96-98 Cobra vs 99/01 Cobra vs. 03/04 Mach1
- Thread starter SKMCOBRA
- Start date
Quatrocky said:
The source was originally Motor Trend and it was the last offical magazine test of the Camaro SS vs. Mustang Cobra. The dynos were off of a Mustang dyno hence the low numbers. I've still got the original magazine, but that article was flawed to some degree because the wrong tires were on the 2001 Cobra that they had. Instead of having the slightly stickier BFGs, they had Gatorbacks. There statistic list along with the photos back this up.
The best 2001 Cobra quarter mile acceleration tests are like this...
- Car & Driver goes 13.5 seconds @ 105 mph
- MM&FF goes 13.3 seconds @ 105 mph
- Motor Trend goes 13.8 @ 103 mph (wrong tires)
- Motor Week TV does 13.7 @ 106 mph
That's an average of 13.6 @ 105 mph and that average is about what 5.0 Magazine showed in their Cobra vs. Bullitt comparison.
One thing that goes unmentioned is one of the 99/01's attributes and that is the closest Mustang to have a near 50/50 front to rear weight bias. The IRS did add a bit of weight but actually helped offset the normal weight bias toward the front. Teamed with the all-aluminum engine, the IRS makes for a 52/48 distribution if I'm not mistaken. That's better than the 03/04 Cobra, better than the Mach 1, better than the Bullitt and better than the pre-05 GTs. I think this is part of the reason that many who drive the 99/01 Cobras remark about how light and nimble they feel, especially with a good set of tires.
damn straight, 03/04 cobras>all :thumbsup:pottsy said:
JSHTROD said:Put it this way...
96-98 Cobra: Makes power to 7000rpm redline, ~260rwhp, 3.27's stock.
99/01 Cobra: More midrange power, ~275rwhp, 3.27's stock, and 100 more lbs of weight than a 96-98.
03/04 Mach 1: More low end and midrange. Makes power lower, and has a lower redline 6500rpm. ~280rwhp stock. 3.55's stock. And weighs the same as a 96-98.
Basically, There are about 20rwhp between them all. And 100lbs of weight. So in reallity, about .1 difference in ET and 1 mph, given good drivers.
It's just harder to drive a 96-98 into it's poweband than the torquey, geared 03 Mach1. But just about any of the basic mods on the 96-98 will negate this advantage.
Jason
op:
Jason, i would agree on almost everything you said, but to clarify things up.
i don't know about the 96-98 7000rpm cobra redline, but mach1's have a 6800rpm redline, and factory power cut off at 7050rpm.
now, since you're putting out some numbers to compare, show me a 99/01 cobra that was still making power after 6100rpm in stock trim. like i said, i don't know about the 96-98 cobra, but i doubt they were making power past 6100rpm. mach1's would start dropping power after 6100rpm as well.
i'd say the difference is nothing but powerband and they way this powerband get translated into the wheels.(of course the mach1 is indeed making a little more rwhp and rwtq than this model cobras) mach1's have better low and midrange power, but who said they don't like to be revved as well????, difference is, mach1's make better tq in the middle of the powerband. i know is good to have more torque at more higher rpms, which the cobra does, tq peaks 200-300rpm higher.
now, i would say the cobra had more top end, IF the mach1 tq curve was exactly like the cobra, but peaking at lower rpm, we know mach1's are making MORE tq across the powerband, and even though this tq peaks 200-300rpm lower, the engine on the mach produces more hp/tq accross the ENTIRE powerband, not only on the peak tq.
i don't believe in the 96/01 cobra top end. stock for stock, mach1's has the same or more of it. i do believe in gear ratios and the inability of the 96-98 cobra to come up with tq down low (stock trim), thus, the 6800-7000 shift at redline saying, it needs to go there, because of their gearing spacing, and usefull powerband, but is not trapping faster than 99/01, same can be said with a 99/01 cobra, this one does little better than the prevoius cobra,but it does not trap higher than a mach1 (stock trim) , although the trap speed difference between a 99/01 cobra and mach1 is not that much, 1-2mph.
should i fear a geared 96/01 cobra???, maybe, i'd then gear up as well, and then what ???? :beer:
i'm talking stock vs stock, i could mod my car to make power at 8000rpm, but i don't have the money to do it
Last edited:
Hersheyman said:
This is somewhat true. They do respond better but only if revving to 8k+. At the stock 7k there is no advantage. Simply put, unless you have an all out drag car that sees very high boost and rpm the b heads are not the best choice. They are awful for an N/A car. It takes serious motor & head work to reach 350-370 rwhp.
