V6: $21,455
1/6/10, 04:46 PM
#22
Banned
Join Date: August 16, 2006
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1/6/10, 04:55 PM
#23
I will buy Jack Stands!!!
1/7/10, 05:50 PM
#25
Cobra R Member
1/7/10, 05:54 PM
#26
Cobra Member
Join Date: September 25, 2004
Posts: 1,470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1/7/10, 05:57 PM
#27
Banned
Join Date: August 16, 2006
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1/7/10, 06:00 PM
#28
Cobra R Member
Join Date: September 26, 2007
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
+1
It is amazing how much people overrate the old 5.0. At it's peak the 5.0 made 225HP in the GT and 240HP in the Cobra....... I have a feeling that the '11 V6 will be right in line with 96-98 Cobra in terms of 1/4 performance.
It is amazing how much people overrate the old 5.0. At it's peak the 5.0 made 225HP in the GT and 240HP in the Cobra....... I have a feeling that the '11 V6 will be right in line with 96-98 Cobra in terms of 1/4 performance.
1/7/10, 06:06 PM
#30
Cobra R Member
How is a car that weighs 3050 lbs with 300 ft-lbs of torque is going to be beat by a 3300+ lbs car with only 280?
Last edited by cinque35; 1/7/10 at 06:09 PM.
1/7/10, 06:08 PM
#31
Banned
Join Date: August 16, 2006
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 5.0 had torque that fell off FAST and made NO POWER past 5k RPM's due to the total crap E7 heads. Meanwhile the 2011 V6 is SCREAMING from 3k all the way to 7k. I have owned 4 different 5.0's and know the score dude.
Last edited by eci; 1/7/10 at 06:09 PM.
1/7/10, 06:15 PM
#32
Cobra R Member
I've owned Five and have a '91 now, if anyone wants to find out as soon as they get their '11 i'll be happy to show them.
Last edited by cinque35; 1/7/10 at 06:35 PM.
1/7/10, 06:19 PM
#33
Banned
Join Date: August 16, 2006
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hp per lb:
3050 lb 5.0 = 13.55
3500 lb 3.7 = 11.47
5.0 gets smoked especially considering the powerband and gearing of the 11'.
Last edited by eci; 1/7/10 at 06:21 PM.
1/7/10, 06:29 PM
#34
Cobra R Member
All stock except for aluminum driveshaft & 70mm MAF sensor. 2.73, air silencer, paper filter, 10 deg btdc. Still not as fast as the 87-88 but almost. either way the 3.7 won't be as fast, if it had twin turbo that would be a diff story.
1/7/10, 06:32 PM
#35
Banned
Join Date: August 16, 2006
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which MAF? You have left out mods. The only 70mm MAF I know of is the 1993 Cobra MAF which would require the Cobra specific EEC-IV and 24lb injectors. An A9L won't work with a 70mm without a tune. Based on your mods and the 2.73's, you have a high 14 second car.
1/7/10, 06:41 PM
#36
Cobra R Member
Yes the '93 cobra. It's actually calibrated for the 19lb injectors. The cobra's software compensates for it. Here it is on my kitchen table. It makes a world of diff at higher RPMs
1/8/10, 12:56 AM
#38
Cobra R Member
Join Date: September 26, 2007
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you have to consider more than just weight and HP/TQ numbers. Suspension and tuning has plenty to do with it. Fact is newer cars are superior to older ones. I too have owned a fox body ('87 GT) and it was fast at the time but a modern day '10 Camaro V6 would blow it's doors off. For all the crap people give the 96-98 2V 4.6 it makes about the same power and is maybe a tenth slower than the 5.0. Part of the 5.0's long lived popularity is that it is pretty cheap to modify but a stock 5.0 by today's standards are nothing special.
I'm not trying to bash the old 5.0 but it won't touch the new 3.7 Mustang. I'm betting this thing will run right in 99-04 GT, 96-98 Cobra territory... models that are much faster than stock 87-95 5.0 Mustangs.
I'm not trying to bash the old 5.0 but it won't touch the new 3.7 Mustang. I'm betting this thing will run right in 99-04 GT, 96-98 Cobra territory... models that are much faster than stock 87-95 5.0 Mustangs.
1/8/10, 09:28 AM
#39
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: September 23, 2008
Posts: 879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What was funny about the 95 Mustang Cobra was it came with the normal 60mm TB when the 93 had the 65mm TB. FRPP came out with the 65mm TB and my 95 Mustang Cobra gained 8rwhp. My car went from 218rwhp to 226 which is about 260hp. There was a lot left on the table with these cars, a good exhaust system was worth another 18rwhp as my car when finished did 244rwhp or about 280hp. Its amazing what newer technology can do with less...I mean 305hp from 3.7L when it took 4.6L V8 to do the same. My 98 Mustang Cobra out of the box did 268rwhp, with a full exhaust on it did 280rwhp..it would be nice if we can see the same kind of gains we did on these cars as we can on the 3.7L.
I found the main issue of the 4.6L 4V cars is they needed gears. They came with 3.27's when from the factory they should have had at least a 3.73 gear. I remember those days fondly..
Dave
I found the main issue of the 4.6L 4V cars is they needed gears. They came with 3.27's when from the factory they should have had at least a 3.73 gear. I remember those days fondly..
Dave
Last edited by Dave07997S; 1/8/10 at 09:29 AM.
1/8/10, 09:31 AM
#40
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: September 23, 2008
Posts: 879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is your 91 stock? Air silencer still attached? Stock 3.08 or 2.73 gears? Stock paper filter? Timing at 10 degrees? You don't understand horsepower and RPM.
hp per lb:
3050 lb 5.0 = 13.55
3500 lb 3.7 = 11.47
5.0 gets smoked especially considering the powerband and gearing of the 11'.
hp per lb:
3050 lb 5.0 = 13.55
3500 lb 3.7 = 11.47
5.0 gets smoked especially considering the powerband and gearing of the 11'.
Dave