rwhp stock and they weighed about 200 lbs. less than an LT1 F-body. So they ran neck and neck with each other. A blown '99+ GT will put down almost 400 rwhp with an 9 psi intercooled set up and other very minor bolt ons.

Originally posted by 97WS6SCharged
First of all, don't call me cowboy, it sounds homosexual coming from a guy, and I don't want to be assiciated with someone on/in a mustang.

Second, it's not that I don't like the mustang, the lines are good and it's a nice ride and all, but the 4.6 SOHC motor is garbage. Ford rates them at 260 hp and most will dyno 180 at the wheels. The GT is not a performance car. Get over it. Now a cobra with its 4 valve heads and IRS is a much better match for an LT1. It almost always comes down to the driver, but I'd still give the LT1 a bit of an edge cause it has more torque.

Lastly, I can provide at least two national sources of GT's that are supercharged and not making 300 rwhp.

1. Project Nightmare on Horsepower TV... 285(or 6) rwhp

2. An install that National Dragster did on a GT.. 284 rwhp

Both were dynoed on a Dynojet chasis dyno.

Ps. Even Vortech doesn't claim 300 hp on their non intercooled 6-8 PSI kits. On their 10 PSI HO intercooled kit they only claim 323 hp. I'll give them the benefit and say it's rear wheel hp, but I'm skeptical.

First and foremost, I don't take offense to what you're saying at all and actually this is a good spot for people to learn. That's what we're all here for, right?

Stop reading the magazines... they are just that "A magazine" and a source. Are there folks making well over 300rwhp with the SOHC platform? YES. Hell, I've been doing it for 3+ years now.

By the way, what are you running with the supercharged WS6? I would certainly hope you're running faster then my poor 12.4@114 SOHC which is soon to be much faster :D

Originally posted by transam41282
:Owned: GET EM!

Ya he got me quoting "magazines" didn't he? Muahahaha....... Sure thing. I don't pull magazine quotes or TV shows, I pull real-life scenarios from experience.

Originally posted by 1BadAzzGT
I don't pull magazine quotes or TV shows, I pull real-life scenarios from experience.
Get 'em VinTimmay!
You are so dramatic! :bow:

I got you by quoting "magazines"... Where did I ever imply that I was out to get you? I merely responded to a post. And how is it that when anyone quotes a source of information whether it's printed, filmed, or whatever everyone pulls the "it's a magazine, it can't possibly be right, my buddy's friend's uncle's girlfriend's ex husband did the same thing and got better results" card? I provide actual sources (one of them being a magazine that is predominately Ford) and you guys have the nerve to say I don't know what I'm talking about? That's some :bs:

You know, the greatest thing Ford ever did was design/build the mustang. Know why? Because it made GM build the Camaro and Firebird. That's it, that's the mustang's greatest contribution to the automotive world. Thankyou Mr. Ford for providing the inspiration for two of the world's greatest automobiles (neither one of those carry a Ford badge by the way).

I will be completely honest about my car, I haven't run my car at the track with the supercharger because I have to work on the nights that the track is open (that's why I'm here now, responding to this post), so I don't know, you might actually run faster than me. My best/only run with the car was a 13.7 @ 106 with a flowmaster catback as the only mod on the car. I will tell you this, on 7 PSI of non intercooled/aftercooled boost, and on regular 93 octane pump gas, the TA did put down 441 hp and 463 ft/lb of torque. That was pretty fat with air/fuel ratio hovering around 10.9:1 on the wideband.

Think what you will, I don't really care. I'm done with this post.

Later

106 with only catback? LOL

Originally posted by 97WS6SCharged
I got you by quoting "magazines"... Where did I ever imply that I was out to get you? I merely responded to a post. And how is it that when anyone quotes a source of information whether it's printed, filmed, or whatever everyone pulls the "it's a magazine, it can't possibly be right, my buddy's friend's uncle's girlfriend's ex husband did the same thing and got better results" card? I provide actual sources (one of them being a magazine that is predominately Ford) and you guys have the nerve to say I don't know what I'm talking about? That's some :bs:


You merely implied that you seen a few things on TV, therefore, it led to the conclusion that you're quoting sources other then real world examples. Everyone knows that sometimes what you see on TV is not what you'll see in "our" world, therefore, it's a mere example of "utopia" if you will.


You know, the greatest thing Ford ever did was design/build the mustang. Know why? Because it made GM build the Camaro and Firebird. That's it, that's the mustang's greatest contribution to the automotive world. Thankyou Mr. Ford for providing the inspiration for two of the world's greatest automobiles (neither one of those carry a Ford badge by the way).


Bla bla bla..... whatever. I guess that's why the "WHAT" is not being built any longer? I'll give you one hint what is currently very much "STILL IN PRODUCTION" ---- the Ford Mustang.


I will be completely honest about my car, I haven't run my car at the track with the supercharger because I have to work on the nights that the track is open (that's why I'm here now, responding to this post), so I don't know, you might actually run faster than me.


Ok so now you're making excuses, aren't you? You can't make time to run at the track and you want to teach me a few things? Muahahaha... I make no excuses as to "WHY" my car runs what it does no matter if I have to run 30000psi of boost to reach my goal ---- the bottom result is the car ran exactly as I said it does and I have a real world timeslip from a REAL world timeslip booth that had a real world operator handing it to me.


My best/only run with the car was a 13.7 @ 106 with a flowmaster catback as the only mod on the car. I will tell you this, on 7 PSI of non intercooled/aftercooled boost, and on regular 93 octane pump gas, the TA did put down 441 hp and 463 ft/lb of torque. That was pretty fat with air/fuel ratio hovering around 10.9:1 on the wideband.


Excuses suck, don't they? Here, I'll interpret what you just said "BLA BLA BLA .... YADA YADA YADA YADA". I couldn't give two rats asses about dyno #'s and they are for dyno/tuning purposes only. I've seen several supra's (just using them as an example) that dyno way up there (more then 500+ rwhp) and still only run 11's.


Think what you will, I don't really care. I'm done with this post.


If you want to dish it out, be prepared to take it back bro. I didn't take your post offensive and nor should you take mine.

Now take your 13 second wonderride and your BS Story somewhere else where you can quote the magazines, the articles, and all the other BS you've been spouting off. This is not "UTOPIA" ... it's the real world that we live in. Thank you, you've been dismissed. Who did you say is :Owned: again?

Originally posted by MauriSSio
106 with only catback? LOL

Muahahaha... straight from the magazine of course. I noticed on Page #134 it says with the electric supercharger you can run 11's. Add a twin turbo, NAWWWS, and some neon lights and presto ---- you're in the 9's. :bow: :D ;)

Originally posted by 1BadAzzGT


Stop reading the magazines... they are just that "A magazine" and a source. Are there folks making well over 300rwhp with the SOHC platform? YES. Hell, I've been doing it for 3+ years now.



Hell, I have seen 320+ rwhp out of SOHC's that have been built with power heads and aftermarket cams and all the bolt ons with no power adder.

Originally posted by scott9050
Hell, I have seen 320+ rwhp out of SOHC's that have been built with power heads and aftermarket cams and all the bolt ons with no power adder.

Scott9050,
What magazine did you find that in? No way on an SOHC engine..... :D

Originally posted by 97WS6SCharged
I think a 99-02 Cobra vs. an LT1 is a good race, but the GT doesn't have enough balls whether it's modded or completely stock. I mean I've seen supercharged GT's not put down 300 horses which is pretty crappy. Ford should have put the 5.4 into the Mustang, then it would have been a much nicer car IMO.

A well driven 99-01 (the was no 02 Cobra) will outrun any year stock LT-1 with equal drivers. I have personally witnessed 2 of them (01's) run 106 traps completely stock.

Originally posted by 1BadAzzGT
Scott9050,
What magazine did you find that in? No way on an SOHC engine..... :D

I can mail you the article if you give me your address, it's either in MM&FF or Super Ford. They tested the power ported heads, aftermarket cams and tons of other stuff and eventually came out with 320 rwhp. I know its hard to believe but they claimed that they did it. It was several months ago, I just have to find the article. True Blue Performance had just built one that was nearly 300 hp back in 2001 when I was still in North Carolina.

Originally posted by scott9050
I can mail you the article if you give me your address, it's either in MM&FF or Super Ford. They tested the power ported heads, aftermarket cams and tons of other stuff and eventually came out with 320 rwhp. I know its hard to believe but they claimed that they did it. It was several months ago, I just have to find the article. True Blue Performance had just built one that was nearly 300 hp back in 2001 when I was still in North Carolina.

I was joking.... sheesh. I thought you know me better then that by now... hell, I've been on this board for who knows how long now muahaha.....

Originally posted by 1BadAzzGT
I was joking.... sheesh. I thought you know me better then that by now... hell, I've been on this board for who knows how long now muahaha.....

