in case u ever wondered what the s/c cobras rwhp stock..

Oh, and I'll agree with you on the Corvette, that is an awesome car. But the Cadillac is the worst car made in America today hands down. The suspension is so poor in it, I get sea sick everytime I ride in it. They are hidiously ugly right now. I rented a CTS about a year ago, the windshield design is so bad it's practically impossible to drive it in the rain. The water just sits on the windshield and doesn't go anywhere. The seat quality is so bad that if you have to sit in it for more than 15 minutes your butt goes absolutely numb. I swear they got the Climate Control system from the same people who built it for the jet I fly at work. It's either blowing ice chunks at you, or melting your face. I have to sit and deal with that at work, last thing I want to do is ride home with the same experience. I might get flashbacks on my commute. The stearing wheel in the Cadillac is like turning a radio knob, there is absolutely no feedback whatsoever. The car has more blindspots driving down the road than my F-150. It's simply an awful car. There is absolutely no engineering involved in it at all. I would rather drive an Aveo or a Cobalt, and that is not an exaguration. The only positive thing Cadillac has done in recent years, they finally got rid of that Northstar abomination. I remember working on that thing when I worked in a garage. Even on the biggest Cadillacs with enourmous engine compartments you couldn't get to a single thing on that engine. You burn your hands trying to get the oil filter off. And how about this for thinking things through. In order to change the starter motor, you had to pull a cylinder head. That's smarts for ya.

Kurt

So you're driving down the freeway without windshield wipers on?:rolleyes:

I think you should seperate what is a bad design and what features you dont like. Just cause you want it to feel this way, or that way, doesnt mean everyone else does. Worst car made? Give me a break. How the hell did they sell like they have for so many years IF it was that poorly made? :lol:

You're taking it a little to the extreme to say the car has no engineering. My buddy has a 99 seville that i ride in a lot....and i've driven it. Steering is fine to me for that car....for my mustang? no. Seats? No complaints. Automatic climate control? beautiful. I've never gotten sea sick in one. CTS-V? STS-V? I'd LOVE to have one. Maybe you're just picky, but I dont know many 10 year old cars that offer the same features that his does. If you do, name them. Caddy's range in a very wide way depending on how you get them loaded. Shoot they even offer a v6 in them now. Any entry level optioned car is not going to be impressive. Compare your entry level cobalt to a fully loaded cobalt SS. Night and day. Same thing with caddy.

Fitting engines into cars is always a challenge. Out of all the people at GM you dont think they weigh their options for what is best for the car as a whole? Sure they drop the ball, but damn man they didnt drop the ball across the board :rlaugh: Think about the people GM cares about....its not the wrench turner. If they dont think a starter will need service for say.....100k miles and the northstar offers positives....starter placement is not going to make or break it.

Its easy to say how bad a job someone did but its a bit harder to jump in their seat and to do it....effectively. Until you are an engineer and help make profitable decisions for a company, be careful how harsh you are.
 
  • Sponsors (?)


They still have the northstar and it infact out performs the Mustang powerplants today when speaking in terms of hp and tq vs displacement. 470hp and 440hp from a 4.4 liter supercharged northstar is not to shabby. And I dont care about your personal feelings, Cadillac has a totally revamped line and is doing volumes for the American car image over seas. They are finely getting put up there with Benze, BMW, and others as far as luxory and actually outperforming them on performance in many cases. Stand behind you American companies my freind because they need all the help they can get by way of public opinion, pride, and recongnition for the acheivements they are making.


x2

We all have different driving preferences but you cant knock a whole company and its engineering abilities just because it didnt fit your personal needs. Unless you have done what they are doing, they are all MUCH smarter when it comes to designing these cars. Caddy has been in the game for a long time and people keep going back to caddy for a reason...so damn they must be doing something right:flag:
 
The SN-95 is heavier, but not a whole lot. My point was that I could remove a ton of options and still have the same creature comforts of an old Fox Body. I'm telling you, the base difference in the cars is 150lbs, add another 100 lbs if you are comparing a notch instead of a GT. 250lbs still isn't a world of difference.

Kurt

I think the point is that the difference is between cars with similar times/power #'s. Take your drivetrain and put it in a fox....thats 150-300lbs lighter than your car and your times will drop significantly.


