GTP Cool Wall: 1995 Ford Mustang Cobra R
- Thread starter White & Nerdy
- 113 comments
- 6,825 views
- 27,163
- United Kingdom
I assure you it isn't - Matski can only speak for himself. I've written about cars in the U.S. market as a job for the last 3.5 years now. I've driven across the country twice (think I'm up to 21 states in total, and those two cross-country trips won't be my last). I have several friends and colleagues in the U.S, and I have several friends in the UK who own American cars. I'm a huge fan of Americana and old American cars, and when circumstances allow, I will be moving to the U.S. with the company I write for.
It isn't unfamiliarity or inexperience with the U.S. market, as a European, that has influenced my vote.
I just think it's uncool because it's a 1990s Mustang with an iffy body kit. It really is as simple as that.
- 4,487
- YorkshireLand
- SVTlover
Just a solid cool. That is all.
- 2,024
- Azle, Texas, USA
- GTP_KinLM
- KinLM
I completely agree with this.
Furthermore, 300 HP from a car with a 5.8L engine is pathetic!. It's NOT a track car so the lack of any creature comforts is absolutely stupid. I would love the lack of equipment in a Exige but this is never going to be good around any track, so why take that stuff out?
As AF said above, I think that the first 5-6 years of the Mustang will always be cool, and then they lost that cool factor until the 2011 facelift.
- 2,024
- Azle, Texas, USA
- GTP_KinLM
- KinLM
- 2,364
- Albuquerque, NM
- BloodDiamondPant
Removed - do NOT do this again
Nope that had a SRA. Most road racing Mustangs had a SRA even the ones that raced @ Le Mans/FIA GT in '97. Its not a crazy idea that a SRA car can handle and do well at the track. Look up the Speed Vision world Challenge Firebirds in the '90s which had a SRA they did very well especially vs the new 996 race cars of the time. SRA isn't that bad on the track since you don't have to worry about ride quality when you are modifying going for all out handling.
As far as the HP per liter those 5.8s made tons of torque but were choked off by the heads and intake that were a carry over from the 5.0 non R Cobras.
Last edited by a moderator:
- 2,024
- Azle, Texas, USA
- GTP_KinLM
- KinLM
If a SRA is so good on the track then why don't/didn't we see it used on most cars in motorsports?
And you still haven't explained why such a performance oriented car has such a low HP rating for the size of the engine.
And don't think I'm biased against Mustangs either, my family owns one and I love it more than anything.
Last edited by a moderator:
- 2,364
- Albuquerque, NM
- BloodDiamondPant
Because most cars have a IRS on the street model for various reasons including cost. Don't get me wrong IRS is great and most of the time will out perform SRA BUT handling and SRA are NOT mutually exclusive. The SN95 Mustangs got stuck with a SRA because of the failed FWD replacement of the Mustang(IE Probe) and the SN95 refresh being done on a shoestring budget.
As far as the HP per liter those 5.8s made tons of torque 360FT lbs but were choked off by the heads and intake that were a carry over from the 5.0 94-95 Cobras.
Last edited:
- 2,024
- Azle, Texas, USA
- GTP_KinLM
- KinLM
I thought IRS was more expensive than SRA, which is one of the reasons why the Mustang kept the SRA for so long.
Even if it is good for racing (and I do believe you that it could have some potential there) we are more discussing how this car is day to day, no? If a specific racing version were nominated that would be a different story.
Even if it is okay on a track day, it'll have an even WORSE ride than a hard suspension car with Independent suspension. I don't see how that's cool.
I do appreciate that torque figure. But some of the cars from the 60's had as much power from similar sized engines (I'd be happy to find examples if you don't believe me). That's just uncool to me. If I had a V8 5.8L Mustang Cobra R, every day I think I'd feel let down by just how little power that behemoth of an engine makes. And that's not cool.
- 4,209
- Wasilla, AK
Please don't ever use HP/liter like it means something again. It doesn't.
- 2,024
- Azle, Texas, USA
- GTP_KinLM
- KinLM
It means a whole lot.
More liters is more weight. If they care so much as to strip the interior out then why didn't they bother to try and get more power out of a lighter weight, smaller engine?
Just because your Sunbird has a terrible HP/liter ratio doesn't mean you can say it's a useless figure.
Dare I say it, it's also a very good reflection of how well built a car is. That's why the ultimate-tech cars such as in F1 will be getting 600 HP (not including what the turbo will add) from an engine which is 1/3 the size of the one in this Mustang.
That means that a truly well engineered power plant will make 600% more horsepower per liter than that Mustang.
Obviously F1 cars are a poor comparison. But 300 HP from a 5.8 really begs the question of how well the design and build of that engine is.
HP/Liter is important. Saying otherwise is ignorant. But you commonly say ignorant things so I suppose I can expect that.
- 2,364
- Albuquerque, NM
- BloodDiamondPant
It does hence why the mustang had SRA until recently. Ford has always tried to keep the cost low on the Mustang or A SRA has been in the car along time ago. There was even a IRS developed for the S197 ('07-'13) GT500 but due to the fact it would add around $5k to each car Ford dropped it. The Cost factor for other RWD cars proves my point about IRS since they were priced at higher points (Look MN-12 t-birds of the same era) the only RWD car that is cheaper than the Mustang that has IRS is the BRZ/FT86 and Genesis coupe which both have parts bins IRS which are shared with more expensive cars (BRZ/FT with WRX/STi and the Genesis coupe with the Genesis sedan)
- 2,364
- Albuquerque, NM
- BloodDiamondPant
Yes but to be honest 300HP isn't even close to the potential of the 5.8. Look more at the Saleen S351 Mustangs which had the same 5.8/351 and had 370hp @ 5100rpm and 422lbft @ 3500rpm not supercharged. The Supercharged version had 495 horsepower at 5500 rpm and 490 pound-feet of torque at 4500 rpm.