I figured you were but I was covering my bases just in case:D

heck even a stock 96-98 Cobra should be able to walk away from a stock LT1,if properly driven.

Ha ha, Chris was right, you guys are full of it. It's pretty funny, you seem to have no problem believing Scott when he says he has an article about a heads/cam mustang laying down 320rwhp. I can't wait to tell him about that.

Oh, and just so you guys know, I was at the track when he ran his TA with the flowmaster, his first run was a 14.0 @ 105. And yeah, he did eventually run a 13.7 that evening. And as far as his power with the vortech, I didn't see the dyno run, but that car is crazy fast now. I can't wait till he finishes his turbocharged stroker for the car, that's going to be insane.

Still, thanks for the laughs. More power to the underpowered mustang!!! hahahahaha :D :D :D :D

Originally posted by scott9050
I can mail you the article if you give me your address, it's either in MM&FF or Super Ford. They tested the power ported heads, aftermarket cams and tons of other stuff and eventually came out with 320 rwhp.

Scott is right, for all the naysaying Chevy redneck, 2 i.q. morons. Gosh, there are a lot of them lately in here aren't there? I have the magazine at work. I can reference it tomorrow if anybody cares. It was 1 or 2 months ago in 5.0 Mustang magazine. You may even find it online at www.50mustangandsuperfords.com It was Anderson Ford Motorsport that did the testing. It is here. www.andersonfordmotorsport.com Just click on project vehicles.

Originally posted by 97WS6SCharged
I got you by quoting "magazines"... Where did I ever imply that I was out to get you? I merely responded to a post. And how is it that when anyone quotes a source of information whether it's printed, filmed, or whatever everyone pulls the "it's a magazine, it can't possibly be right, my buddy's friend's uncle's girlfriend's ex husband did the same thing and got better results" card? I provide actual sources (one of them being a magazine that is predominately Ford) and you guys have the nerve to say I don't know what I'm talking about? That's some :bs:


You were talking about the slowest versions of the GTs in recent years, the '96-'98s. How convenient for you. Shall we talk about the V8 RS Camaros of the 80s and 90s? I don't think you want to. Those things were pathetic for a V8 performance car.


Originally posted by 97WS6SCharged

You know, the greatest thing Ford ever did was design/build the mustang. Know why? Because it made GM build the Camaro and Firebird. That's it, that's the mustang's greatest contribution to the automotive world. Thankyou Mr. Ford for providing the inspiration for two of the world's greatest automobiles (neither one of those carry a Ford badge by the way).


:rolleyes: Whatever. Then why is the Mustang still around and the Camaro gone? I guess the Cobras from '93 on suck, right?


Originally posted by 97WS6SCharged

I will be completely honest about my car, I haven't run my car at the track with the supercharger because I have to work on the nights that the track is open (that's why I'm here now, responding to this post), so I don't know, you might actually run faster than me. My best/only run with the car was a 13.7 @ 106 with a flowmaster catback as the only mod on the car. I will tell you this, on 7 PSI of non intercooled/aftercooled boost, and on regular 93 octane pump gas, the TA did put down 441 hp and 463 ft/lb of torque. That was pretty fat with air/fuel ratio hovering around 10.9:1 on the wideband.


You could not call in sick even once in the past couple of years to run at the track? :bs: Also, I bet a lot of people would like to see your car do that 13.7 at 106 with the cat-back only. Put it back to that form of mods and let's see it in person. Again, how convenient that it was many mods ago and no proof.

Originally posted by 97WS6SCharged

Think what you will, I don't really care. I'm done with this post.

Later Good riddance!

Originally posted by Workingman
Ha ha, Chris was right, you guys are full of it. It's pretty funny, you seem to have no problem believing Scott when he says he has an article about a heads/cam mustang laying down 320rwhp. I can't wait to tell him about that.

Oh, and just so you guys know, I was at the track when he ran his TA with the flowmaster, his first run was a 14.0 @ 105. And yeah, he did eventually run a 13.7 that evening. And as far as his power with the vortech, I didn't see the dyno run, but that car is crazy fast now. I can't wait till he finishes his turbocharged stroker for the car, that's going to be insane.

Still, thanks for the laughs. More power to the underpowered mustang!!! hahahahaha :D :D :D :D

This is probably the same guy with the 7 psi blower. Go away newbie troll!

LOL....sometimes I just can't help talking like a teenager. It's Sunday, I'm bored, so here goes. :D

Originally posted by 97WS6SCharged
First of all, don't call me cowboy, it sounds homosexual coming from a guy, and I don't want to be assiciated with someone on/in a mustang.
I'm sure he is sorry for doing that. I'll try and keep it in mind too, Junior.

Second, it's not that I don't like the mustang, the lines are good and it's a nice ride and all, but the 4.6 SOHC motor is garbage.
That "garbage" motor is now putting Mustangs into the 8's on ported stock heads using the stock block. Do you understand what kind of power that takes?

Ford rates them at 260 hp and most will dyno 180 at the wheels.
Whatever credibility you might have once had just went down the proverbial tube. 99+ GTs are rated at 260 and routinely make 225-235 RWHP stock. You incorrectly used 96-98 225 HP SOHC numbers. Oops.

The GT is not a performance car. Get over it.
Then neither is your LT1. As has been stated many, many times, a bone stock 99+ GT M5 is a great race for a bone stock LT1 M6. You can stick your head in the mud and pretend it isn't so all you want. Then again, when all you have is magazines, TV, and the internet to fall back on, what is one to do?

Now a cobra with its 4 valve heads and IRS is a much better match for an LT1.
Actually, it's an overmatch. Also, the IRS is a liability in a drag race. A better match is a 96-98 Cobra. My 98 Cobra ran 13.6 104 mph in 100% bone stock trim - including filter. What did your car run in 100% bone stock trim?

It almost always comes down to the driver, but I'd still give the LT1 a bit of an edge cause it has more torque.
Remember my talking about credibility above? You just lost some more. Tell me....what does "having more torque" have to do with it? Do you understand what HP is? Ever heard of torque * rpm and what that does? Do you race at 3000 rpm?

Bueller?

Lastly, I can provide at least two national sources of GT's that are supercharged and not making 300 rwhp.

1. Project Nightmare on Horsepower TV... 285(or 6) rwhp

2. An install that National Dragster did on a GT.. 284 rwhp

Both were dynoed on a Dynojet chasis dyno.
I suggest continuing to get all your info from those two souces. We need the cannon fodder.

Ps. Even Vortech doesn't claim 300 hp on their non intercooled 6-8 PSI kits. On their 10 PSI HO intercooled kit they only claim 323 hp. I'll give them the benefit and say it's rear wheel hp, but I'm skeptical.
If you're skeptical, I'm probably convinced. If you're convinced, I'm most definately skeptical. Get the picture?

However, lets go back to the credibilty thing. You're once again looking at the older, 96-98 stuff (even though Vortech doesn't make a 6-8 psi kit (http://www.vortechsuperchargers.com/products/systems/appguide.html)). The 99+ GT kit (we are talking about 99+, right?) is rated by Vortech at 364 HP.

FYI - the numbers Vortech gives are not RWHP - they are flywheel.

And how is it that when anyone quotes a source of information whether it's printed, filmed, or whatever everyone pulls the "it's a magazine, it can't possibly be right, my buddy's friend's uncle's girlfriend's ex husband did the same thing and got better results" card? I provide actual sources (one of them being a magazine that is predominately Ford) and you guys have the nerve to say I don't know what I'm talking about? That's some :bs:
LOL. You just slammed yourself and you likely don't even realize it. Why? Because you don't know what you're talking about, as has been shown in this post.

FYI...magazines, the internet, and TV can be useful references, but they are not the end all.

You know, the greatest thing Ford ever did was design/build the mustang. Know why? Because it made GM build the Camaro and Firebird. That's it, that's the mustang's greatest contribution to the automotive world. Thankyou Mr. Ford for providing the inspiration for two of the world's greatest automobiles (neither one of those carry a Ford badge by the way).
I hear Wal Mart is running a special on glasses that cure brand-blindness. You should go check em out, Junior.

I will be completely honest about my car
I suspect you won't be. Let's see.

I haven't run my car at the track with the supercharger because I have to work on the nights that the track is open (that's why I'm here now, responding to this post), so I don't know, you might actually run faster than me.
I believe that you haven't run your car at the track. We're doing good so far.

My best/only run with the car was a 13.7 @ 106 with a flowmaster catback as the only mod on the car.
Oh well, it only lasted one line. 106 with only a catback? You either....

a) Have the worlds most powerful stock LT1
b) Used a G-Tech to get that mph
c) Are lying through your teeth

"I'll take c) for a thousand dollars, Alex"

I will tell you this, on 7 PSI of non intercooled/aftercooled boost, and on regular 93 octane pump gas, the TA did put down 441 hp and 463 ft/lb of torque. That was pretty fat with air/fuel ratio hovering around 10.9:1 on the wideband.
Prove it, Junior.