Thats all he's saying i believe.
 
I'm saying that in Florida downpoor the wipers on the Cadillac were totally inadequate. I never had that problem in any of my Fords. The wipers supplement the natural aerodynamics of the car when they remove the water. You can always make power by adding a supercharger to an engine. That doesn't mean the engine is adequate in any other way. And I wouldn't worry about the progressive sales of Cadillacs overseas. I go to Europe about twice a year, and I have never seen a Cadillac there my whole life. GM doesn't sell them there, because they don't want to re-engineer the car to meet the safety standards of most of the countries there. It wouldn't be profitable, since they know they wouldn't sell over there anyway. I support American cars, I think the best cars in the world are built right here. The only foreign car I have ever owned I got from my brother when he moved out west. It doesn't mean I can't complain about the quality of some of the cars here. And the leading demographic for Cadillac is still old people and black people. With all the performance numbers they have fought hard for in recent years, I still don't see too many guys like me driving around in them.

Kurt
 
So tell me….exactly what would you have to remove in order to get down to my stock weight of 3018lbs? I’d venture to say you would be removing a lot more than you think.

250lbs may not seem like a lot….but it’s going to take nearly 25rwhp to make up for it. That weight add’s up quick! It’s for that very reason that getting a stock notch to run high 13’s wasn’t all that difficult.

By the way, what exactly does you're typical sn95 5.0 weigh in at?

I think you are totally missing the point. I'm not talking about stripping down an SN-95 to make it foxbody weight, I'm saying it really doesn't weigh that much more. The SN-95 weighs more, but you get a lot more car for that relatively minor increase in weight. If you are building a racecar, sure a fox body is a more reasonable choice because it is naturally a little lighter. But for a streetcar, that extra 200 or so lbs goes a long way. I would venture to say the average SN-95 weighs a little over 3400lbs, given that most of them were sold with a lot of options. Your typical 98-02' LS1 F-body car weighs in at about 3600lbs; also sold with a lot of options. People buy a lot of those and race them. Weight is kind of a relative thing.

Kurt
 
You can put an 03' Cobra motor in one of our cars for less money than buying a Cobra. And it would look better. Just my opinion.

Kurt
So what....then you've got a GT with a big thumper under the hood. You'll still have sub par brakes, a T5 that's going to break with just the though of 400lbs ft/tq, no where near as nice an interior, no IRS, 2.73 gears, smaller wheels and tires and about 4-dozen other major/minor advancements that aren't coming to mind right now. You'll also need to revamp your entire exhaust system, ECU, wiring etc in order to work with the set up and in the end, you'll still only have a Fobra that's almost 10-years older by comparison? :shrug:

I seem to have to repeat myself over and over again on this one, but there's a LOT more to an '03-'04 Cobra than just a supercharged (and bulletproof) DOHC V8 under the hood.

As far as looks go...I personally think you're way off. Of the early SN95's, the '96-'98 Cobra is probably the sexiest of them all IMO, but the '03-'04 is even better and badder ass looking still!

I'm not saying the SN95's can be made to look equally as impressive with some help from the aftermarket, but you're now adding to the over all cost doing so.

Stock for stock, I don't see how anyone could think that this...

1994FordMustangGT_large.jpg


...is anywhere close by comparison in the looks and edginess of this!

TerminatorTorch1280.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 1994FordMustangGT_large.jpg
    1994FordMustangGT_large.jpg
    144.1 KB · Views: 61
  • TerminatorTorch1280.jpg
    TerminatorTorch1280.jpg
    649.5 KB · Views: 73
I'm saying that in Florida downpoor the wipers on the Cadillac were totally inadequate. I never had that problem in any of my Fords. The wipers supplement the natural aerodynamics of the car when they remove the water. You can always make power by adding a supercharger to an engine. That doesn't mean the engine is adequate in any other way. And I wouldn't worry about the progressive sales of Cadillacs overseas. I go to Europe about twice a year, and I have never seen a Cadillac there my whole life. GM doesn't sell them there, because they don't want to re-engineer the car to meet the safety standards of most of the countries there. It wouldn't be profitable, since they know they wouldn't sell over there anyway. I support American cars, I think the best cars in the world are built right here. The only foreign car I have ever owned I got from my brother when he moved out west. It doesn't mean I can't complain about the quality of some of the cars here. And the leading demographic for Cadillac is still old people and black people. With all the performance numbers they have fought hard for in recent years, I still don't see too many guys like me driving around in them.

Kurt


Because a majority of guys like you cant afford a performance car that caddy has out(not saying you just in general) Dont think for a second that if I could a new STS-V or CTS-V that is what would be in my driveway. And you can slap a supercharger on anything and make it a big bad engine? That dont take away from the engine which people forget all about the northstar and ride Fords coat tails when speaking on American ohc V8's when even is you look back the Northstar has allways put out more power than the ford counterpart. 275 to 315hp from a 4.6 v8 for over 15 years. Now 430hp to 470hp from a sc 4.4 V8. Didgital mpg read outs sense the early 80's, FWD in the early 70's, cyl deactivation in the early 80's, trying sll beit unsuccesfully to introduce deisel cars to the US. These are just a few things Caddy has brought to the table. They know what they are doing, the CTS is a world class car and if you see them in europe or not the image is still be put out there. What has Lincoln done lately?
 
What has Lincoln done lately?

I don’t argue with you about how impressive the new Caddy is, but how well do you honestly expect it to sell? I mean really.....how many people are going to buy this car....especially during these financial times? Enough to justify its existence? I doubt it? You'll get a very small percentage of image driven, yuppies who can't seem to shake their high-school football days on their way through their mid-life crisis that think a souped up Caddy makes them look more important than if they were driving a Vette. The Hot Rod luxury car concept has already proven a failure. I though everyone learned their lessons and grew out of that phase in the late-90's when these kinds of cars died off then? :scratch:

If GM and Chrysler want to try to bring it back again....so be it. They can deal with the financial follies, plant closures and job losses when the entire program tanks and takes another big chunk out of their bottom line (like they can afford any more of that)!!!

Ford saw that there was no real market for these cars and moved on to where there was and stuck with what worked. And what do you know....Ford was the only one of the big three that was in the Black this year? :shrug:
 
As far as looks go...I personally think you're way off. Of the early SN95's, the '96-'98 Cobra is probably the sexiest of them all IMO, but the '03-'04 is even better and badder ass looking still!

I actually do like the SN-95 better than the looks of the newer Cobras. My personal taste is towards a car that is cleanier and smoothed out. I don't care for gaudy scoops and hard corners. But you are absolutely right, there are a whole bunch of things that make an 03' Cobra better other than the engine. I was just making an argument relative to the original statement "Why are we busting our asses to make 300rwhp?"

Kurt
 
Because a majority of guys like you cant afford a performance car that caddy has out(not saying you just in general) Dont think for a second that if I could a new STS-V or CTS-V that is what would be in my driveway. And you can slap a supercharger on anything and make it a big bad engine? That dont take away from the engine which people forget all about the northstar and ride Fords coat tails when speaking on American ohc V8's when even is you look back the Northstar has allways put out more power than the ford counterpart. 275 to 315hp from a 4.6 v8 for over 15 years. Now 430hp to 470hp from a sc 4.4 V8. Didgital mpg read outs sense the early 80's, FWD in the early 70's, cyl deactivation in the early 80's, trying sll beit unsuccesfully to introduce deisel cars to the US. These are just a few things Caddy has brought to the table. They know what they are doing, the CTS is a world class car and if you see them in europe or not the image is still be put out there. What has Lincoln done lately?

There are plenty of people like me who can afford the Cadillac, and they choose to buy the equally priced better cars build by competitors. I have worked on a number of Northstars back when I was turning wrenches. It is an absolute abomination to work on. Nothing they did on that engine makes any sense. The CTS-V, the high performance Cadillac, uses an LSx based engine. Best decision GM ever made with the Cadillac. The 4.4L V8 had more power than the 4.6 from Ford because it was marketed in a higher priced car where insurance wasn't as much of an issue. Ford already made a marketable 5.0L N/A Modular engine based on the 4.6. It was never made an option on any of their cars because that kind of power would have effected the insurability of the cars priced in that range.

