GTP Cool Wall: 1995 Ford Mustang Cobra R

1995 Ford Mustang Cobra R

  • Total voters
    119
  • Poll closed .
Whether it's important/desirable to have a high specific output is debatable (and dependent on context!), but HP/L tells you more about an engine than peak HP by itself.

Just the fact that this engine makes 300hp from 5.8L implies that it possesses a strong low/mid-range as has been stated, particularly compared to, say, a naturally-aspirated engine that makes 300hp from 3.0L. It also implies that the 5.8 would be cheaper to manufacture than the 3.0, may require less maintenance, and possesses more tuning/aftermarket potential.

It's really quite straightforward. Around 50hp/L you've got a "lazy" engine that likes to loaf about at lower RPMs and is generally strongest in that range -- it could be a big grunty V8, or it could be a workaday engine built for longevity and low cost. Getting up to 100hp/L, if naturally-aspirated, involves a high redline and peaky camshaft-dependent power delivery, usually with DOHC and a considerable engineering investment. Since it's a rough estimate of how "hard" the engine is working, the lower the HP/L, the more room you probably have left for upgrades, and as you climb higher in HP/L you'll have to spend more money to get any further.

Specific output is perhaps even more useful when talking about turbocharged engines. 100hp/L is basically the standard these days and probably involves a smaller turbo, while anything that goes much further than 150hp/L will involve more turbo lag. The higher the HP/L, the more boost-dependent it is (see: 1000hp 2JZ-GTEs) and the more likely it will need things like upgraded internals.

"Meaningless"...yeah right. :rolleyes: One can argue against the notion of a high HP/L stat being the "end-all" of an engine without scrapping the metric entirely. To me it's about the most descriptive thing you can get out of a quick glance at a basic spec sheet.

(EDIT: Last part removed because Zenith edited his post.)
 
Last edited:
The only truly correct answer here is @niky's. hp/l is no more or less important than many other engine metrics. It isn't the sole criteria by which an engine should be judged (@KinLM), nor should it be ignored entirely (@White & Nerdy).

A big thumping V8 engine isn't inherently inefficient or useless or out-of-date just because it's a big thumping V8. There are plenty of engines to contradict this theory (@Zenith mentioned several) and the concept wouldn't have stuck around for so long if it didn't work very well for its intended applications. That they're automatically heavier is also a fallacy, as has been shown - there are simply too many variables to the average engine to say one is automatically heavier than another.

Equally, a small revvy engine with high hp/l isn't inherently highly-strung or unreliable solely on the basis of its specific output. There are way too many other factors to consider - in the M3's case it's largely failures of some of the clever tech they put on the engine. Conversely, Honda's high specific output engines are known to go on for a very long time indeed if looked after with basic maintenance - the ability to hit 8/9k rpm and make power at the top end is no hindrance to reliability in a well-engineered unit.

Each has its advantages and disadvantages. Neither one is categorically better than the other, since it depends entirely on what you want from a car.
 
homeforsummer
Each has its advantages and disadvantages. Neither one is categorically better than the other, since it depends entirely on what you want from a car.
Click to expand...
I agree it's practically a subjective thing, which is why I think it's appropriate enough for a Cool Wall thread. Members pass judgment in these threads for sillier reasons. Like what I said on page two, 300hp and the torque curve that comes with it in a 5.8L may be effective, but this isn't a race.

It's fair to correct misconceptions or mistaken facts, naturally. But if a grumbly V8 that gets its power from displacement rather than RPM seems uncouth to you, and therefore uncool, it's your vote.
 
The alternative viewpoint is that specific output is utterly irrelevant to a cool wall thread since it has absolutely no bearing on whether a car is cool or not. Particularly in something like this Mustang, where it's neither here nor there - not impressive but not unimpressive either.
 
Me vote based on um engine that make the zoom zoom and the boom boom. Ug ug. :D

Still undecided. Nothing against the performance... which is okay... or the handling... neither of which make a cool car. (For example: any Ferrari that isn't an F40)

First instinct is "cool"... second instinct is... wait... is it a Shelby Cobra... no? Even better!