Think what you will, I don't really care. I'm done with this post.
Well thank you. I will think what I will, and I doubt you're done. But time shall tell.

You have a wonderul day. :)

Next....

Originally posted by Workingman
Ha ha, Chris was right, you guys are full of it. It's pretty funny, you seem to have no problem believing Scott when he says he has an article about a heads/cam mustang laying down 320rwhp. I can't wait to tell him about that.

Oh, and just so you guys know, I was at the track when he ran his TA with the flowmaster, his first run was a 14.0 @ 105. And yeah, he did eventually run a 13.7 that evening. And as far as his power with the vortech, I didn't see the dyno run, but that car is crazy fast now. I can't wait till he finishes his turbocharged stroker for the car, that's going to be insane.

Still, thanks for the laughs. More power to the underpowered mustang!!! hahahahaha :D :D :D :D
Is there any pimple-faced kid on this site that DOES NOT have a car that isn't going to have a "turbocharged stroker for his car"? I'm sure he's having wet dreams about it, but then again, I had those too when I was 15 years old.

Mr Newbie troll....before anybody is going to believe you, you have to have some credibility. Go to www.dictionary.com and look it up, then come back when you've found some.

And you have a wonderful day too, ya hear?

PS....I'm not anti-Fbody at all (I've had 3) - I'm just anti-ignorance. :D

Originally posted by MauriSSio
heck even a stock 96-98 Cobra should be able to walk away from a stock LT1,if properly driven.

The 96-98 mustangs run low 15's, and an lt1 runs low 14's, so unless the driver of the lt1 is horrible I can't see that happening. Because My buddy has a 95 3.8 with cat-back, 3.42's, and cai and we walk those things daily. Not trying to go against mustangs I like them but I am just telling you the experiences I have had.

Originally posted by BiGGinZ
The 96-98 mustangs run low 15's, and an lt1 runs low 14's, so unless the driver of the lt1 is horrible I can't see that happening. Because My buddy has a 95 3.8 with cat-back, 3.42's, and cai and we walk those things daily. Not trying to go against mustangs I like them but I am just telling you the experiences I have had.

Hey Slick, might want to re-read that post. There is a 5 letter word in there that might be of interest, and it's not GT

Originally posted by BiGGinZ
The 96-98 mustangs run low 15's, and an lt1 runs low 14's, so unless the driver of the lt1 is horrible I can't see that happening. Because My buddy has a 95 3.8 with cat-back, 3.42's, and cai and we walk those things daily. Not trying to go against mustangs I like them but I am just telling you the experiences I have had.

I tell you the experience I had with my 98 when it was bone stock to the air filter. 14.2@97 mph. Yes, that's a 98 GT/SOHC. That is only my experience though, results may vary.

Originally posted by Workingman
Ha ha, Chris was right, you guys are full of it. It's pretty funny, you seem to have no problem believing Scott when he says he has an article about a heads/cam mustang laying down 320rwhp. I can't wait to tell him about that.

Oh, and just so you guys know, I was at the track when he ran his TA with the flowmaster, his first run was a 14.0 @ 105. And yeah, he did eventually run a 13.7 that evening. And as far as his power with the vortech, I didn't see the dyno run, but that car is crazy fast now. I can't wait till he finishes his turbocharged stroker for the car, that's going to be insane.

Still, thanks for the laughs. More power to the underpowered mustang!!! hahahahaha :D :D :D :D

And I find it funny that you with no posts and just registered are in here defending him. I am willing to bet that you 2 are one in the same.

Originally posted by BiGGinZ
The 96-98 mustangs run low 15's, and an lt1 runs low 14's, so unless the driver of the lt1 is horrible I can't see that happening. Because My buddy has a 95 3.8 with cat-back, 3.42's, and cai and we walk those things daily. Not trying to go against mustangs I like them but I am just telling you the experiences I have had.

So you are trying to claim that a 305 hp Cobra is only running low 15's:rolleyes: My buddies 96 was running 8.8 at 82 in the 1/8th bone dead stock after he learned how to drive the damn thing. Yep, a 3.8 is going to beat that:rolleyes:

Originally posted by scott9050
So you are trying to claim that a 305 hp Cobra is only running low 15's:rolleyes: My buddies 96 was running 8.8 at 82 in the 1/8th bone dead stock after he learned how to drive the damn thing. Yep, a 3.8 is going to beat that:rolleyes:

Obviously I was talking about a gt. But anyways about the cobras. A stock 96 cobra vs. a stock 96 ss.... The SS has the advantage so I still think it is hard to say that a 96-98 cobra can with the right driver walk any lt1.

Wow, you guys will attack anything to prove that you're right. Yes, I do know Chris, and no we are not one and the same. Give the guy a little more credit than that. I only registered today cause he told me about this thread yesterday cause I brought up a mustang I saw the other night. I found this thread to be so funny that I had to reply. By the way, he got a kick about you guys quoting things from the mustang and ford magazines.

Oh, and by the way, torque is what moves the car, not horsepower.

And here's some of my experience, if he isn't building a turbo stroker, then he's got a big freakin turbo, some headers, a block, rotating assembly, and a million other parts sitting in his garage for absolutely no reason. Oh, and what exactly is your definition of troll? How about a bunch of ford guys lurking on a Camaro website for no other reason than to bust on guys who have a negative opinion of ford products.

Originally posted by Workingman


Oh, and by the way, torque is what moves the car, not horsepower.

And here's some of my experience, if he isn't building a turbo stroker, then he's got a big freakin turbo, some headers, a block, rotating assembly, and a million other parts sitting in his garage for absolutely no reason. Oh, and what exactly is your definition of troll? How about a bunch of ford guys lurking on a Camaro website for no other reason than to bust on guys who have a negative opinion of ford products.

Yes, but you can gear a car accordingly, when it lacks torque. Let's see pics of these parts in his garage with him giving us the middle finger and today's newspaper and date visible. That will prove it. A troll is a guy who comes in here spouting bs to cause trouble, aka, you and your buddy. We don't car if you have a negative view of Ford products. Opinions are fine. It's when you guys post bs that you will get jumped like a little old lady in the hood.

For the record, a M6 LT1, a 5M '99+ GT and a '96-98 Cobra are very close races for each other stock for stock.

Hmmm....I guess the first time wasn't enough for ya? Ok.

Originally posted by Workingman
Wow, you guys will attack anything to prove that you're right.
This sentence has no purpose, and makes no sense.

Yes, I do know Chris, and no we are not one and the same.
Congratulations.

Give the guy a little more credit than that.
He who spewith BS deserves little credit.

I only registered today cause he told me about this thread yesterday cause I brought up a mustang I saw the other night. I found this thread to be so funny that I had to reply.
I'm glad you saw humor in it - so did I. In fact, I'm having a grand time typing out this reply. :)

By the way, he got a kick about you guys quoting things from the mustang and ford magazines.
Are you his spokesman now or something?

Oh, and by the way, torque is what moves the car, not horsepower
I see. So tell me young grasshopper, given typical street car torque curves, correct gearing, a typical OD manual transmission, and everything else being equal (weight, driver, etc), which car is going to be quicker/faster?

Car A making 300 lb/ft torque @ 3000 rpm,
Car B making 250 lb/ft torque @ 5500 rpm.

Reasoning for why you chose like you did would be nice, too.

And here's some of my experience, if he isn't building a turbo stroker, then he's got a big freakin turbo, some headers, a block, rotating assembly, and a million other parts sitting in his garage for absolutely no reason.
Cool! Pamela Anderson is in my bedroom. As far as you know.

Oh, and what exactly is your definition of troll?

Here you go: Portrait of a Troll (http://www.bellacor.com/images/bigger/428MR1026PW.jpg)

How about a bunch of ford guys lurking on a Camaro website for no other reason than to bust on guys who have a negative opinion of ford products.
Have a negative opinion of whatever you wish, but don't expect everbody to agree with it - even on this site. And FWIW, I've been a member here longer than anybody else that has posted in this thread, so you can officially buzz off as far as I'm concerned, junior.

:D

Ah, nothing better on a lazy Sunday afternoon, than a nice flamefest involving a bunch retarded trolls vs. knowledgable car enthusiasts! :bow: Thank you trolls for this great entertainment! Now let's hear more bs so we can own you trolls some more.

Thanks for calling me an enthusiast, I appreciate it.

Just because he used examples from a show or magazine doesn't make them not true. But I agree with steve, an lt1 is a good race with a 99+ GT and 96-98 cobra.

Originally posted by Workingman
Thanks for calling me an enthusiast, I appreciate it.

An enthusiast of :bs: and :barf: maybe.