Kurt
 
I don’t argue with you about how impressive the new Caddy is, but how well do you honestly expect it to sell? I mean really.....how many people are going to buy this car....especially during these financial times? Enough to justify its existence? I doubt it? You'll get a very small percentage of image driven, yuppies who can't seem to shake their high-school football days on their way through their mid-life crisis that think a souped up Caddy makes them look more important than if they were driving a Vette. The Hot Rod luxury car concept has already proven a failure. I though everyone learned their lessons and grew out of that phase in the late-90's when these kinds of cars died off then? :scratch:

If GM and Chrysler want to try to bring it back again....so be it. They can deal with the financial follies, plant closures and job losses when the entire program tanks and takes another big chunk out of their bottom line (like they can afford any more of that)!!!

Ford saw that there was no real market for these cars and moved on to where there was and stuck with what worked. And what do you know....Ford was the only one of the big three that was in the Black this year? :shrug:

Hit the nail right on the head. You have to step back and look at the bigger picture to understand why the manufacturers equip the cars the way they do.

Kurt
 
The CTS-V, the high performance Cadillac uses an LSx based engine. The 4.4L V8 had more power than the 4.6 from Ford because it was marketed in a higher priced car where insurance wasn't as much of an issue. Ford already made a marketable 5.0L N/A Modular engine based on the 4.6. It was never made an option on any of their cars because that kind of power would have effected the insurability of the car.

Kurt



So thats the only and top reason Ford didnt run the 5.0L Modular? Even then it has .6 liters ontop of the 4.4L. Im not saying it couldnt have been a factor....i just doubt it was the main one.
 
So this thread has gone from nice dyno numbers of the 03/04 Cobra to comparing Mustang interiors with a Vette's to Cadillac winshield wipers to Fox vs SN95 weight to Northstar engines to insurability of different engine sizes . . .
 
So this thread has gone from nice dyno numbers of the 03/04 Cobra to comparing Mustang interiors with a Vette to Cadillac winshield wipers to Fox vs SN95 weight to Northstar engines to insurability of different engine sizes . . .

It's how discussions get started. One thing leads to another.

Kurt
 
Numbers tell the story with Caddy vs. Lincoln....

At the end of 2000, Cadillac and Lincoln were running neck and neck in sales, with Lincoln notching 193,009 cars and trucks and Cadillac counting 189,154. But by last year, Cadillac had built a huge lead. It sold 235,002 vehicles while Lincoln, in a steep decline, managed to move only 123,207.

Cadillac revived its fortunes by spending $4 billion of parent General Motors' money on a new line of cars and SUVs featuring sharp edges and stark interiors.

While they are not to everybody's liking, the new vehicles are certainly distinctive and immediately identifiable as Cadillacs. Cadillac also succeeded in catching lightening in a bottle when the Escalade became a must-have purchase for high-rolling, high-profile urban buyers.
(from cnn.com in 2006)



So i guess we'll see in the years to come if caddy survives....if GM survives....if Ford survives. But to me, you cant knock GM for Caddy's cars when Ford hasnt done anything better with Lincoln.

AND lincoln's new cars are looking really similar in design features to caddy's change a few years ago :shrug:Sharp lines.....flat panels....

MKZ- $33k
FWD 18 mpg city/28 hwy

AWD 17 mpg city/24 hwy

v6 263 @ 6250 RPM 249 lb.-ft. @ 4,500 rpm

MKS- $38k
FWD 17 mpg city/24 hwy
AWD 16/24

3.7L 24-Valve V6 DOHC Duratec Engine
273@6250 270lb.-ft@4250


CTS-$36
3.6L V6 VVT: 263 hp at 6400 rpm and 253 lb-ft of torque at 3100 rpm

3.6L Direct Injection V6: 304 hp at 6400 rpm and 273 lb-ft of torque at 5200 rpm

EPA Estimated 18 MPG City and 26 MPG Highway



Hands down CTS wins looks wise IMO
 
So thats the only and top reason Ford didnt run the 5.0L Modular? Even then it has .6 liters ontop of the 4.4L. Im not saying it couldnt have been a factor....i just doubt it was the main one.

I'm sure it had almost nothing to do with the 4.4L Cadillac engine if that's what you're asking. I think Ford opted to go with the supercharged 4.6L engine for the Cobra over the N/A 5.0 because of the reputation this combination had acquired from the Lightning.

Kurt
 
And is the towncar supposed to really compete with an STS or DTS?! Come onnnn.....

Towncar- $46k
16 city / 24
4.6L SOHC FFV V-8 (Gas only in CA,NY,VT,MA, PA, RI, CT & ME)
239 @ 4,900 rpm
287 lb.-ft. @ 4,100

STS-$47k
EPA estimated 17 mpg city, 26 mpg highway (V6 RWD)
EPA estimated 15 mpg city, 24 mpg highway (V8 RWD)
3.6L Direct Injection V6 VVT
4.6L Northstar V8 VVT
302 hp at 6,300 rpm and 272 lb-ft at 5,200 rpm (V6)
320 hp at 6,400 rpm and 315 lb-ft at 4,400 (V8)

DTS-$46k
4.6L Northstar V8 EPA estimated 15 mpg city, 23 mpg highway (275 hp V8)
(Standard)
4.6L Northstar V8 NHP EPA estimated 15 mpg city, 22 mpg highway (292 hp V8)
(Standard: Performance)

275 hp at 6000 rpm and 295 lb-ft of torque at 4400 rpm
(Standard)
292 hp at 6300 rpm and 288 lb-ft of torque at 4500 rpm
(Standard: Performance)

Now the MKS and CTS looks are in the same league and i prefer the CTS. But old or young black or white(or anything else), i cant see anyone picking a towncar over a sts/dts
 
I'm sure it had almost nothing to do with the 4.4L Cadillac engine if that's what you're asking. I think Ford opted to go with the supercharged 4.6L engine for the Cobra over the N/A 5.0 because of the reputation this combination had acquired from the Lightning.

Kurt


Well one, a n/a 5.0L wouldnt make the power they wanted out of the car. Plus, its much easier to make big power by adding a blower on, rather than making a more radical n/a motor without adding tons of cubes(.4 aint gonna cut it in this case). Again....lets look at the big factors....a reputation from a supercharged lightning is good, but it doesnt make or break decisions. Its an influence but not the deciding factor. These kind of decisions arent that easy!

And im not saying it had anything to do with what caddy was doing but caddy's engineers have done something right and Fords (should i say lincoln's) have not. Look at the numbers. GM puts out powerful cars and has for years. That wasnt Ford's strategy. If lincoln is supposed to be Fords version of caddilac....then GM WINS. Ford's strategy made up in other areas but not in this one.

Kind of like f-body vs mustangs....Ford's strategy worked. GM's didnt. We'll see if GM can get it right on the camaro but the way they attacked with the past fbody was a failure where the mustang was a winner....and did it with less motor.
 
I think you are totally missing the point. I'm not talking about stripping down an SN-95 to make it foxbody weight, I'm saying it really doesn't weigh that much more. The SN-95 weighs more, but you get a lot more car for that relatively minor increase in weight. If you are building a racecar, sure a fox body is a more reasonable choice because it is naturally a little lighter. But for a streetcar, that extra 200 or so lbs goes a long way. I would venture to say the average SN-95 weighs a little over 3400lbs, given that most of them were sold with a lot of options. Your typical 98-02' LS1 F-body car weighs in at about 3600lbs; also sold with a lot of options. People buy a lot of those and race them. Weight is kind of a relative thing.

Kurt

For that extra 250+ lbs (remember, this is likely equal to nearly a 25hp advantage in regards to weight)....what exactly do you get? Sure...the chassis may be a bit more rigid, the seats may be more comfortable and there may be a few less creeks and groans. In the end however, a fully optioned sn95 is still going to be at a 250+ lb disadvantage than a fully optioned notch. Again, that weight adds up. Have you seen how slow the gt500's are considering their horsepower? It's a shame, really.
 
The FR500 concept Mustang made 400 hp with an N/A 5.0L that met emissions standards, so obviously it wasn't that radical.

As for the other stuff, Americans love boring cars. That came right from Scott Seltimire project manager for Corvette and Camaro. Auto manufacturers make their money on boring cars. I think Ford is on a much better track than GM. GM has their eggs spread out over too many brand names. They have a reputation for poor quality worldwide. I think that is going to be their undoing. I think Ford would probably be better off shedding the Mercury name. I predict the new Camaro won't do very well at all.

Kurt