2002 Camaro SS (full exh/some intk) vs 94-98 Procharged Cobra

**7camaro7** · 02-19-2008, 10:48 AM

I'll have to dig them up... The best I saw the cobra run that day was like a 8.32 or so and my best that day with a full tank of gas(don't ask) was a 8.54. My best ever was a 8.52... that was before my mods I had before I went to the track last. Also on the run with that cobra I don't remember what number he was so it'd be impossible for me to find... but believe me, when I beat that c5 z06 I remembered his number. Hell I've got videos on that one and everything.

**Sleeper101** · 02-19-2008, 11:06 AM

Which track are you running at this time of year?

Im about an hour from you/ Springcity.

You running at Brainard?

**7camaro7** · 02-19-2008, 11:37 AM

exactly

**Sleeper101** · 02-19-2008, 11:48 AM

When did they Open? I run Crossville which doesn't open till end of next month.

**7camaro7** · 02-19-2008, 01:27 PM

brainerd has been open a lot lately, but mainly on sundays.

**Sleeper101** · 02-19-2008, 01:41 PM

Cool!! I plan on running there a few times this year! Maybe Ill catch you there!

**BLKCLOUD** · 02-19-2008, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by 7camaro7

maybe only 5spd gts have 3.55s... I thought cobras had the same... doesn't really matter though.

You are correct that it does not matter much, however, as stated earlier, no Mustang (5 speed or A4) had 3.55s from the factory until 2003.

There is certainly a lot of difference in performance between a 94/95 Cobra (5.0 pushrod, rated 240 HP) and a 96-98 Cobra (4.6 4V, rated 305 HP). They look very similar to each other, and unless you know what to look for, it is hard to distinguish between them.

**chuckie669** · 02-19-2008, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by BLKCLOUD

You are correct that it does not matter much, however, as stated earlier, no Mustang (5 speed or A4) had 3.55s from the factory until 2003.

There is certainly a lot of difference in performance between a 94/95 Cobra (5.0 pushrod, rated 240 HP) and a 96-98 Cobra (4.6 4V, rated 305 HP). They look very similar to each other, and unless you know what to look for, it is hard to distinguish between them.

Different rear tail lights ^

**7camaro7** · 02-19-2008, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by BLKCLOUD

You are correct that it does not matter much, however, as stated earlier, no Mustang (5 speed or A4) had 3.55s from the factory until 2003.

There is certainly a lot of difference in performance between a 94/95 Cobra (5.0 pushrod, rated 240 HP) and a 96-98 Cobra (4.6 4V, rated 305 HP). They look very similar to each other, and unless you know what to look for, it is hard to distinguish between them.

Just finished researching and damn, I don't know why I thought they all had 3.55s... 3.27 is what I found just now.

**Chris Arnold** · 02-19-2008, 07:03 PM

Maybe if you had done a longer burn-out.....

**7camaro7** · 02-19-2008, 07:28 PM

yea I know hahaha

I need a little more power to mess with that guy unless that was his very very very best run. I feel like I can squeek out a little more out of the SS.

**Musclefan21** · 02-22-2008, 03:28 PM

I raced a vortech blown cobra which made 430rwhp and i could barely put 1-2 cars on him by the time we hit like 130mph. and i was driving my bolts on terminator which trapped best of 123mph on a 1/4 mile. and by the way, a terminator is great up top.

**Cayenne97** · 02-22-2008, 09:04 PM

I raced a '97 Cobra with a Kenne Brown 289 Block, Vortech blower, Sean Hyland Motorsports heads, LT's etc. etc. that put down close to 500rwhp and he ran right with me the whole race with me only pulling by about a car length, despite having less torque than I. Those 4-valves can be potent.

**niterydr** · 02-23-2008, 10:25 AM

Originally Posted by 7camaro7

I've never heard of ANY mustang being a 2nd half or top end kind of car. I know for a fact bone stock wise they have a 3.55 rear end gear which usually helps them off the line better, but usually see the big difference between me and them in a race is between the last part of 1st and the beginning of 2nd. by then I'm usually gone REAL GOOD! I think that procharger helped him out just a little. I may be getting a cam here in a little bit and I'm betting that'd be enough to put him in his place.

Good race, but a 94-98 Cobra is a 2nd half track car. They begin to scream up top and in a 1/4 he would most likely had you by a decent margin.

But you were racing at a 1/8 and I give you props for hanging in there.

Zaddiction is correct......the 96 thru 98 Cobra is definitely a top end car. I know because I owned one and these model years did not come from the factory with 3.55 gears, they were 3.27 gears and the engine had a 6800 - 7000 rpm redline. These cars were very weak off the bottom. To get these cars to run in the 1/8 mile you had to gear the hell out of them. I changed the rear to 3.73's in my Cobra along with the usual engine / exhaust mods and the car was a pretty good 1/4 mile car but still sucked in the 1/8th.