Originally posted by BiGGinZ
Just because he used examples from a show or magazine doesn't make them not true.

True, but he is changing things around to suit his bs statements. For example: a 260 flywheel horsepower GT putting out 180 rwhp.

Originally posted by Steve Y
True, but he is changing things around to suit his bs statements. For example: a 260 flywheel horsepower GT putting out 180 rwhp.

Yea that is true. Steve you don't have a cat-back on your car? My friend has a 2001 GT with flows, I love that sound can't wait until I can get a cat-back.

Originally posted by BiGGinZ
Yea that is true. Steve you don't have a cat-back on your car? My friend has a 2001 GT with flows, I love that sound can't wait until I can get a cat-back.

Not yet. I will probably go with the 3 chamber system from Flowmaster. I had 2 chambers on my '95 GT but they were pretty annoying on a daily driven 11,000+ mile per year car. The 2000 rpm drone on the freeway sucks. They do sound great, though!

way off topic but a 96-98 cobra definetely has the advantage vs. a 99+ GT. its still close enough to be a drivers race, but the difference is like a stock LS1 vs. 96-98 Cobra. (both races being about/almost 3mph's difference in the 1/4)

Alright, I said I wasn't going to post on this thread again, but Jason is going to get me in trouble if I don't set him straight. I did not ask him to come in here and defend me, I can do that on my own. The set of headers he saw was an old set that I was using to try to mock up a set of turbo headers. I don't have anything worked up right now. The turbo was one I borrowed so I could do some test fitting and I have since given it back to its rightful owner. I have not made any claims about having turbo headers or turbos in my garage (that are mine) nor will I until I do have a set in my hands. I have started getting parts together to build a turbo engine and that is what is sitting in my garage.

Here's the pictures you wanted, take them however you want. Oh yeah, Steve, I didn't have a newspaper, but I took that special pic for you while standing in front of the TA. :D

http://community.webshots.com/user/97ws6scharged

I have tried to remain as civil as possible while posting and everyone has taken everything I've said and blown it way out of proportion. I am again unsubscribing from this thread. Peace and whatever.

Later

Originally posted by 97WS6SCharged
Alright, I said I wasn't going to post on this thread again, but Jason is going to get me in trouble if I don't set him straight. I did not ask him to come in here and defend me, I can do that on my own. The set of headers he saw was an old set that I was using to try to mock up a set of turbo headers. I don't have anything worked up right now. The turbo was one I borrowed so I could do some test fitting and I have since given it back to its rightful owner. I have not made any claims about having turbo headers or turbos in my garage (that are mine) nor will I until I do have a set in my hands. I have started getting parts together to build a turbo engine and that is what is sitting in my garage.

Here's the pictures you wanted, take them however you want. Oh yeah, Steve, I didn't have a newspaper, but I took that special pic for you while standing in front of the TA. :D

http://community.webshots.com/user/97ws6scharged

I have tried to remain as civil as possible while posting and everyone has taken everything I've said and blown it way out of proportion. I am again unsubscribing from this thread. Peace and whatever.

Later

:cool: :D :) I've never had anybody take special pictures just for me. Props to you for going to all the trouble of showing exactly what you have.

Originally posted by MauriSSio
way off topic but a 96-98 cobra definetely has the advantage vs. a 99+ GT. its still close enough to be a drivers race, but the difference is like a stock LS1 vs. 96-98 Cobra. (both races being about/almost 3mph's difference in the 1/4)

Yes the Cobra has about a 2 mph advantage in trap speed, but little or no advantage in e.t. stock for stock against the 99+ GT 5M. Trap speeds don't win races. The LS1 has about a 2-3 mph and 4 tenths advantage over the Cobra.

Originally posted by Bob Cosby
And FWIW, I've been a member here longer than anybody else that has posted in this thread, so you can officially buzz off as far as I'm concerned, junior.

:D

You've got me by a whole 2 months:p

Originally posted by BiGGinZ
Obviously I was talking about a gt. But anyways about the cobras. A stock 96 cobra vs. a stock 96 ss.... The SS has the advantage so I still think it is hard to say that a 96-98 cobra can with the right driver walk any lt1.

Cobras problem is that the rear gear is not a good choice stock for the 96-98 Cobra. 3.27's are like 2.73's on the old 5.0 and a change of gears really wakes the car up.

Originally posted by scott9050
Cobras problem is that the rear gear is not a good choice stock for the 96-98 Cobra. 3.27's are like 2.73's on the old 5.0 and a change of gears really wakes the car up.

I've never driven anything but a stock '96 and '98 Cobra, but i'm sure you are right about gears waking them up. Heck, the 3.27s suck on my car and it sure does not pull hard up high in the tach like a Cobra.

Originally posted by scott9050
Cobras problem is that the rear gear is not a good choice stock for the 96-98 Cobra. 3.27's are like 2.73's on the old 5.0 and a change of gears really wakes the car up.

Yea that is true. Way........Way off topic but when do you think I should get new gears in my car? Should I get full exhaust first? And what gears should I get? Sorry to be so off topic but I figured since someone brought it up.

Originally posted by Steve Y
Yes the Cobra has about a 2 mph advantage in trap speed, but little or no advantage in e.t. stock for stock against the 99+ GT 5M. Trap speeds don't win races. The LS1 has about a 2-3 mph and 4 tenths advantage over the Cobra.
the 3 mph advantage the cobra has over the 99+ GT's clearly shows which car is faster and what it's capable of. the e.t. on the other hand is up to the driver.

Originally posted by Steve Y
Yes the Cobra has about a 2 mph advantage in trap speed, but little or no advantage in e.t. stock for stock against the 99+ GT 5M. Trap speeds don't win races. The LS1 has about a 2-3 mph and 4 tenths advantage over the Cobra.

Your kidding me right...There are a good number of guys on the corral that have ran there 96-01 (more 99-01's) cobras anywhere from a 13.2-13.6@104-106 bone stock...The reason you dont see this that often is because launching that irs is a trained art, and most guys dont get enough practice. Sorry but thats WAY outta GT territory...Even in a street race a GT will get blown away w/ two equal drivers, GTs only chance(stock vs stock) would be to get a better launch off the line but it would get hawked down soon enough, from a roll it would just be ugly. I was a passenger in a race w/ a stock 01 Cobra vs a Stock 99ss, and from a 40 mph punch the Cobra put 2 1/2 cars on the SS real quick (no drivers fault), i was in shock. Those two extra valves make a bigger differance then you think, not jumping down throats, just tired of hearing guys say that there not a big differance in 99 up GTs and Cobras... Heres a little post for ya just so ya know im not making this up for arguments sake.http://www.corral.net/forums/showthread.php?threadid=443191

Originally posted by MauriSSio
the 3 mph advantage the cobra has over the 99+ GT's clearly shows which car is faster and what it's capable of. the e.t. on the other hand is up to the driver. Couldnt agree w/ you anymore, you've just summed it up in one sentence :thumb: , while i went and posted a novel:D

Originally posted by BiGGinZ
Yea that is true. Way........Way off topic but when do you think I should get new gears in my car? Should I get full exhaust first? And what gears should I get? Sorry to be so off topic but I figured since someone brought it up.

I saw R-West of this board gain quite a bit from going to 3.73's from 3.23's in his 93 Z-28. Exaust will help too, but I think that the gear swap will be cheaper and lay the foundation for the exaust. With both full exaust and the gears you should run 107-108 at least in good weather.

every 15% difference in gearing = ROUGHLY 1 MPH trap speed. The 3.27's in a 99 Cobra (6800RPM) are the equivalent of 2.73's in an LT1 (5600 RPM). So the cobra is terribly undergeared cuz it makes peak power at such a high RPM. Typical 96-98' Cobras Should trap about 103's stock and 4.10s should put it close to 105's. A typical 99+ 5sp. GT traps MAYBE 99MPH,i just dont see how 103 vs. 99 is very compareable,i mean it CAN be a close race,but really,IT shouldnt.

First of all I was comparing a '99+ GT 5M to a '96-98 Cobra, not a 99+ Cobra. The GTs put down about 230 rwhp. The Cobras of those years do about 255 rwhp. The Cobras weigh about 150 lbs. more and have a higher powerband with the same gearing as the GT. Stock for stock these cars are very close in e.t. (about .05 of a second different) and about 2 mph different in trap speeds. The Cobras are harder to launch and get a good e.t. with because of their higher powerband.

