whoopass on a 96 cobra!!

**2MuchFun** · 10-07-2007, 12:24 PM

update, the guy that was riding with me (when i raced the gt) that owned the 5.0 foxbody bought the wrecked gt for $400, is pulling the engine, putting a bigger cam in it and is putting it in his foxbody. but its still gonna be slow. lol

**BLKCLOUD** · 10-07-2007, 12:59 PM

Bigger cam......not always better. In fact, often not. Oh well....learning can be an expensive experience.

**Roastem** · 10-07-2007, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by JwMonE99

How much of a weight difference is there between the LX and GT

Blkcloud might know that. I heard it was substantial, without all that molding and other worthless crap. No tops or a heavy hatch, I would have to guesstimate about 150 to 200 lbs. Don't get me to lyin'.

**BLKCLOUD** · 10-07-2007, 03:02 PM

Varies a lot. A no (or low) option LX notch could indeed be 200 lbs less than a well-optioned GT. However, add put the more common options on the LX, make it a hatch instead of a notch, and difference is probably more like 50 lbs.

**N20LT4** · 10-07-2007, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by BLKCLOUD

Oh boy, here we go again. If one wishes to play that game (you know...."apples to apples" and such), then include the Cobra guys arguement that goes "if I had 5.7 liters"....etc, etc.

Both are equally dumb.

Oh come on BLKCLOUD, we both know a naturally aspirated motor can never equal the efficiency of a forced induction motor - no matter how many liters it has. The "if I had 5.7 liters" argument will never compare to the "if mines was supercharged" debate - let's be honest. But, it is what it is, and the Ford boys had to do what they had to do

**Roastem** · 10-07-2007, 03:55 PM

Yeah, those stock for stock they were gettin' whupped up and down the street from 94-02. LT1 handled 'em, then the LS1 came in to mop up.

Ironically, the corporate sponsors didn't see dividends, so the Mustang had the last laugh. Maybe in 2009 things will be a little different on the streets!

**JwMonE99** · 10-07-2007, 03:57 PM

To be honest I would have a hard decision to choose between a cobra and camaro.

Before I get bashed yea I know chevy makes stronger motors, but also weaker transmissions, and rear ends which can become very expensive to fix. Also I don't think the mustangs are made out of fiberglass but I could be wrong

**JwMonE99** · 10-07-2007, 03:58 PM

And oh yea cobra motors respond very well to mods too

**N20LT4** · 10-07-2007, 04:11 PM

Originally Posted by JwMonE99

To be honest I would have a hard decision to choose between a cobra and camaro.

Before I get bashed yea I know chevy makes stronger motors, but also weaker transmissions, and rear ends which can become very expensive to fix. Also I don't think the mustangs are made out of fiberglass but I could be wrong

The only thing you got right was the rear-end part. The T-56 had a stronger capacity than both the T-5 and T-45, and the 4L60 vs. AOD-E...well, were not even gonna go there.

**Roastem** · 10-07-2007, 04:12 PM

Anytime and engine comes supercharged or turbocharged, it is gonna have a mod advantage. N/A 4.6 motors don't respond as well as the LT1 or LS1 mod for mod. That's just a cold hard fact.

**N20LT4** · 10-07-2007, 04:47 PM

Originally Posted by Roastem

Anytime and engine comes supercharged or turbocharged, it is gonna have a mod advantage. N/A 4.6 motors don't respond as well as the LT1 or LS1 mod for mod. That's just a cold hard fact.

Very true. That comes with the territory of displacement

**BLKCLOUD** · 10-07-2007, 04:57 PM

Originally Posted by N20LT4

Oh come on BLKCLOUD, we both know a naturally aspirated motor can never equal the efficiency of a forced induction motor - no matter how many liters it has. The "if I had 5.7 liters" argument will never compare to the "if mines was supercharged" debate - let's be honest. But, it is what it is, and the Ford boys had to do what they had to do

It is the exact same arguement - only in reverse.

