Cobra 2003?

[TIAMAT]

quik01snake

Sorry about the new edge thing. I was really talking about the dohc powered cobras. Even though ford added 20 more ponies from 98-99 they have had serious tuning problems from 99 on. I have an old motor trend mag that pits the 98' cobra against the f-body twins and they said the dohc motor was awesome in it's performance, flexability, and all around drivability. I wonder why ford has so many issues with this motor. Has anyone called the Ford or svt cust. service line and spoke to a very high ranking person in either division? I know bad performance breaks our hearts and pocketbooks but it's gotta suck to ford also. Svt is top of the line ford and they are throwing so many parts under warranty at these cars that if the eyebrows at ford are not raised they are on another planet. One guy one this thread is on his 6th trans!!! What the ----! I have a 01' lightning and there are also some issues with the 5.4sc motor. Who says that the 4.6sc motor will be any different?
Keep your heads up!!! J-mart:dw:

 

[quick01snake]

you can't talk to anyone high ranking in SVT, its like trying to get someone high ranking in the CIA or something...LOL

 

[Rob03]

I agree, it's like calling the Whitehouse and asking for George Bush...Fat Chance...Most organizations keep the higher ups protected from us normal folk. It would have to be an amazing circumstance to get one on the phone...

Cheers, :beer:
Robert

 

[Cobra'03]

Re: Cobra 2003

Originally posted by P51 Pilot
The current chassis on which the '03 is based is being pushed WAY past its capabilities. The original '94 for which debuted this chassis had 215 hp... Moreover, adding a supercharger to a small displacement engine does not sufficiently address the lack of low-end torque. Nothing like more cubes. Add to this the poorer handling from the additional 150+ pounds over the front wheels (due to iron block and s/c hardware) plus the potential for issues with detonation as with the current engine and who knows WHAT the in-field experience will be when the same architecture is pushed to the max. This does not even take into account the antiquated interior finishes, HVAC systems and substandard fit and finish coming out of the current production line!

Really, does a half second gain 0-60 (in a straight line) on the '01s warrant the extra coin with all this baggage? I would wait it out until '04 when the new chassis is introduced with the larger engine (5.4L?) rolling off the new assembly line to get a really improved car. Then you'll get at least the same performance as the '03s, much better handling, higher quality fit and finish AND you will have earned a return (or delayed paying interest) on the money for an extra year or two (if the intro is delayed until '05)!

One can also make the case that the chassis is sorted out, and by all reports this is the best handling Cobra yet. Any new platform will inevitably have more engineering and startup bogies. As to a deficiency of low-end torque...

 

[P51 Pilot]

Thanks for the graph! It simply highlights to me the key question as to why the significantly better curves will only generate improvements in the 0.5 sec range. It seems that what is really happening is that the weight of a primarily all-steel car is driving a diminshing-return performance situation.

C&D recorded a 4.8sec 0-60 run of a stock '01 coupein its July 01 issue. This substantiates the idea that the factory numbers are tame. If we use this as the benchmark, then a 0.5 sec improvement would yield a ~4.3sec performance - also closer to the truth than the fuzzy factory claim for the '03 of "sub 5.0sec." But with all that extra power, wouldn't you expect more of an order of magnitude change? Diminishing returns is the only thing that explains it. Either the thing goes on a diet or they need a bigger motor.

As to the chassis, I think you need to take the marketing guys at there word here. Thus, when they say that they've changed the springs and shocks and added the IRS brace, you can believe that is all they have done. The fact is that one of the results of Ford's cost cutting is that they are holding off on any real investment in this chassis and funneling the cash (hopefully!) to development of the DEW98-derived (Lincoln LS) platform. Indicative evidence here is that the convertibe will retain the '01 springs as the (existing) chassis is too loose to handle anything harder.

Thus, when you add that to a nose that is gonna weigh 150+ more pounds with no real offset, then the claim that the chassis has been sorted just doesn't seem to hold up. And if I were Ford, I probably would not do it differently - why spend $$ on incremental (and possibly unnoticed due to the overall set of issues with the FOX4 platform) chassis improvements when you can make as much marketing noise as you need to with the s/c?

BTW, in checking out the aluminum drive shaft for my '01, it turns out that, in addition to a minimal weight savings, the softer material makes it much more prone to denting by stones - thus knocking it out of balance (i.e. cause vibration) much easier and more often than a steel unit. So if they do include it in the '03 there may be new in-service issues vs. an '01.