Originally posted by Steve Y
First of all I was comparing a '99+ GT 5M to a '96-98 Cobra, not a 99+ Cobra. The GTs put down about 230 rwhp. The Cobras of those years do about 255 rwhp. The Cobras weigh about 150 lbs. more and have a higher powerband with the same gearing as the GT. Stock for stock these cars are very close in e.t. (about .05 of a second different) and about 2 mph different in trap speeds. The Cobras are harder to launch and get a good e.t. with because of their higher powerband. Ive driven both(98 Cobra and a 03 GT), they both suffer from weak low down torque, more so the GT(well I thought so compared to any 4th gen ive ever driven)...up top is a differant story. Ran head to head w/ equal drivers the GT will get rocked.

my friend never had a problem launching due to the higher revs. Why would it be harder?just launch at a higher RPM nothin hard about that.If youre talkin about only 2mph then you must be comparing a hardtop GT to a Convertible Cobra,which sounds about right.Oh yeah my homies 96 Cobra wighed in at 3600 or so with him in it and hes a bit over 200lbs. so the 96-98 Cobra and the GT are very close in weight. The 99-01 Cobras weigh a bit more due to the IRS.Reread my post i was comparing the 96-98 Cobras as well. When you say .05 difference in E.T you're comparing a GOOD GT run vs. an average Cobra run. The difference in ET would be closer to 3-4 tenths with equal drivers gettin the same 60' times.

Originally posted by scott9050
I saw R-West of this board gain quite a bit from going to 3.73's from 3.23's in his 93 Z-28. Exaust will help too, but I think that the gear swap will be cheaper and lay the foundation for the exaust. With both full exaust and the gears you should run 107-108 at least in good weather.

Very true statement.

My car stock ran a 14.2 @ only 96. With the 3:73 gears it ran 14.0 @ 98. CAI put me at 13.90 @ 99. Now with the DR's I am able to stall it higher without spinning and turn the times in my sig.

Originally posted by Antz97ZNJ
Ive driven both(98 Cobra and a 03 GT), they both suffer from weak low down torque, more so the GT(well I thought so compared to any 4th gen ive ever driven)...up top is a differant story. Ran head to head w/ equal drivers the GT will get rocked.

I've driven a '96 and a '98 Cobra. They both feel very similar in speed to my GT except from high speed rolls.

WOW....i guess you guys took my post a off the topic. I don't even feel like reading through all the post either to find out what you guys are even talking about anymore.

Originally posted by MauriSSio
my friend never had a problem launching due to the higher revs. Why would it be harder?just launch at a higher RPM nothin hard about that.If youre talkin about only 2mph then you must be comparing a hardtop GT to a Convertible Cobra,which sounds about right.Oh yeah my homies 96 Cobra wighed in at 3600 or so with him in it and hes a bit over 200lbs. so the 96-98 Cobra and the GT are very close in weight. The 99-01 Cobras weigh a bit more due to the IRS.Reread my post i was comparing the 96-98 Cobras as well. When you say .05 difference in E.T you're comparing a GOOD GT run vs. an average Cobra run. The difference in ET would be closer to 3-4 tenths with equal drivers gettin the same 60' times.

No, I am comparing hardtop 5M to hardtop 5M. My GT weighs about 3250 lbs. and the '96-98 Cobra about 3400. From what I have seen these Cobras e.t. about the same and trap about 2 mph more. Maybe I am seeing good GT drivers and poor Cobra ones?

yes you are,look at the 60' time,you should know better. I went out and found the slip. my friends 96 Cobra weighs in at 3540 with him in it (220 of it him). thats including jack and spare. and from what i have seen, the 96-98 cobra usually puts down about 260- 265 vs. 220-230ish for the GT stock.

Originally posted by Steve Y
No, I am comparing hardtop 5M to hardtop 5M. My GT weighs about 3250 lbs. and the '96-98 Cobra about 3400. From what I have seen these Cobras e.t. about the same and trap about 2 mph more. Maybe I am seeing good GT drivers and poor Cobra ones?

But what will a Cobra run with your limited mods:

K&N, !silencer, pulleys, synthetic oils.

You are probably running 1-2 mph faster than stock going by Mikie's trap speeds.

Most on this board will agree that a '99 GT vs. an LT1 is a driver's race. And Marisso says a '96 Cobra will beat a '99 GT by 3 or 4 tenths. Then will a '96 Cobra beat an LT1 by 3 or 4 tenths? No it won't. I still say a '99 GT 5M hardtop is about equal to a '96-98 Cobra 5M hardtop and an LT1 6M hardtop in 1/4 mile e.t.s.

Originally posted by scott9050
But what will a Cobra run with your limited mods:

K&N, !silencer, pulleys, synthetic oils.


Probably 1-2 mph and 2-3 tenths faster than it did when stock.

The LT1 vs. GT is a drivers race,yes,but the LT1 will still win given equal drivers.Stock M6 LT1's trap about 2MPH higher than stock 5m GT's (98-99 vs. 100-101) so yes its a drivers race but the Cobra runs closer to 103MPH which is only really 2MPH's or so faster than an M6 LT1 which isnt TOO noticeable but compared to a 99+ GT the differences add up. Just cuz the GT vs. LT1 is a drivers race doesnt make them equal. If you still say the 99GT is equal to a 96-98 Cobra then you're being ignorant.

Originally posted by MauriSSio
The LT1 vs. GT is a drivers race,yes,but the LT1 will still win given equal drivers.Stock M6 LT1's trap about 2MPH higher than stock 5m GT's (98-99 vs. 100-101) so yes its a drivers race but the Cobra runs closer to 103MPH which is only really 2MPH's or so faster than an M6 LT1 which isnt TOO noticeable but compared to a 99+ GT the differences add up. Just cuz the GT vs. LT1 is a drivers race doesnt make them equal. If you still say the 99GT is equal to a 96-98 Cobra then you're being ignorant.

Here you are giving an average trap speed for a '99 GT and higher than average trap speeds for LT1s and Cobras. All 3 cars have very close power to weight ratios. The LT1 and Cobra have better power to aero drag ratios than the GT but this does not hurt the GT much until high speeds. The '99 GT has about 230 rwhp and weighs about 3250 lbs. The LT1 and Cobra both have about 258 rwhp and weigh about 3400-3450 lbs. So the LT1 and Cobra have a better power to weight ratio, but just barely. The overall gearing is better in the GT than the LT1 in 1st and 2nd gears. The GT has a lower rpm powerband than the Cobra so it has better gearing suited to its powerband. From what I have seen these three cars are all very close to each other in a 1/4 mile drag race. Heck, throw in the 350z and SRT-4 too. All 5 are very close in the 1/4 mile.

if you think a car that has 45 more HP and only weighs about 50 more lbs. (I posted earlier about the cobra weighed in at 3320) comes down to a drivers race, then your looking to race some really bad drivers. Ill leave it at that.

Originally posted by MauriSSio
if you think a car that has 45 more HP and only weighs about 50 more lbs. (I posted earlier about the cobra weighed in at 3320) comes down to a drivers race, then your looking to race some really bad drivers. Ill leave it at that.

45 HP rated difference. Really about 25 rwhp difference and most of that is way up in the power band where most owners of these cars are afraid to go. Also, the Cobra weighs about 150 lbs. more. GT about 3240 lbs. http://www.edmunds.com/used/2000/ford/mustang/10582/specs.html?tid=edmunds.u.prices.leftsidenav..6.For d* 0-60 5.5 sec. Cobra about 3390 lbs. http://www.edmunds.com/used/1998/ford/mustang/6423/specs.html?tid=edmunds.u.prices.leftsidenav..6.For d* 0-60 5.4 sec. It takes a long time to get to the power band in a stock geared Cobra in 1st gear unless the driver is slipping the clutch at a high rpm perfectly off the line.

unless stock 99+ GT's are dynoing closer to 250RWHP then your math is way off. Actually the HP rating was very accurate for both the Cobra and GT.Dont worry so much about dyno numbers anyways,go to the track thats where the real numbers count. GT trap speed-98-99 Cobra 103.

GT= :Owned:

BTW. My friend never had a problem getting off the line after 1 day of owning his 98 Cobra.Now after gears cutouts and pullies hes runnin 107+

Originally posted by MauriSSio
unless stock 99+ GT's are dynoing closer to 250RWHP then your math is way off. Actually the HP rating was very accurate for both the Cobra and GT.Dont worry so much about dyno numbers anyways,go to the track thats where the real numbers count. GT trap speed-98-99 Cobra 103.

GT= :Owned:

BTW. My friend never had a problem getting off the line after 1 day of owning his 98 Cobra.Now after gears cutouts and pullies hes runnin 107+

Stock '99 GT 5M dyno about 230 rwhp. Stock '98 Cobras dyno about 255 rwhp. My math is right on. Stock GTs trap about 99 on average. Stock '96-98 Cobras trap about 101 on average.

stock Cobras Trap at LEAST 102.5's (and thats on the lowend of the spectrum)and dyno closer to 265RWHP.

just face the facts the GT gets :Owned: its alright get over it.

Originally posted by MauriSSio
stock Cobras Trap at LEAST 102.5's (and thats on the lowend of the spectrum)and dyno closer to 265RWHP.


