Very good drivers? After seeing your mod list as well as time, I wouldn't use "good" as the correct adjective.

I'm not following. What is a wanna be Ram? Is that like saying a Ranger is a wanna be F150 or a Frontier is a wanna be Titan?

Let me hand ya a cry towel. The Camaro boys don't like when they get an insult yet they can dish it w/o hesitation? Next time I'll be sure to post in a more pc fashion as not to upset you.

 

Those older cars while competition for the LT1, were not competition for the LS1 that was introduced in the 98MY, thus Ford attempted to improve, as was my point

I'm bashing high tech OHC V8s that need a power adder to perform. I don't see how that compares to a 30+ year old pushrod design, with 6 cylinders no less, needing the power adder...

And I'm anything but anti-Ford. I love Fords. I make a REAL DECENT living off of fixing them...

 

Bob Cosby ran 13.6 at 104 in his 96 Cobra bone dead stock. Either you have some altitude issues or some drivers aren't up to snuff. Will every car run that? No, but the car has the potential to run good times stock, some people just have a hard time running the modular engine to its full potential versus a pushrod engine.

 

Kudos to you if you needed to make your point by stating the obvious. Normally a vehicle is improved as it continues to be produced. Some people are so staunch with their beliefs that nothing could get them to look at the picture with a clear mind. I'll humor you and believe that any Cobra from 99 & up would be lucky to stay within a few bus lengths of the Ls1 Fbody.

Allow me to explain with the hopes of you understanding. First, if you honestly believe a billion dollar company, such as Ford. can not make a powerful n/a engine that performs, you have serious denial issues. They did it 40yrs ago but can not do the same in recent years?

GM didn't have to go the route of forced induction with the cars mentioned before. For whatever reason, they choose to do so. Thinking they couldn't make a powerful performing n/a engine is as silly as thinking the same about ford. You don't want to hear this arguement because it can pertain to GM and not only Ford.

 

To say that Ford can't build an N/A engine to rival an LS1 just because they haven't (my Mach 1 beat a couple of LS1's, and it was stock), is probably the worst argument I've ever heard from here.

Not doing something does not mean it can't be done.

 

As I said, the 4.6 in my Mach 1 was excellent competition.

 

Friends 96 ran similar times back in 1999. I stand by my statements. Of course I have run a stock 130,000 AOD 5.0 LX to 14.50's at 95+ before myself
and a Mark VIII to 14.651 at 97.21, both near the fastest reported times for those cars stock. I've raced in 7 different states, I know that D/A and track conditions can cause vastly different times for the same car. As far as me "coming up with stats" I rarely post in this forum because of the thick BS and because it is an idiot magnet. Case in point? You left out the rest of my post in your quote to make it suit your needs. To refresh your memory:

Gee, I said not everyone runs those times right there in my post. Maybe you should take time to read before spouting off?

 

They can't! They tried... and failed. What part about that FACT do you not understand?! If they can/could, why did they fail to the point of cancelling an entire car model due to the engine's shortcomings? Why did they recall the same car line to "improve" the engines performance? Show me just one example, of any late model, 100% stock naturally aspirated Ford engine putting up impressive numbers (mid 13s dont cut it). Just one... until then, keep you "Ford could if they wanted to" conjecture out of this. Facts only please. They're building upon a poor engine platform for N/A performance: The DOHC mod motors lack displacement, produce very little low end torque and power overall (though not bad for 4.6L), and are inefficient to the point of poor emissions and fuel mileage for the engine size. When a pushrod engine of an entire liter more displacement is capable of producing more power, torque, with better emissions and fuel mileage, well..

 

You were using the rather pathetic times that you and your friends were able to produce to insinuate that the 4.6 modular engine was somehow a turd and did so as a comeback to JCU's post. Just because you can't produce decent times with a modded Cobra does not mean others can not.

You're welcome

He was not a "track champ" at the time he ran those times, but nice try though. His times were not unusual either nor were they the best. The best was on an east coast track that ran low 13's at 106 stock and had the vid to prove it as well as witnessed by several very credible members here. I've run enough passes down a strip to know that practice and good track conditions are all it takes to run good times.

Apparently you suck so bad at driving that you think you need to be Bob Cosby to have good times Let me let you in on a little secret, Bob and Evan Smith, who is another quoted driver, actually lose races to other drivers.
I can take you to any local track and take your car and get someone else to get better times from your car than you can. Potential of a car is just that, potential. You somehow have a problem with that concept.

Read above.

I edited to correct a typo, but nice try though. As far as Bob goes, he is
a Navy man who did this as a hobby as are many others. Go to the Corral and see how bad those times for a Cobra with those mods are since this is "an F-bod site" as you say.

 

First and foremost, maybe you should do some research before coming up with things that are not even true? The 2000 Cobra R ran well into the 12's with traps of 112-114 (MT got 12.8 at 112.7, MM&FF obviously faster) . Not impressive to you? That's faster than any stock LS1 f-bod has ever run. And what model did they "cancel" due to an engines shortcomings? The Mustang has been produced every year since 1964, it has never been "canceled". The Cobra is a Mustang, not a separate model. Second, the car was recalled due to minor problems with a hiatus in 2000, not "canceled". Nice way to be dramatic though

The engine had absolutely nothing to do with the recall. The majority of the problem was due to faulty EEC-V calibration and was fixed with a simple flash program. The other part of "the fix" involved work to the upper intake and a revised catback. Wow, that was such a dramatic problem with the engine

The Cobra R was already quoted. On top of that the 99-01 Cobra and Mach I 5spd were both under the mid 13 second threshold and right there with the LS1 in the real world. Perhaps in the thick haze of your obvious bias you can't see that? These are times I have personally witnessed with a slew of drivers, none professional.

The 400 hp crate cammer (5.0 displacement) is more proof that Ford can easily produce an engine capable of competing with G.M, and the derivatives of the Hurricane program that is coming soon will remove all doubt. I would go into the reasons why Ford has done what they have done, but it would obviously go over your head so I won't bother. You guys feel free to continue to argue amongst yourselves, I don't bother with people who are so obviously brand biased as to dismiss facts.

 

When have they tried and failed? Survey says: They haven't. In your blinded eyes they have but in the eyes of many others, they have not. Research the "canceling" of the Cobra along with what was done to "improve" the 4.6 performance. Being bias is one thing. Being ignorant is another story. Having your fellow peanut gallery member run a 13.34 in his modded Cobra is hardly a good representation of the car and its ability.

 

Sadly, I sold it last April.