Thanks for clearing that up Traveler, i thought those times and numbers were pretty bad. Guess they wanted the SS to win. Not that anyone cares, but i got beat pretty bad by a WS6 and a Lightning today. The lightning definately had a different pullie, once it hit 3rd it was gone.
00GT said:
Okay, okay. Its not exactly like turning on rails but it sure has a lot sharper turn-in than any other Mustang I've owned. Plus an added benefit I noticed immediately is a lot less brake dive in the IRS-equipped Cobra.
mach1dsg said:Jason, i would agree on almost everything you said, but to clarify things up.
i don't know about the 96-98 7000rpm cobra redline, but mach1's have a 6800rpm redline, and factory power cut off at 7050rpm.
now, since you're putting out some numbers to compare, show me a 99/01 cobra that was still making power after 6100rpm in stock trim. like i said, i don't know about the 96-98 cobra, but i doubt they were making power past 6100rpm. mach1's would start dropping power after 6100rpm as well.
i'd say the difference is nothing but powerband and they way this powerband get translated into the wheels.(of course the mach1 is indeed making a little more rwhp and rwtq than this model cobras) mach1's have better low and midrange power, but who said they don't like to be revved as well????, difference is, mach1's make better tq in the middle of the powerband. i know is good to have more torque at more higher rpms, which the cobra does, tq peaks 200-300rpm higher.
now, i would say the cobra had more top end, IF the mach1 tq curve was exactly like the cobra, but peaking at lower rpm, we know mach1's are making MORE tq across the powerband, and even though this tq peaks 200-300rpm lower, the engine on the mach produces more hp/tq accross the ENTIRE powerband, not only on the peak tq.
i don't believe in the 96/01 cobra top end. stock for stock, mach1's has the same or more of it. i do believe in gear ratios and the inability of the 96-98 cobra to come up with tq down low (stock trim), thus, the 6800-7000 shift at redline saying, it needs to go there, because of their gearing spacing, and usefull powerband, but is not trapping faster than 99/01, same can be said with a 99/01 cobra, this one does little better than the prevoius cobra,but it does not trap higher than a mach1 (stock trim) , although the trap speed difference between a 99/01 cobra and mach1 is not that much, 1-2mph.
should i fear a geared 96/01 cobra???, maybe, i'd then gear up as well, and then what ???? :beer:
i'm talking stock vs stock, i could mod my car to make power at 8000rpm, but i don't have the money to do it
ummmmmm I wish this thread would die......
But, Since you asked to see a stock 99 Cobra that makes power after 6100 - I will tell you that mine didn't peak until about 6250 at 292.4 with only an o/r x pipe and a drop in k&n at full operating temp. At 6500 I was still making about 286.5-287........ What is that? Maybe a 2% decrease in power???
Mach 1's trap 1 to 2 mph faster??? I totally agree!!! Do they also turn .1 to .2 to .? faster times depending on whose testing? Yes!!! Do you think that with 3.55's vs 3.27's a Cobra could pick up 1-2 MPH in the 1/4???? HMMMMMMMMMM.
Do Mach 1's have a slightly higher compression ratio? I think they are 10.1 to the 99-01 9.85.
Is a solid rear better than an IRS for the strip? = YES!!! Will an IRS cobra run 4-5 mph faster in the slalom with neutral handling? = YES!!!
Stock for stock a Mach 1 will beat a 99-01 Cobra at the strip.
Even so, I like my Cobra's IRS, Massive Brakes, and handling. I also like Mach 1's.
These cars could not be more the same. You are driving around a Mustang with an engine borrowed from the SVT/Cobra and packing cams from a Lincoln. It is all blue oval... Quit your B I T C H I N G. Go to Mach 1 Registry with your condescension towards car that donated your engine.