Yeah, on average they trap at least 102.5 stock :rolleyes:. They dyno about 253 rwhp on average. You've more than earned a big fat

:bs:

Originally posted by Steve Y
Yeah, on average they trap at least 102.5 stock :rolleyes:. They dyno about 253 rwhp on average. You've more than earned a big fat

:bs:

Actually you are both sort of right, the 96-97 are around 255 rwhp while the 98's got a better computer program and dyno about 265 to the wheels.

Originally posted by Antz97ZNJ
Your kidding me right...There are a good number of guys on the corral that have ran there 96-01 (more 99-01's) cobras anywhere from a 13.2-13.6@104-106 bone stock...The reason you dont see this that often is because launching that irs is a trained art, and most guys dont get enough practice. Sorry but thats WAY outta GT territory...Even in a street race a GT will get blown away w/ two equal drivers, GTs only chance(stock vs stock) would be to get a better launch off the line but it would get hawked down soon enough, from a roll it would just be ugly. I was a passenger in a race w/ a stock 01 Cobra vs a Stock 99ss, and from a 40 mph punch the Cobra put 2 1/2 cars on the SS real quick (no drivers fault), i was in shock. Those two extra valves make a bigger differance then you think, not jumping down throats, just tired of hearing guys say that there not a big differance in 99 up GTs and Cobras... Heres a little post for ya just so ya know im not making this up for arguments sake.http://www.corral.net/forums/showthread.php?threadid=443191

I'm a little confused and maybe you can help clarify this for me. I'm not flaming here and I admit up front I know very little about Cobras so please help me understand this better. I was always under the impression (from what I have read) that stock LS1's run better then stock 99-01 Cobras. Now your telling me that it's the other way around. Stock 99-01 cobras run better ET's and equal or better traps then 98+ LS1's. Now what I want to know is how?

Mustang guys here have said the 99-01 cobra dynos 255-265 rwhp. The 99+ LS1's are anywhere from 280-320 rwhp but lets say 295 for the basis of my question. So if a LS1 dynos with 30-40 more rwhp then the cobra then how does it trap a mph less and et's a few tenths higher. Is it the weight of the mustangs? Gears?

When you hear 100 people all say stock 99 LS1's beat stock 99 cobras you tend to believe it. Your the first person I have ever read claiming the opposite that a standard stock LS1 can not beat a pre 03 cobra.

BTW the only way I could believe your 40mph roll story is if the ss was a automatic. 40mph catches him in a dead spot and out of his powerband as I all to well know with a 3.23 auto myself. Try that same race from a 60mph roll and you may see a very different outcome. Or drop it down to 25-30 mph and run em again as that is a nice sweet spot as well on the A4 LS1. But 31-45 is a dreadful spot to race from a roll in if your a LS1 auto with stock torque converter.

Originally posted by darrens99formul
I'm a little confused and maybe you can help clarify this for me. I'm not flaming here and I admit up front I know very little about Cobras so please help me understand this better. I was always under the impression (from what I have read) that stock LS1's run better then stock 99-01 Cobras. Now your telling me that it's the other way around. Stock 99-01 cobras run better ET's and equal or better traps then 98+ LS1's. Now what I want to know is how?

Mustang guys here have said the 99-01 cobra dynos 255-265 rwhp. The 99+ LS1's are anywhere from 280-320 rwhp but lets say 295 for the basis of my question. So if a LS1 dynos with 30-40 more rwhp then the cobra then how does it trap a mph less and et's a few tenths higher. Is it the weight of the mustangs? Gears?

When you hear 100 people all say stock 99 LS1's beat stock 99 cobras you tend to believe it. Your the first person I have ever read claiming the opposite that a standard stock LS1 can not beat a pre 03 cobra.

BTW the only way I could believe your 40mph roll story is if the ss was a automatic. 40mph catches him in a dead spot and out of his powerband as I all to well know with a 3.23 auto myself. Try that same race from a 60mph roll and you may see a very different outcome. Or drop it down to 25-30 mph and run em again as that is a nice sweet spot as well on the A4 LS1. But 31-45 is a dreadful spot to race from a roll in if your a LS1 auto with stock torque converter.

Darren....you are correct on some info and incorrect on some info.

Everything being equal, 98+ LS1 Fbody's are indeed quicker (on average) than 99/01 Cobras. That doesn't mean that stock for stock, a 99/01 Cobra can't beat the LS1, but that is the exception rather than the rule.

99/01 Cobras dyno 275-280 RWHP in stock trim vice the 255-265 that you cite. Those numbers are more along the lines of the 96-98 DOHC Cobras.

Someone brought up weights of Cobras a bit earlier. My 98 weighed 3495 lbs w/me, making it ~3310 lbs w/o me. My 99 Cobra weighed 3575 w/me, making it ~3390 lbs w/o me.

Originally posted by scott9050
Actually you are both sort of right, the 96-97 are around 255 rwhp while the 98's got a better computer program and dyno about 265 to the wheels.

I saw a bone stock '98 dyno 255 rwhp. I don't know if that's the norm for the '98s though.

So Bob, Scott, and Darren, do you guys think a '99 GT 5M is a close race for a '96-'98 Cobra in the 1/4 mile? How close? Of course we are talking stock for stock with equal drivers on the same day.

Originally posted by Steve Y
So Bob, Scott, and Darren, do you guys think a '99 GT 5M is a close race for a '96-'98 Cobra in the 1/4 mile? How close? Of course we are talking stock for stock with equal drivers on the same day. Equal drivers I think the Cobra will pull in the second half of the track with the first 1/8th being very very close. I don't think it will pull too badly before the 1/4 is through, but after that 1/4 the gap would get bigger and bigger.

Originally posted by scott9050
Equal drivers I think the Cobra will pull in the second half of the track with the first 1/8th being very very close. I don't think it will pull too badly before the 1/4 is through, but after that 1/4 the gap would get bigger and bigger.

So do you think the Cobra would be ahead by 1 or 2 carlengths at the 1/4 mile?

Originally posted by Steve Y
So do you think the Cobra would be ahead by 1 or 2 carlengths at the 1/4 mile?

If equal drivers, yes. RT's though could win a race for the GT. With your times and minimal mods it would be an even closer race.

:shock:

Originally posted by scott9050
If equal drivers, yes. RT's though could win a race for the GT. With your times and minimal mods it would be an even closer race.

Well if you mean by equal drivers that they get the same launch then ok, but a driver that gets a good launch in the gt wouldn't nessecerly get a good launch in the cobra because they are harder to launch from what I have heard.

yeah itll be a close race,the Cobra will only be about 3 cars or so ahead of the GT.

Best bone stock time for a '99+ GT 5M I have heard was a 13.7 at 101. Best I have heard for a '96-'98 bone stock Cobra 5M is a 13.59 at 102.xx. Anybody heard any better times than these for these cars, bone stock?

Originally posted by darrens99formul
I'm a little confused and maybe you can help clarify this for me. I'm not flaming here and I admit up front I know very little about Cobras so please help me understand this better. I was always under the impression (from what I have read) that stock LS1's run better then stock 99-01 Cobras. Now your telling me that it's the other way around. Stock 99-01 cobras run better ET's and equal or better traps then 98+ LS1's. Now what I want to know is how?

Mustang guys here have said the 99-01 cobra dynos 255-265 rwhp. The 99+ LS1's are anywhere from 280-320 rwhp but lets say 295 for the basis of my question. So if a LS1 dynos with 30-40 more rwhp then the cobra then how does it trap a mph less and et's a few tenths higher. Is it the weight of the mustangs? Gears?

When you hear 100 people all say stock 99 LS1's beat stock 99 cobras you tend to believe it. Your the first person I have ever read claiming the opposite that a standard stock LS1 can not beat a pre 03 cobra.