No problem at all its a great packaged car. If I didn't need something that "will baby" I would look into a BRZ as well.I do definitely see your point. However I dream of owning a BRZ so I definitely can't comment on the idea of having IRS in a cheap performance car without being biased
Last edited:
- 23,800
- Philippines
I'd say it's half-and-half. Peak HP per liter means very little. As Badasp5.0 mentions, the torque was good, so there's a fair bet, the car had a flexible powerband. Having good average horsepower for the weight of the engine, rather than the displacement, matters for racing more than an arbitrary peak hp / displacement measurement.
I love tech as much as the next guy. But at the end of the day, a car can have all the high-tech in the world in the motor, but if a car isn't quick and responsive, it simply isn't quick and responsive.
McLaren
Premium
- 44,475
- Texas
That's because the only cars it means something on are cars you just so happen to dislike & can't stand knowing they do something more efficient than your manly men cars.
Joel
Premium
- 8,141
- Halifax, NS
- Noob616
Why? Because it infers there's a replacement for displacement? Because there's 1.8L I4 Toyotas from the early 2000's with more power than your car?
I'm not even that guy who claims it's very important but saying it means nothing is as moronic as saying a Corvette sucks because a Matrix XRS has more HP/L.
- 7,703
- Indy
- xXKingJoshXx
I agree with niky. HP/L is not a useless figure, but it's not really something that should be used to compare the performance of cars. Same with P/W.
Also,
at whoever said "More liters means more weight" or something like that.
Also,
at whoever said "More liters means more weight" or something like that.
- 2,024
- Azle, Texas, USA
- GTP_KinLM
- KinLM
Generally speaking, a larger engine with a larger displacement will weigh more.
Obviously a well designed one can get the weight down, as well as using lightweight materials when possible.
But on most average everyday engines, a little I4 will weigh less than a large V8.
And yes I agree that some of the LS engines as well as that brilliant masterpiece of a V10 in the Lexus LF-A are exceptions to that rule
- 4,543
- Bay Area, CA
- Zenith113
No.
GM 6.2L LS3 V8 - 430lbs
BMW 4.0L S65 V8 - 445lbs
Toyota 3.0L 2JZ-GTE I6 Twin Turbo - 575lbs (without intercooler)
Nissan 2.0L SR20DET - 330lbs
Engine layout and construction material are much more important. Displacement and weight are practically irrelevant. The 5.7L LS1 and 7.0L LS7 weigh about the same.
I think it is almost entirely useless.
Size? Define size? Are we talking about the volume displaced by the cylinders or the volume taken up by the engine itself? Assuming the second, let us take a look at the statement that more displacement equals more physical size that the car must be designed around. Here are three Ford engines superimposed on one another.
http://www.clubcobra.com/photopost/data/500/114094_6v351vFE.gifThe red is 351ci (5.8L), the slightly larger green is 427ci (7.0L), the massive black engine is a 4.6L.
The black Ford Modular is so big because it went to the more "modern" and "high tech" OHC route instead of OHV, getting better hp/L and worse everything else for this V8.
It's not looking good.
How well built? What does that even mean?
Will it last longer? Not necessarily, the earliest BMW engines to produce more than 100hp/L had reliability issues because of how high strung they were. They also run with cams and heads that make power only accessible at high RPM's. This is not good. Wide power bands are good.
Will the engine weigh less due to the lesser displacement? No, see above.
Will the car get better MPG's? Well let's compare two on Fuelly.
4.0L V8 BMW M3 - 415hp gets between 16-17 total MPG.
6.2L V8 Camaro SS - 426hp. This car weighs two tons, has greater frontal area than the M3 and is as aerodynamic as a brick. 19MPG. This can be attributed partially to the fact that the Camaro has a .5 overdrive. The thing can basically idle down the highway. Try that with a high specific output engine.
You're comparing a modern turbocharged McLaren to a 20 year old Mustang.
And you are yet to tell me how making X% more power per liter makes the car any faster or better.
Well the car has been out for 20 years. I don't know of any widespread complaints about the engine breaking.
Let's go over the advantages of a low HP/L engine by looking at the 6.2L LS3.
-Components are not stressed as harshly meaning longer service life and less cost the produce. Cost is huge.
-Conservative engine tunes and cams yield gentle street manners.
-Can operate at low RPM's giving better gas mileage than engines of similar power and higher hp/L.
-Good power output is achieved with less weight than higher specific output engines depending on the design of the engine. This is not always true.
-Upgrading the engine's power output can be done without switching to expensive forged components on the bottom end until we get into drag car numbers. The LS series in particular is good at this.
-Wide rev range means faster car on the track, more fun on the street.
I am probably missing a few.
Specific output is pretty much meaningless for road cars and casual track cars like the LFA, Mustang, and McLaren we've discussed. I've given you an argument above.
Prove me wrong.
Compare any road going performance engine you want to a 6.2L LS3. Show me how an engine with a higher specific output would be faster or better than that engine.
Specific output is important when you are restricted to a displacement. Road cars are not so a much more important figure is hp/weight of powertrain or size of powertrain. Specific output can matter when discussing similar engines, but bringing it into a comparison between an OHV V8 and a turbocharged iron block I6 is setting yourself up for issues.
Fast cars are usually built to a power goal in mind. Today's aftermarket tire and suspension tech have gotten us to a place where road chassis can handle upwards of 500hp. For a street car it's hard to beat an LS2 or LS3 for this purpose.
Last edited:
- 22,549
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
