04 cobra vs 08 shelby cobra

[JMD0346]

Just to correct you, the terminator is assumed to have 420-430 hp. Proven would mean you actually put it on a chasis dyno and didn't use estimates to get to your crank hp rating. You can assume 15% drivetrain loss all you want but that doesn't mean it actually has that efficiency.

And the shelby dynos areound 440 rwhp so that mean it really isn't at 500 hp if we assume 15% drivetrain loss, it would bemore like 515 hp. But I don't assume like you do so 500 hp sounds fine to me.

Huh? Its rated at 390. The avergae RWP was around 370. Its either REALLY efficient or it makes more than 390. More like hmm I dont know 420-430?


You pick. Either way its good.


Oh and if you wanted to do the test your talking about you would need an engine dyno. Not a chassis dyno.

 

[98Snake03]

Just to correct you, the terminator is assumed to have 420-430 hp. Proven would mean you actually put it on a chasis dyno and didn't use estimates to get to your crank hp rating. You can assume 15% drivetrain loss all you want but that doesn't mean it actually has that efficiency.

And the shelby dynos areound 440 rwhp so that mean it really isn't at 500 hp if we assume 15% drivetrain loss, it would bemore like 515 hp. But I don't assume like you do so 500 hp sounds fine to me.

no correction needed. I speak from factual evidence....we can do what we want with assumptions...the 03-04 made 360-370, and the shelby 430-440...15% is generous....I always hear about 17-18%. Besides...bhp is hogwash....only used in magazine comparisons and in this one.

So say worst case for both...

Term @ 17% making 360 rwhp...421 bhp = 8.7 lb/hp

Shelby @ 17% making 430 rwhp...503 bhp = 7.75 lb/hp

Over 1 hp/lb for the Shelby.

I still say the shelby is better stock, but AGAIN $$ for $$ the Term is cheaper and faster.

The ZO6 still owns IMO....it's 'factory' ratings make it 6.2 lb/hp

It would take a Term making a SOLID 500 rwhp to just give this car a run!!!

 

[98Snake03]

But I don't assume like you do so 500 hp sounds fine to me.

so you have owned/driven/dyno'd both???

 

[Klay]

so you have owned/driven/dyno'd both???

Do I need to? Do you own a gt500? You are making ricer type arguements. It is like me saying I can make my car go faster for cheaper than you. Does that mean my car is better? No it doesn't, so the whole point you are trying to make is stupid and is meant to degrade the gt500.

and to JMD, I stand corrected on thy dyno type but regardless my point stands. While it is good to have either a really efficient drivetrain or higher than advertised hp rating, the rwhp dyno numbers still don't prove anything regarding this matter. We all know different dyno post different results, therefore it is hard to say what exactly ford rated the engine at unless you do an engine dyno, as you pointed out. If anything they give a good indication that the motor was underrated but I wouldn't say anything is fact unless you did the same test ford did when they dyno'ed that motor.

 

[98Snake03]

Do I need to? Do you own a gt500? You are making ricer type arguements. It is like me saying I can make my car go faster for cheaper than you. Does that mean my car is better? No it doesn't, so the whole point you are trying to make is stupid and is meant to degrade the gt500.

You are making no points....I never said I owned a GT500. I did drive one...wasn't impressed at all. Also, I never said your car wouldn't go faster for cheaper.

I could buy a 1990 LX and make it blow the doors off my cobra for way cheaper then what I paid for the car....my whole point was that...$$ for $$.

I never degraded the GT500 one bit...re read what I said...I said mod for mod hands down to the GT...$$ for $$ the cobra.....just like saying mod for mod a cobra over a fox, but $$ for $$ the fox hands down....

I also recall I actually pulled more towards the Shelby in stock form???

so, please elaborate on your wise comments and how I contradict them...

and please...next time, make sure you know what you are talking about before saying other posters are stupid.

 

[Klay]

You are making no points....I never said I owned a GT500. I did drive one...wasn't impressed at all. Also, I never said your car wouldn't go faster for cheaper.

I could buy a 1990 LX and make it blow the doors off my cobra for way cheaper then what I paid for the car....my whole point was that...$$ for $$.

I never degraded the GT500 one bit...re read what I said...I said mod for mod hands down to the GT...$$ for $$ the cobra.....just like saying mod for mod a cobra over a fox, but $$ for $$ the fox hands down....