BTW the only way I could believe your 40mph roll story is if the ss was a automatic. 40mph catches him in a dead spot and out of his powerband as I all to well know with a 3.23 auto myself. Try that same race from a 60mph roll and you may see a very different outcome. Or drop it down to 25-30 mph and run em again as that is a nice sweet spot as well on the A4 LS1. But 31-45 is a dreadful spot to race from a roll in if your a LS1 auto with stock torque converter. Never said the 99/01 Cobra was faster then a LS1, there not...At that powerband(in the race I was in)and the SS being a A4 yes the Cobra was faster there from a roll...Off the Line would probably be a different story...W/ good drivers it would be a close race w/ the LS1 winning...Most of the Cobras problem like ive said previously is the driver and the IRS...Camaro is much more user friendly...Like others have said I never lost a race to a GT in either of my LT1's that includes the track, many dont extract the full potential of em, so some use excuses instead of track times to defend there argument...No biggie anyway, next year the old Gts will probably be extint w/ the new gen. having much more potential w/ a extra valve...cant wait til they come out

Originally posted by scott9050
Equal drivers I think the Cobra will pull in the second half of the track with the first 1/8th being very very close. I don't think it will pull too badly before the 1/4 is through, but after that 1/4 the gap would get bigger and bigger. I couldnt agree more...45 hp advantage has to come in somewhere

Originally posted by Antz97ZNJ
I couldnt agree more...45 hp advantage has to come in somewhere

It's about a 25 rwhp advantage and a 100-150 lb. disadvantage for the '96-98 Cobras.

no,umm closer to 45 HP and about 100lbs. nice try though

Originally posted by MauriSSio
no,umm closer to 45 HP and about 100lbs. nice try though

'99+ GT puts out about 230 rwhp stock.
'96-'96 Cobra puts out about 255 rwhp stock.
Rwhp is a lot better to be concerned with than manufacturers bs claims of flywheel hp.

my friend justin dynod 266RWHP Bone stock 96 Cobra?what did you dyno?or are you just pulling numbers outta your ass? Who gives a **** about dynos,its already been proven Cobras trap at least 3mph faster.

GT= :Owned: nuff said

Bob Cosby's Cobra,Damon Phillips and Mike Smith all went mid 13s at 101-103 MPH stock with no mods(98s). Mike Smith actually hit 105MPH and 13.2-1ss against guys from LS1.com back in 1998. Cobras SHOULD be faster than GTs but most are not. They are undergeared and very tough to get the numbers with because they are hard to launch. Once moving they are easy to run fast with. You must shift them right at the redline and powershift(risky with the weak t45)-one miss and the EEC cuts you out in regards to timing. I can't drive a 96-98 Cobra(98s despite the same rating seem to run the fastest stock) to save my life stock. I can hit good traps(102-103 in good air) but my ets suck because I bog or blow the tires off. Mike Smith could hit 1.9s with stock tires and 327 gears-thats insane. He could ran at least 13.5s at Cecil,Atco and MIR. David T at the time had the fastest stock LS1(low 13s at 106MPH) but the showdown never happened. Mike's 98 dynoed 255 at the Woodbridge dyno.

The Gt produces more low end power so they can run with a Cobra of those years sans top end which is why they trap less. Dynos especially peak power means nothing. The Cobra is heavier as well I believe.

Originally posted by MauriSSio
my friend justin dynod 266RWHP Bone stock 96 Cobra?what did you dyno?or are you just pulling numbers outta your ass? Who gives a **** about dynos,its already been proven Cobras trap at least 3mph faster.

GT= :Owned: nuff said

And i've seen a bone stock GT dyno 238 rwhp. So the Cobra did 28 rwhp more not 45 flywheel hp!

Originally posted by Mike 92LX
Bob Cosby's Cobra,Damon Phillips and Mike Smith all went mid 13s at 101-103 MPH stock with no mods(98s). Mike Smith actually hit 105MPH and 13.2-1ss against guys from LS1.com back in 1998. Cobras SHOULD be faster than GTs but most are not. They are undergeared and very tough to get the numbers with because they are hard to launch. Once moving they are easy to run fast with. You must shift them right at the redline and powershift(risky with the weak t45)-one miss and the EEC cuts you out in regards to timing. I can't drive a 96-98 Cobra(98s despite the same rating seem to run the fastest stock) to save my life stock. I can hit good traps(102-103 in good air) but my ets suck because I bog or blow the tires off. Mike Smith could hit 1.9s with stock tires and 327 gears-thats insane. He could ran at least 13.5s at Cecil,Atco and MIR. David T at the time had the fastest stock LS1(low 13s at 106MPH) but the showdown never happened. Mike's 98 dynoed 255 at the Woodbridge dyno.

The Gt produces more low end power so they can run with a Cobra of those years sans top end which is why they trap less. Dynos especially peak power means nothing. The Cobra is heavier as well I believe.

:bow: Somebody that actually knows what they are talking about unlike MauriSSio!

what did he just post was the fastest 96-98 Cobra?what was the trap speed? What was the E.T?now you said the fastest GT you know of hit 13.7 stock! Last i checked the times he posted were much better! so now you know the potential of the cobra in stock trim!

lol and once again,Steve Y gets :Owned:

my friends 96 Cobra has hit around 107.2MPH w/ 4.10's, Cutouts and pullies. would would your car trap with the same mods? 101-102 most likely. Also, what did YOU dyno?

Originally posted by MauriSSio
what did he just post was the fastest 96-98 Cobra?what was the trap speed? What was the E.T?now you said the fastest GT you know of hit 13.7 stock! Last i checked the times he posted were much better! so now you know the potential of the cobra in stock trim!

lol and once again,Steve Y gets :Owned:

Ok I was wrong about the Cobra e.t. and trap speeds. But you were wrong about the rwhp and weight of the Cobra.

Originally posted by MauriSSio
my friends 96 Cobra has hit around 107.2MPH w/ 4.10's, Cutouts and pullies. would would your car trap with the same mods? 101-102 most likely. Also, what did YOU dyno?

Your right, probably 101-102 mph. I have never dynoed my car. Countless others have dynoed cars like mine but bone stock to the tune of 225-238 rwhp.

whatever dude,lets just end this rediculous discussion and annoy the hell out of other people for a change :D

Originally posted by MauriSSio
whatever dude,lets just end this rediculous discussion and annoy the hell out of other people for a change :D

I saw a good running bone stock '96 Cobra put down 240 rwhp once (must have been a dog), then other's have put down 265 rwhp. The same car's rwhp sure varies a lot. I've seen LS1s vary from 282 to 321 rwhp, both stock. At least we both learned something, right? I agree on ending this!

:lol: I am going to say you both made good points, thanks for ending it though.

Originally posted by Mike 92LX
Bob Cosby's Cobra,Damon Phillips and Mike Smith all went mid 13s at 101-103 MPH stock with no mods(98s). Mike Smith actually hit 105MPH and 13.2-1ss against guys from LS1.com back in 1998.

The fastest time i've heard that MMFF went with a stock '96-98 Cobra was 13.7. They must suck at driving those year Cobras compared to these guys.

Originally posted by Steve Y
The fastest time i've heard that MMFF went with a stock '96-98 Cobra was 13.7. They must suck at driving those year Cobras compared to these guys.
Mine went 13.6 @ 104 at Atco back in early 1999. I know it did, because I was driving, and as much as I hate to admit it, I'm no better than Evan Smith, and likely worse than him on a true street tire. I also witnessed Mike Smith going 13.4 @ 105 in an identical 98 in the identical 100% bone stock condition. This was at E-town.

Just because it is or is not in MM&FF does not mean it did or did not happen.

Originally posted by Bob Cosby
Mine went 13.6 @ 104 at Atco back in early 1999. I know it did, because I was driving, and as much as I hate to admit it, I'm no better than Evan Smith, and likely worse than him on a true street tire. I also witnessed Mike Smith going 13.4 @ 105 in an identical 98 in the identical 100% bone stock condition. This was at E-town.

Just because it is or is not in MM&FF does not mean it did or did not happen.

So did Mike Smith do a 13.1 in a stock Cobra?

I know that. I am just surprised that MM&FF doesn't have the best time for a stock '96-98 Cobra, that's all. They usually have the best time for any stock car or at least come very close to tying it.

Originally posted by Steve Y
So did Mike Smith do a 13.1 in a stock Cobra?

I know that. I am just surprised that MM&FF doesn't have the best time for a stock '96-98 Cobra, that's all. They usually have the best time for any stock car or at least come very close to tying it.

Yup. Cecil County raceway in late 1998. He backed it up on several runs that day. At the time, there was video of the run and a walk-around of the car, and several F-body folks vouched for it. However, I never quote that ET when discussing 96-98 Cobra's simply because it is so much better than any others that you will hear about. The hardest part about getting one of those cars to ET was the launch and a clean 1/2 shift. He had it down. Went through his first clutch inside of 18,000 miles. I only had my 98 at the track twice, and never figured it out. My 13.6 @ 104 was with a pathetic 2.18 60 ft....and horid spinning on the 1/2 shift.

Originally posted by Steve Y
I've seen LS1s vary from 282 to 321 rwhp, both stock.

Pretty loose term for stock tho. Seems like most guys with 320rwhp stock LS1s always have a 'lid' , or catback, or something small. They might be out there but you just can't believe whats stock and what isn't anymore. Heck, GMHTP took a 98 Formula and did a bunch of free mods to it and gained around 10rwhp. They probably still called it stock too ;)

Originally posted by hsyr
Pretty loose term for stock tho. Seems like most guys with 320rwhp stock LS1s always have a 'lid' , or catback, or something small. They might be out there but you just can't believe whats stock and what isn't anymore. Heck, GMHTP took a 98 Formula and did a bunch of free mods to it and gained around 10rwhp. They probably still called it stock too ;)

These cars were both bone stock. The 321 rwhp car even had a dirty paper filter!