Then again... it's not the New Edge SVT Cobra... and the "competition license" requirement is about as ridiculous as the hoops Ferrari makes you jump through to buy one... so... hmmmm....
 
My theory on HP/ci is this. High specific output, broad powerband, easy to work on - pick any two.

My personal favorite is broad powerband and easy to work on - usually a big macho V8, but a V6 will do for a small T-FWD car. (Note that, if you look at the specs, the X engine doesn't actually have that broad a powerband, but it has so much torque compared to other engines in that market segment that it doesn't matter). A car with those characteristics can be gentle when you're tired and just want to get home with a minimum of drama, and it can pull up hills, deal with stop-and-go traffic, and maybe even pass without excessive downshifting (note: does not apply to my car on the two-lane roads I use, as gaps in oncoming traffic are so rare and small when you need/want them that any attempt at passing requires maximum speed and will still carry significant risk). If you're a modifier, you can potentially get to 150% of stock horsepower or better without overstressing the engine or losing too much low-end.

You can have a high specific output engine that's simple to deal with, but all the horsepower will be high in the rev range, requiring frequent downshifts for passing or hills, and the engine will probably be highly stressed, resulting in heat and wear issues. Frequent low-RPM driving can also cause carbon buldup in such an engine, or so I've heard.

With the new, clever tech cars have now, you can have a car with twice the spec output of mine and a broader powerband too, but it might still have less torque and you'll have to be a computer hacker to diagnose/fix/upgrade certain components. And speaking of upgrades, it'll be closer to the point of diminishing returns and have less overall potential (as has been said before). Such engines are also more than a little sissy-ish. And since this is a discussion of coolness, I consider that an important factor (many of my attempts to defend large displacement are actually because I think engine downsizing is unmanly, but need a factual excuse to disparage engine-downsized cars). It also doesn't always work - VTEC Hondas rev quickly, but I'd rather have an engine that doesn't need to rev at all.

Basically, the issue is this: displacement downsizing may well have advantages in fuel economy (if done correctly), insurance (if you live somewhere where insurace costs are displacement-based, as one member of this site apparently does), or taxes (again, if you live somewhere that has displacement-based road taxes). Proper engineering might even allow a downsized (and probably force-fed) engine to have a real powerband, to avoid excessive wear, or to not assault the occupants with farty, unappealing inline-4 noises. But fuel economy and, dare I say it, advanced technology itself are not cool, and small engines certainly are not.

Also, one of the rules I see quoted a lot is "if you have to explain it, it's not cool". And while that does, to some degree, invalidate my argument that the J-body is one of the coolest FWD compacts because of its bigger engine (no one would know or care unless you explained it to them), I think, as a general principle, "Wow! Big engine! Horsepower! Fast!" takes a lot less explaining than variable valve timing and fancy turbo tech.
 
Almost had me. Was even nodding my head in agreement until I got to the word "sissyish"... then my eyes glazed over and I skipped reading the one or two decent points mired in the ranting after that.

Ug no care if motor have um direct injection, turbo and um sissy small displacement... Motor fast. Ug happy. Finis.
 
White & Nerdy
My theory on HP/ci is this. High specific output, broad powerband, easy to work on - pick any two.

My personal favorite is broad powerband and easy to work on - usually a big macho V8, but a V6 will do for a small T-FWD car. (Note that, if you look at the specs, the X engine doesn't actually have that broad a powerband, but it has so much torque compared to other engines in that market segment that it doesn't matter). A car with those characteristics can be gentle when you're tired and just want to get home with a minimum of drama, and it can pull up hills, deal with stop-and-go traffic, and maybe even pass without excessive downshifting (note: does not apply to my car on the two-lane roads I use, as gaps in oncoming traffic are so rare and small when you need/want them that any attempt at passing requires maximum speed and will still carry significant risk). If you're a modifier, you can potentially get to 150% of stock horsepower or better without overstressing the engine or losing too much low-end.