So, it seems to me that the real key to an order of magnitude increase in performance is real weight loss and a new (and properly sorted) chassis. If they were really serious about losing weight, they use way more aluminum and/or composite in the structure and panels. Hopefully, the much newer and automated Flat Rock facility (which made the Cougar and Mazda 626) to where Mustang production is being shifted will help enable the next generation ('04s?) cars to achieve these goals in addition to a quantum leap in quality without a significant increase in costs.

As to bugs with a new chassis - they are still trying to sort out misc bugs with a 20 year old design so the whole bug issue is systemic - they simply need to get their engineering and assembly acts together. But then, sadly, they will probably use the first year customers as the in-field testers to debug the platform so a one-year wait is probably prudent...

 

[Black Cobra]

But with all that extra power, wouldn't you expect more of an order of magnitude change? Diminishing returns is the only thing that explains it. Either the thing goes on a diet or they need a bigger motor.

Data from one of those online Horsepower calculators that you can find out on the web...gives a picture of those diminishing returns your talking about.

3800 pound Car w/Driver
1/4 mile E.T. - Estimated Horse Power
17.0 sec - 153 rwHP
16.0 sec - 183 rwHP
15.0 sec - 222 rwHP
14.0 sec - 273 rwHP
13.0 sec - 341 rwHP
12.0 sec - 434 rwHP
11.0 sec - 564 rwHP
10.0 sec - 751 rwHP
09.0 sec - 1030 rwHP
08.0 sec - 1467 rwHP

 

[Cobra'03]

P51: You state your points well. I do not think Ford is umique in the "first-year" field R&D. Porsche, BMW, etc all have early glitches. Cars are so complex that if they sorted out everything, they would either get o market too late, or the cost to the consumer would out-price the market. We will see.

RE: handling. One other thing to consider is that engineering talent at SVT (and other mfrs) varies significantly from year to year - sometimes a young prodigy can see something an elder misses, or an elder has an approach pop-in that offers a real advantage. Spring rate and shock compression/rebound affect handling tremendously. And perhaps Bilstein has not been sitting on its tail either.

I think part of the "why not more than .5?" is traction limited. These torque monsters can overwhelm the tires off idle!

Here is another pic of the "new axle":

 

[Cobra'03]

Here is 2003 Cobra IRS

Tadaah..

 

[P51 Pilot]

Cobra 03: On the IRS - what's the difference between the '03 and the '01 (IRS brace aside)?

Good point on traction. Traction may be the culprit - but it appears to be a symptom rather than an underlying cause. Diminshing returns on the same weight are still key.

There are supercars that break the 4 sec barrier. A recent article on the Dauer EB110 Super Sport - which is a reworking of the mid-90s Bugatti (Sports Car Int'l 5/02) lists a 0-60 of 3.3sec. While there is marketing hype in those numbers, I would expect a sub 4 sec time to be reality. This is for a 3700 pound car with 480 lb/ft. Getting a near 50/50 weight distribution and adding AWD is the key.

Without AWD, weight distribution becomes critical. The '01 Lambo Diablo 6.0 (Automobile Mag 9/00) has a curb weight of 3600 lbs pushed by 457 lb/ft. The 0-62 time is stated at 3.95 sec. As this is statistically equivalent to the EB110, it is instructive to note how it is achieved without AWD - the weight distribution is 41/59 f/r. The weight is over the driving wheels.

Thus, the half-second quandry still seems to be driven by:
- total weight
- weight distribution and
- diminshing returns of incremental power.

The '03 Cobra will have:
- an increase in total curb weight (from 3430 to 3510)
- the wrong change in weight bias (from 56/44 in '01 to an est
58/42 in '03) resulting in more weight (150lbs+) over the (non-
driving) front wheels,
- not enough incremental power (due to diminishing returns) to
accelerate the mass significantly faster.

Interestingly, the '00 R came in at 56.5/43.5 distribution (Automobile Mag 8/00) - the benefits of an all-alloy engine (I'm assuming all the other weight savings were more or less evenly distributed - but that also included a deletion of the back seat...)

There seems to be no alternative to putting the thing on a real diet (in which case even the all-alloy '01 mill would produce some handy performance with superior weight distribution) and/or properly engineering a larger all-alloy motor (to both address the diminishing returns and weight dist. issues). Interestingly, the pre-99 305hp 4.6 4v mill generated a 3.9sec 0-60 time in the 1996 Panoz Roadster (Sports Car Int'l Oct/Nov 96). The key was a 2,305lb curb weight. Now, that is an entirely different animal pointed at a different use but it is instructive.

So, whats to conclude from all this? Seems to me that with the "fixed" '99s through the '03s we have hit the wall performance-wise until Ford comes up with something truly inspired. That said, sub 5 sec 0-60s is not a bad way to hit the wall...

BTW, the source for my numbers on an earlier posting for the '95R was Sports Car Int'l 7/95.

 

[P51 Pilot]

Black Cobra: Mucho Thanks for the diminishing power data! I meant to ask you - what URL did you use?

 

[Blue03Cobra]

Originally posted by P51 Pilot
Interestingly, the '00 R came in at 56.5/43.5 distribution (Automobile Mag 8/00) - the benefits of an all-alloy engine

Doesn't the 00R have an iron block?

 

[P51 Pilot]

Blue 98 Cobra: You're right - good catch. My misread.

This makes the 00R's ability to get close to the '01's all-alloy mill weight distribution all that more impressive. Clearly, hanging a larger fuel cell off the back axles and deleting the air conditioning were key in reducing the front bias. The effort paid off - 1.02g in the 300 ft skidpad on 265 tires.

Clearly, this type of equipment delete not acceptable for a full-range road car at the price being asked. Perhaps it could be a cost-reduction option?

Thinking this through a bit more, the '00R's actual 3,580 lbs (C&D 4/00) is still 70 lbs greater than the '03s projected 3,510 lbs (M/T 3/02). Digging a bit more, R&T (4/00) quoted the '00R's weight at 3,610lbs, a 100lb difference! Given all that was cut out of the '00R, it's hard to believe that the 4.6 iron block 4v plus s/c is SO MUCH lighter than the 5.4 iron block 4v that it exceeds by 70-100 lbs the weight savings of all of the '00R's deletions AS WELL! This really starts to indicate that the '03 may actually come in HIGHER than the 3,510 estimate quoted in the MT article (or that the '00R's number is wrong). If the '00R's numbers are correct, then there could be MORE than a 150+lb increase over the front wheels when the higher estimated front bias is included.

If that's the case, then the '03's added weight plus the front bias will make the '00R's 4.7sec 0-60 time and the 1.02g skipad number C&D recorded much tougher (but not insurmountable) challenges to '03 than initially expected.

But, all this may be too much thinking. It is very feasible to believe that the '03 will in fact only be about 80lbs heavier than the '01s. If so, then the previous discussion on weight and front bias issue will still be key but straight line performance should be more than a match for the '00R.

This line does call into question some of the '00R numbers though. It would be interesting to know what the comparable engine weights actually are.



(please note: all weights are the quoted "curb weight")

 

[Cobra'03]

The weight of the Cobra 2003 is 3665 for the coupe. Not all the weight is "over the front wheels" some of it is behind the centerline, some in the tranny, and the new IRS has to move some of weight bias rearward. The T-56 gear ratios are unique to the 03' Cobra, and clearly have been chosen to help this beast hook up. Seat racing is fun, but we will see what we will see when the rubber literally hits the road (melts the road?).

 

[P51 Pilot]

Over the wheels is shorthand for everything forward of the centerline.

And, it is true, nothing beats putting rubber to the road...

 

[fangstang]

I just got back from my dealership this evening and Dave(my salesman) told me that the cobras are already built and will be in dealer lots as early as MID MAY!!!! He also told me that he will be in Arizona this week testing the new Cobra. He's gonna get me brochures and other literature on it too. I cant wait till he tell me how the ride was!:-D

 

[cobra 829]

cobra are not built and wont be built till may 6th i have a couple of freinds that work at the daerborn plant and job one is may 6

 

[fangstang]

I dont know man, thats what this guy told me. Who knows?

 

[VintagePorscheG]

:bash:

Hold thier values... lol

Cars are only worth what the market is willing to pay.

Therefore, I say buy cars to drive them.

I have NEVER gotten close to so called "trade in" value for any car I ever sold...