Originally posted by Bob Cosby
Yup. Cecil County raceway in late 1998. He backed it up on several runs that day. At the time, there was video of the run and a walk-around of the car, and several F-body folks vouched for it. However, I never quote that ET when discussing 96-98 Cobra's simply because it is so much better than any others that you will hear about. The hardest part about getting one of those cars to ET was the launch and a clean 1/2 shift. He had it down. Went through his first clutch inside of 18,000 miles. I only had my 98 at the track twice, and never figured it out. My 13.6 @ 104 was with a pathetic 2.18 60 ft....and horid spinning on the 1/2 shift.

A 13.1 out of a bone stock '98 Cobra is nothing short of amazing! Wow! What is the best time you have ever heard for a bone stock '99+ GT? MMFF pulled off a 13.79 at 101 as their best.

Seems to me like people don't know what Bone stock is anymore... Always here a comment or two about how he's "Bone stock except for this exhaust and that 6psi Supercharge, oh and he's got headers and 4.11's with a 12bolt. He's bone stock dude!" Heh. I doubt a 98 Cobra could pull a 13.1 and be completely stock, sure he was? I know a guy with a SS that looked completely Stock (Since it was his goal the entire time to do so) and ran mid 12's... never did find out what his real mods were..

Originally posted by BigRedZ28
Seems to me like people don't know what Bone stock is anymore... Always here a comment or two about how he's "Bone stock except for this exhaust and that 6psi Supercharge, oh and he's got headers and 4.11's with a 12bolt. He's bone stock dude!" Heh. I doubt a 98 Cobra could pull a 13.1 and be completely stock, sure he was? I know a guy with a SS that looked completely Stock (Since it was his goal the entire time to do so) and ran mid 12's... never did find out what his real mods were..
Ya, I'm sure he was. And what's more, I'm just as sure that I understand your definition of "bone stock". However, if you would rather not believe it, that's ok with me. This happened a long time ago (way before you were even old enough to drive), created quite a stir a long time ago, and I got over it a long time ago.

Steve Y....I was at the track when MM&FF went 13.70 @ 101 mph in a brand new 2002 GT (still had the plastic on the seats). It was a private, closed session, and Evan Smith was behind the wheel. Track was well-prepped, air was very good, and Evan knows how to pedal a "stocker".

Originally posted by Bob Cosby
This happened a long time ago (way before you were even old enough to drive)


:Owned: :lol:

Ya, I'm sure he was. And what's more, I'm just as sure that I understand your definition of "bone stock". However, if you would rather not believe it, that's ok with me. This happened a long time ago (way before you were even old enough to drive), created quite a stir a long time ago, and I got over it a long time ago.

Don't wanna offend. But you see my point? You saw it and you believe it, and I would have to do the same; See it to believe it.

Originally posted by BigRedZ28
Don't wanna offend. But you see my point? You saw it and you believe it, and I would have to do the same; See it to believe it.

I definately see your point about the definition of "stock", and about being skeptical over something like the above.

I would also say that if you have to see something to believe it, you won't be believing much in this world.

Peace.

Well I forgot to wear my galloshes(sp) to work today, but I managed to wade through all of the 9 pages of BS to the end here. It's pretty friggin' deep in a couple of spots...


The only thing I'm curious about is why no one has questioned the original poster. 280some RWHP from a LT1 with cai and cat-back??? HEEELLLOOOOO!!!

The BEST dyno's I've seen from stock LT1s were in the 230-40rwhp range. So am I to believe that a intake/cat-back adds 50hp to the wheels???


Anyone care to clarify....




Jon

thats what im sayin,a few years ago LT1's were dynoing 23X-240 and now if they dont hit at least 255-265 stock theyre terds.I think something has been up with the dynos the last 3 years or so. Maybe they changed the fomula i dont know but it dont really matter since it seems lots of cars are dynoing extravagant numbers yet running low MPH's (for the numbers theire putting down). For example, cammed LT1s w/stock heads are averaging 350RWHP now when before theyd ususally dyno 310-330 but their still running the same trap speeds. Shiet 03 Cobras are dynoing 375RWHP and only running 111MPH's or so. Maybe im paranoid but something seems fishy.

I would also say that if you have to see something to believe it, you won't be believing much in this world.

Well I guess I'd have to say you don't believe much in the world untill you see it in some manner period, and most people who don't get out and see the world usualy are alittle more close minded aye? I would like an example if possable of what you mean by this statement? Just curious... not meaning to sound dumb.

Originally posted by COMNBYU
Well I forgot to wear my galloshes(sp) to work today, but I managed to wade through all of the 9 pages of BS to the end here. It's pretty friggin' deep in a couple of spots...


The only thing I'm curious about is why no one has questioned the original poster. 280some RWHP from a LT1 with cai and cat-back??? HEEELLLOOOOO!!!

The BEST dyno's I've seen from stock LT1s were in the 230-40rwhp range. So am I to believe that a intake/cat-back adds 50hp to the wheels???


Anyone care to clarify....




Jon

I've seen a bone stock '96 Z28 dyno 265 rwhp before.

Originally posted by MauriSSio
thats what im sayin,a few years ago LT1's were dynoing 23X-240 and now if they dont hit at least 255-265 stock theyre terds.I think something has been up with the dynos the last 3 years or so. Maybe they changed the fomula i dont know but it dont really matter since it seems lots of cars are dynoing extravagant numbers yet running low MPH's (for the numbers theire putting down). For example, cammed LT1s w/stock heads are averaging 350RWHP now when before theyd ususally dyno 310-330 but their still running the same trap speeds. Shiet 03 Cobras are dynoing 375RWHP and only running 111MPH's or so. Maybe im paranoid but something seems fishy.

There seems to be a few cammed LT1s pushing 350+rwhp and trapping around 115mph. Doesn't seem to fishy to me :o

To me, stock means what it came with from the dealer. But people now can do motor changes, and everything to their car except ported heads and it is stock. I hate when people say stock when you can see their aftermarket exhaust. That is just me though.

Originally posted by MauriSSio
thats what im sayin,a few years ago LT1's were dynoing 23X-240 and now if they dont hit at least 255-265 stock theyre terds.I think something has been up with the dynos the last 3 years or so. Maybe they changed the fomula i dont know but it dont really matter since it seems lots of cars are dynoing extravagant numbers yet running low MPH's (for the numbers theire putting down). For example, cammed LT1s w/stock heads are averaging 350RWHP now when before theyd ususally dyno 310-330 but their still running the same trap speeds. Shiet 03 Cobras are dynoing 375RWHP and only running 111MPH's or so. Maybe im paranoid but something seems fishy.

All the dyno tests I have seen for the past 10+ years have all been the higher #s. Are you talking about a Mustang dyno instead of a Dynojet?

dynojet. Theres also 350RWHP f-boies running 110 or so......

The tape Bob speaks about was taped by me back in 1998-I have a copy if someone wants one. To back up his runs-he ran a bunch of MODDED M6 LS1 the next week and beat them all. They all out MPH him though but who cares-he ran a slowest of 13.4 those two weekends. Damon Phillips ran a 13.33,38 in his 98 that weekend too-at Atco he ran a 13.55 at 104MPH still stock with OEM filter blah blah

Originally posted by MauriSSio
dynojet. Theres also 350RWHP f-boies running 110 or so......

There's 320 rwhp Mustangs running 114+ traps. There are a lot of other factors involved such as: weight, gearing, aero drag, traction, and driving style.

Originally posted by Mike 92LX
The tape Bob speaks about was taped by me back in 1998-I have a copy if someone wants one. To back up his runs-he ran a bunch of MODDED M6 LS1 the next week and beat them all. They all out MPH him though but who cares-he ran a slowest of 13.4 those two weekends. Damon Phillips ran a 13.33,38 in his 98 that weekend too-at Atco he ran a 13.55 at 104MPH still stock with OEM filter blah blah

You have a tape of a bone stock '98 Cobra running 13.1? I'd love to see it! Can you post it as a video on this thread?

Steve as I have told you before-David T of LS1.com who I am pretty sure Bob knows went 13.6 at 101 MPH at Capitol Raceway with an stock 99 GT. He raced an M6 LS1 and actually beat it through the 1/8mile.

MM&FF goes fast because they race at the same tracks we do(Atco,Englishtown),get the track prepped better than a typical T and T night and have a great driver who is a very small guy(ie not much weight) as well.

Its on tape-I will see if I can transfer it-Bob has it. Blackhatch I think has a copy too. Backinblack,Chris89stang,Snorman and a bunch of oldtimers all had copys too. I can't recall if Scott has it-I know he knew about it.

my only response to the dyno thing is maybe some of the dynos are calibrated differently? :confused: