If anyones a troll its you steve y.Don't you have any thing better to do than come on f-body forums and talk trash?I think your out of your environment.Trolls live under bridges(aka mustang forums land of the trolls)so I think I can help you find your way home.I believe its called stangnet.com.If you need directions its easy.Just go through the path known as im just another victim of a 4th gen camaro *** beating all the way to where you belong in the land of defeated mustangs.

 

The correct term is the four stroke cycle engine. Nikolaus Otto demonstrated this engine first in 1876. It's pretty common and easy automotive knowledge.

 

Bob cosby:
Let me clarify myself a bit if i could. No it is not that it isnt GM. If you read an earlier post of mine, in this thread, i was actually considering a mustang before i bought my SS. I do not like them, not because they are not GM, i just dont personally care for them. I dont like sitting in a sports car, that feels like you are sitting in a pick-up. I dont like having to tie a rope to the shifter to reach it. I dont like how they ride, etc. etc. Most importantly, comparing the 2 (01 Cobra, and 00 SS) The SS, in my opinion was just an all out better performer. I am not biased by any means, accusing me of being so is wrong.

That Magazine is the April 2004 issue of 5.0 mustangs and fast fords.

I never said i dont believe your track times for your car, i simply stated that is what Mach's are running in my area. Also never stated that since the best run i have seen a 96-98 cobra make was a 13.9, that they have never ran faster. Altitudes, Track conditions, Driver, temp, humidity, etc. will change numbers by up to a full second in some cases, sometimes more then a full second if the driver really sux. I undesrtand this. You dont have to tell me, however, it is fair to state what these cars run in my area, in comparison with other cars in my area (same track, temp, etc.).

 

Right back at you with your stories about beating LS1's by 2-3 car lengths with your 210 RWHP GT, which were mysteriously just grudge matches with "no time slips",of course.

I dont recall ever saying because i have not witnessed one run faster, that they havent, so maybe you should quit assuming you know what i mean, when you honestly dont have a clue.

60 RWHP difference, i think not, any fool knows there is a little difference, but not 60 RWHP. If that were the case, a 3 cylinder Geo Metro should register about....2-3 FWHP on a mustang dyno.

Its lack of knowledge, you seem to be Mr. Grammar, and punctuation around here, ridiculing anyone who dares to leave an S out of a word, or mis-types something, maybe you need to heed your own advice, ***. Bs slinging?? What have i said that is BS, i am curious?

See above post about correcting my spelling. I am glad Bob knows more about about Drag Racing, and cars in general then i do. Let me ask you this, if i may, though::::HOW IN THE **** WOULD YOU KNOW??!?! Do you even know who i am?? For all you know, i could be John Force sitting at this computer right now. Second grade, Troll? Good, maybe personal slams make you feel better, while you sit there at your little computer, and beat your little ding-dong. Or maybe ridiculing people on this board time and time again, is to compensate for all the stress you have at work pushing around the mop bucket. Perhaps it is to compensate for a Small pecker as well.

So lets recap:
1) You are just as illiterate as everyone on this board "Captain Spelling Bee"
2) Your car sucks (well all except the "massive" tire-spin between 1 and 2)
3) You assume waaaaaay too much, dont put words into other people's mouth.
4) And last but not least you have proven, time and time again, you are a wad that should have been swallowed.

Goodnight, remember to put your "caution wet floor" signs up while you are mopping out the ****house.

 

While I still perceive it differently, I have no issues with anyone that likes one particular car over another - or one particular brand over another. I only have issues when said folks won't admit their bias - and even try to convice us otherwise.

LOL. You know, I never get that feeling when I sit in my 99 Cobra. To each their own, I suppose. Personally, I didn't like falling in and climbing out of my 99 T/A. Rather, I like to get in and get out. Again, to each their own.

No stretching of the point there, huh? (pun intended). Shifter location was one of the nice things about the F-body. Then again, I have no trouble shifting my Cobra either. Perhaps you just have shorter-than-normal arms?

Ok. I had no issues with the ride of either. Personally, I didn't like the perceived bulk of the T/A, which is one of the main reasons I traded it for the Cobra. But again - those are all personal preferences.

For you, it likely was - and that's ok with me. Under most conditions, stock to stock, a 00 SS is certainly quicker and faster than a 01 Cobra.

Well, I guess I'll just have to go on being "wrong", cause I'm accusing. You're welcome to do the same.

I am going to to assume (dangerous) that you meant Muscle Mustangs and Fast Fords (MM&FF) vice 5.0 Mustang and Super Fords (5.0). If that is incorrect, tell me and I'll dig up the April 04 version of the latter and take a look at it, too.

Anyways, the Apr 04 issue of MM&FF did indeed dyno a 2004 Cobra as part of their article "the Ultimate Mustang Shootout". The article starts on page 60. To recap what you said...

The article in question says, and I quote from page 64...

"At D&D Performance, it shamed its brethren - 386 rwhp and 387 lb-ft of torque. Ooo-fa. The scary thing is this isn't uncommon. We can't remember testing any 2003-up serpent that didn't make at least 370 to the tires."

Their words - not mine. However, after pulling your quote from a couple of pages back, I see it is likely you meant the April 5.0 mag and not MM&FF. I'll go grab that one this evening. Perhaps they did indeed use a Mustang (load-bearing) dyno vice a dynojet? If they did, there is no accurate conversion from one to the other.

Wait - Mr lovescamaro25 is a dyno expert. We'll ask him to convert it.

Also, and just for refrence, here are the numbers from each of the cars they tested that day:

A4 GT.
Weight w/driver: 3590 lbs
ET: 14.095 @ 96.64 (Ford A4s kinda suck.....understatment, IMHO)

M5 Mach 1
Weight w/driver: 3660 lbs
ET: 13.156 @ 105.35

M6 Cobra Convertable (ie....heavy)
Weight w/driver: 3930 lbs (ouch!!!)
ET: 12.77 @ 111.00 (not impressive at all - damn)

Ok. Your implication was different - especially the "interesting" comment at the end of your sentence. But I'll take your word for it. It is quite irrelevant anyways. 13.6 for a Mach isn't uncommon.

No issues with that.

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

Now lets play with Mr. "you couldnt hold a candle to the amount of auto knowledge that i have."

Hello. You said the following, earlier in this thread:

A knowledgeable person reads that, then is supposed to believe that we "couldn't hold a candle to the amount of auto knowledge" that you have? Are you trying to be serious? So tell me - how do we get an oil leak from a head gasket? Do you even know what a head gasket does, or what it seals? And there's a tsb on "powershifting"? Really. Could you look that up for us - along with the oil leaking from the headgasket tsb? Thanks. And you know, I was thinking Ford used different pistons, rods, heads, intake, cams, block, etc on the 2003/2004 Cobra vice what they had in ealier years. That's not true? Damn - Ford's printing lies. What a bummer.

Got stupid?

Further, you also contridicted yourself in this same thread....to wit...you said...
Followed not long afterwards by...
So which is it? You said the LS1 is more reliable in one quote, but that the 4.6 has less problems in another.

Wow. Your breadth of "automotive knowledge" is overwhelming. Dude - quit now. You'll look better later. Really.

 

Bob, quit picking on the mental midgets of the kill forum!

 

Footnote.

Black00SS. When I got home this afternoon, I pulled out the April 04 issue of 5.0 Mustang and Super Fords (5.0), and there was the article you referenced - apologies for my bad assumption. The numbers were as you stated: 319/306. Also, as I suspected, it was on a Mustang dyno. Reading further, the article stated:

"If these numbers seem low, they are. That's because the Mustang dynos - which load the car to replicate its weight going down the road - religiously read substantially lower than the more widely known inertial Dynojets - as much as 40 HP less sometimes."

Pages 52 & 54.

Of note, the MM&FF tests were done on a Dynojet, as are the vast majority of dyno numbers you hear about on this and other forums.

All of this is a great lead in to something I like to preach - the dyno is a tuning tool, and does not go down the racetrack.

 

here mach1 haters , j/k
here is an example of a lighty modified mach 1 running at the track
mods:
SLP Catted X Pipe, Magnaflow catback, K&N filter, Motive 4.10 gears, Moser 31 spline axles, Ford 31 spline Tracklock, DM SpeedCal..,in other words, exhaust/gears/tires. the k&n filter is not doing too much on our cars anyways.
he's not running nos or any kind of f/i, just a regular car like mine with some bolt ons, nothing fancy
i think i saw some ls1's in there even a corvette (c5 i guess) getting beaten by a mach1 , again is up to you to believe this or not, as i said is proven,documented, and is on video, fbodies ls1 powered equipped cars are not almighty anymore

the file is 41mb so i would recommend to do a right click instead of trying to stream it.

http://mysite.verizon.net/res7f4ol/s...s/dansmall.mpg

 

That's more than "lightly" modified.

 

Wow so many words and such little time. Bob C, nice to see you're still hanging out

 

You've got to be kidding. Internet-raceritis in action. It's got exhaust, gears, and tires. The rear end parts are for strength - and in fact, because they are heavier, would actually slow the car down (if only very slightly).

What is your idea of "lightly modified"? Let me guess - Synthetic Oil, K&N Filter, shifter, Neon lights, and couple of stickers?

I'd hate to see what you think "heavily modified" is.

 

i would like to hear the definition of "lightly mod" according to you

 

What is the stock rearend ratio for a Mach 1?

 

8.8" ... 3.27 gear I believe.

 

Oh, ok. That's what I was referring to. The 4.10 ratio doesn't seem like a "light modification". I agree everything else is though.