You can have a high specific output engine that's simple to deal with, but all the horsepower will be high in the rev range, requiring frequent downshifts for passing or hills, and the engine will probably be highly stressed, resulting in heat and wear issues. Frequent low-RPM driving can also cause carbon buldup in such an engine, or so I've heard.

With the new, clever tech cars have now, you can have a car with twice the spec output of mine and a broader powerband too, but it might still have less torque and you'll have to be a computer hacker to diagnose/fix/upgrade certain components. And speaking of upgrades, it'll be closer to the point of diminishing returns and have less overall potential (as has been said before). Such engines are also more than a little sissy-ish. And since this is a discussion of coolness, I consider that an important factor (many of my attempts to defend large displacement are actually because I think engine downsizing is unmanly, but need a factual excuse to disparage engine-downsized cars). It also doesn't always work - VTEC Hondas rev quickly, but I'd rather have an engine that doesn't need to rev at all.

Basically, the issue is this: displacement downsizing may well have advantages in fuel economy (if done correctly), insurance (if you live somewhere where insurace costs are displacement-based, as one member of this site apparently does), or taxes (again, if you live somewhere that has displacement-based road taxes). Proper engineering might even allow a downsized (and probably force-fed) engine to have a real powerband, to avoid excessive wear, or to not assault the occupants with farty, unappealing inline-4 noises. But fuel economy and, dare I say it, advanced technology itself are not cool, and small engines certainly are not.

Also, one of the rules I see quoted a lot is "if you have to explain it, it's not cool". And while that does, to some degree, invalidate my argument that the J-body is one of the coolest FWD compacts because of its bigger engine (no one would know or care unless you explained it to them), I think, as a general principle, "Wow! Big engine! Horsepower! Fast!" takes a lot less explaining than variable valve timing and fancy turbo tech.
Click to expand...
If you're having to downshift to pass people or go up hills then you're trying to overtake people far too quickly or go far too fast.

And why don't you think downshifting is fun? I thought you liked to rev the engine real high next to people driving economy cars?
 
I do, but that's the difference. I like to downshift and spew exhuast noises, but there's no reason I have to (unless, as I said, I'm trying to get past a slow driver on a two-lane road with four lanes' worth of traffic). I can pull right up a steep hill at fairly low speeds in 5th gear, which is convenient when I'm stuck behind slow people.
 
White & Nerdy
but there's no reason I have to

I can pull right up a steep hill at fairly low speeds in 5th gear, which is convenient when I'm stuck behind slow people.
Click to expand...

So it's just laziness then?

I thought that you were against things that make driving easier.
Never having to shift seems pretty easy to me, takes all the fun out of it.


I only have a 2L and as soon as I get to 35mph I shift into 5th. It can pull fine up hills in top gear.


Sidenote: It really needs a 6th gear, would be nice to be able to cruise at 70 at 1500rpm.
 
Badasp5.0
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.
Click to expand...

I love how people act like you NEED IRS to be taken seriously on any road racing event. Obviously they have never hear of Sam Strano who took his nearly stock '01 Camaro SS and won multiple national AutoX Championships all with a 'primitive' solid rear axle...

http://www.gmhightechperformance.com/features/0709gm_2001_chevy_camaro/viewall.html
 
Harry6784
I love how people act like you NEED IRS to be taken seriously on any road racing event. Obviously they have never hear of Sam Strano who took his nearly stock '01 Camaro SS and won multiple national AutoX Championships all with a 'primitive' solid rear axle...

http://www.gmhightechperformance.com/features/0709gm_2001_chevy_camaro/viewall.html
Click to expand...

Regardless of the actual performance difference between IRS and Live Axle, Live Axle has a reputation as primitive. Primitive is uncool.
 
Zenith
Regardless of the actual performance difference between IRS and Live Axle, Live Axle has a reputation as primitive. Primitive is uncool.
Click to expand...
By that logic, every modern GM v8 is uncool.


Primitive is cool because its still good enough to be consistently used.
 
White & Nerdy
but I'd rather have an engine that doesn't need to rev at all.
Click to expand...

We've cracked it, guys:

production-chevy-volt_021.jpg
 

Latest Posts

Back