I also recall I actually pulled more towards the Shelby in stock form???

so, please elaborate on your wise comments and how I contradict them...

and please...next time, make sure you know what you are talking about before saying other posters are stupid.

Maybe I was unclear. The very fact you brought up a $ for $ argument is dumb in my opinion. There is no reason to even bring it up unless you are trying to either degrade one the cars mentioned or are in the market for one or the other. That arguement can be used everytime a new mustang comes out. Considering new cars always cost more than the previous model (in general).

So I'm really not calling you stupid or anything, just that particular argument.

 

[JMD0346]

Do I need to? Do you own a gt500? You are making ricer type arguements. It is like me saying I can make my car go faster for cheaper than you. Does that mean my car is better? No it doesn't, so the whole point you are trying to make is stupid and is meant to degrade the gt500.

and to JMD, I stand corrected on thy dyno type but regardless my point stands. While it is good to have either a really efficient drivetrain or higher than advertised hp rating, the rwhp dyno numbers still don't prove anything regarding this matter. We all know different dyno post different results, therefore it is hard to say what exactly ford rated the engine at unless you do an engine dyno, as you pointed out. If anything they give a good indication that the motor was underrated but I wouldn't say anything is fact unless you did the same test ford did when they dyno'ed that motor.

I get your point I guess but it really doesnt hold up. The 15-17% drivetrain loss is number that was arrived at by people who do dyno both the engine and the rear wheels. This number didnt just come out of thin air. Nobody just made it up. Yes its not an exact science for every single car with every single configuration hence the term average drivetrain loss. Mustangs have been around for a while. I think the tuners and engine builders have a pretty good grasp on drivetrain loss for manual trannys and a ford 8.8 rear.

You can argue small points all you want. Its not hard to say what ford rated the motor at. Ford rated it at 390. I dont know why that would be so hard to know. Its dynoed hundreds, if not thousands, of times around 370rwhp. So youre saying you dont believe all those dynos? Or you dont believe ford? Or what? Surely you agree that no drivetrain is so efficient that it only loses 20hp?


As my Unlce used to say... " I dont think you understand all you know about this shit."

 

[98Snake03]

Maybe I was unclear. The very fact you brought up a $ for $ argument is dumb in my opinion. There is no reason to even bring it up unless you are trying to either degrade one the cars mentioned or are in the market for one or the other. That arguement can be used everytime a new mustang comes out. Considering new cars always cost more than the previous model (in general).

So I'm really not calling you stupid or anything, just that particular argument.

ok then...I was unclear...I was referring directly to dollar for dollar...which was in response to earlier posts.
My point in that is that if someone is looking and wanting the best bang for the buck, then it is obvious...then my other side was that if someone wanted to have the car with the most mod response, it was again obvious, but to the other competitor.

So in short, both cars are great. both are fat pigs, both can be made fast. one is faster than the other in stock and modded form, one is cheaper to make faster....it is a wish and wish arguement...we both have opinions, I respect yours and will leave it at that....just don't say mine is stupid, because I never said yours was.

 

[Klay]

ok then...I was unclear...I was referring directly to dollar for dollar...which was in response to earlier posts.
My point in that is that if someone is looking and wanting the best bang for the buck, then it is obvious...then my other side was that if someone wanted to have the car with the most mod response, it was again obvious, but to the other competitor.

So in short, both cars are great. both are fat pigs, both can be made fast. one is faster than the other in stock and modded form, one is cheaper to make faster....it is a wish and wish arguement...we both have opinions, I respect yours and will leave it at that....just don't say mine is stupid, because I never said yours was.

Well ok, I didn't mean to offend you. The way you put it this time is better and I understand it more clearly now. I personally don't look at things in a "bang for buck" way because it just seems you are cheaping the ride you are referring to (or degrading the one you are comparing it to.) But I will respect your opinion.


and JMD, I understand your point and I don't necessarily disagree with you but who is to say that the 03 cobra isn't really at 400 or 410 hp? Maybe the drivetrain isn't efficient enough to lose only 20 hp but maybe it is efficient enough to lose only 30 or 40. That's is why I don't go by estimates when we are talking in absolutes (like the cobra has in fact 420-430 hp). Plus, as hp numbers grow so does the drivetrain loss according to this method. 15% for a 600 hp cobra is more of a loss than a stock one which doesn't make sense to me since it is the same drivetrain (if both are stock).

 

[PERCULATOR]

awesome