Can we slam rice any time soon?????
:loser:
well, first of all, i said stock.
so, take a look at both cars, in STOCK TRIM
http://www.dynoperformance.com/compare_details.php?ID1=675&ID2=578&submit=Compare+Results
how come according to some of you guys, the mach has better low and midrange power but less top end compared to a 99/01 cobra ???, check the horspower on both cars from 4200rpm all the way to 6800rpm
2nd of all, the mach1 has the same engine used on the newest marauder. it is not the one that came from the 96-98 cobra. it uses 03 cobra heads though,and navigator cams, so no need to have "condescension towards car that donated your engine", because there is no such thing.
a 96/01 cobra would be always a cobra, a great SE mustang... a 03/04 mach1???, well, another great SE mustang, and the one that was, is and would be known, to had/have the most powerful N/A 4.6L DOHC 32V engine ford ever produced for a S95 mustang in stock trim.
and yes, hope to slam some rice soon :-D
WHITE99SNAKE said:
well, first of all, i said stock.
so, take a look at both cars, in STOCK TRIM
http://www.dynoperformance.com/compare_details.php?ID1=675&ID2=578&submit=Compare+Results
how come according to some of you guys, the mach has better low and midrange power but less top end compared to a 99/01 cobra ???, check the horspower on both cars from 4200rpm all the way to 6800rpm
2nd of all, the mach1 has the same engine used on the newest marauder. it is not the one that came from the 96-98 cobra. it uses 03 cobra heads though,and navigator cams, so no need to have "condescension towards car that donated your engine", because there is no such thing.
a 96/01 cobra would be always a cobra, a great SE mustang... a 03/04 mach1???, well, another great SE mustang, and the one that was, is and would be known, to had/have the most powerful N/A 4.6L DOHC 32V engine ford ever produced for a S95 mustang in stock trim.
and yes, hope to slam some rice soon :-D
Last edited:
WHITE99SNAKE said:
Actually I thought that was pretty funny. To everyone else, bench racing does nothing. :idea: Go out and race every single 96-98 Cobra, 99-01 Cobra, and 03/04 Mach one and tell us all your results. Anybody have a Mach 1 in Baton Rouge? I'll help you in your quest to race everyone with a Ford 32v. By the way, someone else earlier stated in this thread that the best NA 32v was the Mach 1. That is incorrect. the correct answer is the 2000 R. :bowdown: There is too much car to car variance for you to may a broad statement that all 99/01's make 280 or that Mach 1's make fifteen or twenty more hp than a c headed car. :nonono: Do a little research and you will find that everyone has some badass cars that car get into the 12's with some bolt ons. Who cars how many bolt ons it takes for said car to do what. Just appreciate the fact your car doesn't say Made in Japan or Canada on it! :beer:
Last edited:
:shrug: What's wrong with Canadian built?SVTStrikesBack said:
oke:He might have been referring to the old F-bodys. RIPgrimreefer said::shrug: What's wrong with Canadian built?
Machs are 4years newer then these cobras they should be about 10-15 horses faster,but really what 99-01 cobras are stock anymore,and really what machs are? 90% are not,it all depends on knowledge and money,also some salt of doing your own work. I think machs are faster stock to stock...LOL!!! but,(of course) with some 4.10's their even,remember Cobra's are way under geared.Damn why didn't svt put 3.55's in the 99-01's.mach1dsg said:
grimreefer said::shrug: What's wrong with Canadian built?
Nothing, as long as it has a blue oval on it. :burnout:
SVTStrikesBack said:
SVTStrikesBack said:
Like the new Stang! I just read that for $2100 in mods they got the '05 to run a 12.45 - I would like to see that! Man thats great for the mustang world! Not so much for all these "keep up with the jones" people though.
Hersheyman said:
I think this is true. The 96-98 heads have the best flow #s of all the heads but lack the low speed velocity=torque. I know for a fact that Aaron Archer was running 96-98 heads on his car and was the fastest supercharged mod in the world at one time.
SVTStrikesBack said:
nobody said mach1's had the best 32v engine. i said they had the most powerful N/A 4.6L one ;-)
Users who are viewing this thread