**BLKCLOUD** · 02-23-2008, 02:50 PM

*sigh*

That is incorrect. As stated above (more than once) 96-98 Cobras came from the factory with 3.27 gears. 3.55s were not available from the factory until 2003 (both the Mach 1 & Cobra had them then).

Additionally, while a 96-98 Cobra made most of its power high in the rpm range, and thus was a better "top end" car, the 94-95 Cobras were still low-rpm 5.0s, and were much better known for their quickness rather than high speed.

3.73s suck in any year N/A 4V Cobra.

**Cayenne97** · 02-23-2008, 03:41 PM

Gears do not determine overall if a car is a "low end" or "high-end" car. The engines powerband has a great deal to do with it as well. For instance, an LT1 A4 will pull pretty hard from 0-30 despite having the factory 3.23 ratio. First gen Vipers were pulling 4.3 0-60's with a mere 3.07 gear outback. That gear ratio ended up proving to be optimal as guys were either gaining nothing or going slower by swapping for numerically lower gears, due to it's very narrow powerband and the T-56's gearing for that car. My point is that it seems that some of us are mislead to think that a car needs a short gear in order to have good low-end grunt. True for some - but not for all.

**TrickStang37** · 02-23-2008, 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by Cayenne97

Gears do not determine overall if a car is a "low end" or "high-end" car. The engines powerband has a great deal to do with it as well. For instance, an LT1 A4 will pull pretty hard from 0-30 despite having the factory 3.23 ratio. First gen Vipers were pulling 4.3 0-60's with a mere 3.07 gear outback. That gear ratio ended up proving to be optimal as guys were either gaining nothing or going slower by swapping for numerically lower gears, due to it's very narrow powerband and the T-56's gearing for that car. My point is that it seems that some of us are mislead to think that a car needs a short gear in order to have good low-end grunt. True for some - but not for all.

when geared correctly, the 96-01 cobra's (DOHC NA) were not any more topend cars than anything else that trapped similarly.

with stock gearing when they would trap 101-102's in the 1/4, they would trap at about 78 in the 1/8th. when geared correctly, they would trap 103-104's, they would trap 81-82mph in the 1/8th.

running 3.27's on a cobra that would rev out to 7000 rpm's would have the car geared VERY much like an auto Fbody or whatever. It would do 125+ in third gear. that is horrendous. it would be the equivilant to putting 2.73's in a 6speed camaro.

and actually, my friends 98 LS1 auto with 2.73's ran 102's in the 1/4 and 77-78 in the 1/8th, further reinforcing what im saying.

usually when a car is geared pretty badly, they will trap about 76-77% of their 1/4 trap in the 1/8th. when geared properly, they will do 78-79% and auto's usually at about 80%.

**BLKCLOUD** · 02-23-2008, 05:54 PM

Originally Posted by Cayenne97

Gears do not determine overall if a car is a "low end" or "high-end" car. The engines powerband has a great deal to do with it as well. For instance, an LT1 A4 will pull pretty hard from 0-30 despite having the factory 3.23 ratio. First gen Vipers were pulling 4.3 0-60's with a mere 3.07 gear outback. That gear ratio ended up proving to be optimal as guys were either gaining nothing or going slower by swapping for numerically lower gears, due to it's very narrow powerband and the T-56's gearing for that car. My point is that it seems that some of us are mislead to think that a car needs a short gear in order to have good low-end grunt. True for some - but not for all.

A first gen viper makes 400 HP @ 4600 rpm, 465 lb/ft @ 3600 rpm, and redlines at 6000 rpm. I don't have a dyno sheet to look at, but tht sure isn't indicative of a narrow power band.

I agree completely that gearing does not determine if a vehicle is a "low-end" or "high-end" car. However, lower gears will ALWAYS give better "low-end grunt" than a higher gear. Simple physics.

**Speedy_Gonzales** · 02-23-2008, 06:09 PM

Nice runs Lionel

**Cayenne97** · 02-24-2008, 07:27 AM

Originally Posted by BLKCLOUD

A first gen viper makes 400 HP @ 4600 rpm, 465 lb/ft @ 3600 rpm, and redlines at 6000 rpm. I don't have a dyno sheet to look at, but tht sure isn't indicative of a narrow power band.

I agree completely that gearing does not determine if a vehicle is a "low-end" or "high-end" car. However, lower gears will ALWAYS give better "low-end grunt" than a higher gear. Simple physics.

My father had a 1992, which was sort of like a semi-prototype year with velcro strap-on windows and all. Yes the rev limiter was set @ 6000-rpm, but power actually fell off way before then. There was no need to get anywhere near that 6000-rpm redline. The quickest times (12.8/112) were had by shifting right around five-grand. Anymore higher than that, and the times would either decrease or stay the same. It was definitely not a "revver", but had brutal low and midrange power.

The second gen 450hp 488 ('96 GTS, '97 RT/10) was much, much better up top.