The Camaro guys says "ya, but the only reason your Mustang beat my Camaro is because it came with a blower".

The Mustang guys says "ya, but the only reason your Camaro beat my Mustang is because you have 1.1L more than I do".

I'm not even beginning to argue which motor is more efficient, or has better this, that, or the other. I'm simply saying the "ya, but your car came from the factory with a blower" arguement is dumb....just like the 4.6 to 5.7 arguement.

And Roastem....the 4V 96/97 Cobra was easily a match for the LT1. GTs....not so much. The LS1 was better than all through 2002.

As far as mod for mod...someone go out there and find me the quickest Bolt-on M6 LS1 (don't even bother with the LT1) F-body you can find. Heck, throw Corvettes in there. No power adder (I'm being nice to ya), no internal mods. I'll do the same for N/A 4Vs, then we can compare.

Ya'll game?

**N20LT4** · 10-07-2007, 05:23 PM

Originally Posted by BLKCLOUD

It is the exact same arguement - only in reverse.

The Camaro guys says "ya, but the only reason your Mustang beat my Camaro is because it came with a blower".

The Mustang guys says "ya, but the only reason your Camaro beat my Mustang is because you have 1.1L more than I do".

I'm not even beginning to argue which motor is more efficient, or has better this, that, or the other. I'm simply saying the "ya, but your car came from the factory with a blower" arguement is dumb....just like the 4.6 to 5.7 arguement.

And Roastem....the 4V 96/97 Cobra was easily a match for the LT1. GTs....not so much. The LS1 was better than all through 2002.

As far as mod for mod...someone go out there and find me the quickest Bolt-on M6 LS1 (don't even bother with the LT1) F-body you can find. Heck, throw Corvettes in there. No power adder (I'm being nice to ya), no internal mods. I'll do the same for N/A 4Vs, then we can compare.

Ya'll game?

O.k. lets play my game for a minute. It's called - "Overall"! Go out there and find me the quickest naturally aspirated 4.6 Mustang. Lethal EFI set the LT1 record with a 9.36@143.17 with a 388 LT1 on stock type suspension, and the worlds fastest LS1 belonged to "Matt346LS1" (now sold) and was a '99 Formula that wen't [email protected] - all motor. 11's ain't nuthin buddy. A mod-motor stanger could only dream about putting up numbers like that.

And as far as efficiency argument goes, no naturally aspirated built street motor is going to even come close to 100% efficiency. That's what superchargers are for

See, my argument is exactly like yours...but just in reverse

Jay

**BLKCLOUD** · 10-07-2007, 05:47 PM

LOL. You know you can't win the challenge that I put out, so you go and try to find one that you can win. Good job!

Ok...I'll play along. Mike Tymenski. 300 cid (4.6 based) Modular went.....curiously enough....9.36 @ 143 mph. No 388 CIDs needed. Nor any power adder, of course.

And very much a stock-style suspension - no tubular chassis, no tubs/mini-tubs, etc. Stick car, too. That was done back in 2000.

Believe the quickest N/A Modular period went 9.20 @ 146. 332 cid (stock stroke, .020 bore 5.4), so the LS1 might have it there.

However...if you are going to go "overall"....vice sticking with what I had originally laid out...."overall" would include power adder cars. Got any LT1/LS1 cars in the 6s? Can an LS1 F-bodyer even dream about putting up numbers like that? LT1? pfft.

But you got me...your arguement did go into reverse....only way you could come close to winning it!

Bob

PS....still wanna see those bolt-on LT1/LS1 M6 vs 4V M5 numbers. I'm huttin high and low for my side.

**2MuchFun** · 10-07-2007, 06:03 PM

waaaaaa the flames are licking at my thread!

BTW, heard tonight that the kid that wrecked the gt stang bought another 94 gt, pretty much the same with no mods. He didnt learn.

**N20LT4** · 10-07-2007, 06:05 PM

Originally Posted by BLKCLOUD

LOL. You know you can't win the challenge that I put out, so you go and try to find one that you can win. Good job!

Ok...I'll play along. Mike Tymenski. 300 cid (4.6 based) Modular went.....curiously enough....9.36 @ 143 mph. No 388 CIDs needed. Nor any power adder, of course.

And very much a stock-style suspension - no tubular chassis, no tubs/mini-tubs, etc. Stick car, too. That was done back in 2000.

Believe the quickest N/A Modular period went 9.20 @ 146. 332 cid (stock stroke, .020 bore 5.4), so the LS1 might have it there.

However...if you are going to go "overall"....vice sticking with what I had originally laid out...."overall" would include power adder cars. Got any LT1/LS1 cars in the 6s? Can an LS1 F-bodyer even dream about putting up numbers like that? LT1? pfft.

But you got me...your arguement did go into reverse....only way you could come close to winning it!

Bob

PS....still wanna see those bolt-on LT1/LS1 M6 vs 4V M5 numbers. I'm huttin high and low for my side.

That 9.39@143 was in a Fox Body with a 340-cubed mod motor...not a 300.

Never thought of you as to be the type to lie Bob. I'm honestly dissapointed. You've lost about a 100 creditibility points for that one.

Let's play inside the lines, not out!

**BLKCLOUD** · 10-08-2007, 04:47 AM

Originally Posted by N20LT4

That 9.39@143 was in a Fox Body with a 340-cubed mod motor...not a 300.

Never thought of you as to be the type to lie Bob. I'm honestly dissapointed. You've lost about a 100 creditibility points for that one.

Let's play inside the lines, not out!

My friend, you know not what you talk about. Does THIS look like a Fox body Mustang? Did they make Fox body Mustangs in 2000 when this particular car was built? FYI....that pic was taken at the Modular Shootout IV, Cecil County Dragway, July 2002. I was the Race Director. Mike ran his 9.36 that weekend at that race. The motor was a spray bore 4.6, and displaced 305 cid. I have known Mike & John Tymenski for several years (ie...I didn't just look them up on the internet). I'm quite familier with the car in question, but you can read about it at www.modularperformance.com, if you'd like to find some accurate data.

Sounds like your spreading internet myths (lets see how long it takes you to figure out how you screwed up).

I shall not hold my breath waiting for your apology.

Bob

PS....Another 9.2x, modular, N/A, stick car. Good friend of mine, too - built my championship-winning F/S motor.

**BLKCLOUD** · 10-08-2007, 04:50 AM

Ummm....and no takers on my original challenge? Constantly trying to change the subject? Realize when you're beat?

**N20LT4** · 10-08-2007, 05:08 AM

Originally Posted by BLKCLOUD

My friend, you know not what you talk about. Does THIS look like a Fox body Mustang? Did they make Fox body Mustangs in 2000 when this particular car was built? FYI....that pic was taken at the Modular Shootout IV, Cecil County Dragway, July 2002. I was the Race Director. Mike ran his 9.36 that weekend at that race. The motor was a spray bore 4.6, and displaced 305 cid. I have known Mike & John Tymenski for several years (ie...I didn't just look them up on the internet). I'm quite familier with the car in question, but you can read about it at www.modularperformance.com, if you'd like to find some accurate data.

Sounds like your spreading internet myths (lets see how long it takes you to figure out how you screwed up).

I shall not hold my breath waiting for your apology.

Bob

PS....Another 9.2x, modular, N/A, stick car. Good friend of mine, too - built my championship-winning F/S motor.

Come Again?

Only pictures? Where's the vid? What does a photo of a Mustang doing a wheelie do for me? You've got to do better than that.

You've just gave me my first joke of the day to discuss with my tech buddies.

**Rikki_SeVeN** · 10-08-2007, 05:12 AM

Originally Posted by N20LT4

Come Again?

Only pictures? Where's the vid? What does a photo of a Mustang doing a wheelie do for me? You've got to do better than that.

You've just gave me my first joke of the day to discuss with my tech buddies.

There's some videos in the Modular Site... but... none of them in the 9's... though...