O.K., so many new points, where to start.......
1. Sorry if my "tone" isn't squishy-sweet, I think these forums get a little too sappy when everybody wears their PC hat and discussions turn into stroke-fests. But hey, that's why country music makes me vomit too. I can be edgy, but I can take what I dish out as well.
2. You gotta understand the CONTEXT of the two times the Factory Five was tested. Standing on it's own, being tested as a kit car, it's a decently done kit compared to the norm in that industry. Compared to the full-production vehicles in the recent comparo test, it's rather archaic, back-yard-ish, and brutal to live with. I'll accept the premise that the car they used for testing was set up too harshly, but it's still a car that leans more toward being a "novelty" than being a real car. More torture chamber than fun chamber as minutes would turn to hours behind the wheel.
3. WindveilGT: Valid points
4. Yes, the Superformance Cobras really are far better executed, but at a price...
5. Blazinsteed, I gotta agree with Scottie, the '03 Cobra deserved it's last-place finish in that test. Re-read the article, what they said about the car. It was dead-on honest, and it was actually very nice to the car. They raved about the power, the fun, and gave credit where credit was due. It was the "hot-rod" of the group, but by FAR not the best OVERALL CAR of the group. So it really comes down to what you want, what you prioritize, in a car's attributes. You can strap a sidewinder missile to a John Deer riding mower and run the 1/4 in the 8's, and if straight-line performance was ALL you cared about, that would be the hands-down winner over the G35, 350Z and Cobra. But C&D is writing for ALL auto enthusiasts, and where the '03 Cobra excelled in certain respects, it flat-out sucked and was outdated in all other respects compared to the light-years superior chassis and build-quality and more contemporary interior/exterior styling that it was put up against. It's like trying to argue that George Foreman should still be ranked the #1 heavyweight simply because he can still hit harder than the younger guys. Myself, I'm a power junkie. If I were shopping for a 30-35K sporty car, I'd likely walk right by the Nissan's and plunk my cash down for the Cobra. But I'm also honest to myself. I would know that I was buying a car that was inferior in so many ways, just to satisfy my thirst for power and the Mustang styling and mystique and heritage. My car of choice, for my money, would be the '03 Cobra over the G35 and 350Z. But, my car of choice is a worse car by all measures except for the go-pedal. Unfortunately, I'm a go-pedal junkie.
4. And that's the failings of many people reading these comparison tests and getting all ticked-off and crying that the magazines are biased and influenced by under-the-table payoffs and advertising revenue and all those other absolutely ludicrous and silly urban legends/myths. They want the outcome to reflect their personal biased likes and dislikes. They can't be objective. And give me a break on the "it won most of the performance tests" thing. The greatness of a car is not all in the numbers, it's in the whole, both subjective and objective. I could build a '73 Dodge Swinger that would absolutely SMOKE Corvettes and Porsches in every single test C&D could invent to throw at it. Should it win any comparo test? No! It's a flippin 1973 Swinger, it's a tub of old, archaic, only handles because I stiffened and gussetted the dogsnot out of the chassis, dog poopie. But a fast, razor-sharp handling piece of dog poopie nonetheless
5.
The only group it won was the one based on feelings.
What more important attribute can you possibly imagine than the feeling you get driving the car. The "fun" factor and the "satisfaction" factor. I don't care WHAT the numbers are, or the stats are. If you drive the car and it doesn't satisfy because the engineering is not fully integrated, and it has too many bad habits and attributes that cloud the experience, that take away from the fact that the car is rip-roaring fast, like bad steering, bad shifter, bad clutch, loose structure, bad seating position, etc.etc.etc....., then it can post herculean numbers for all I care. It's still a loser of a car. "Feelings" is why the Porsche 911 has long been the king of the hill over the Corvette. It's not as fast necessarily, yes it's a bit more expensive, but drive one, and you walk away knowing the 'Vette is junk in comparison, numbers be damned.
6. Lastly (I know, everybody starts appauding...) the magazines are doing the U.S. cars A HUGE ENORMOUS FAVOR when they compare them against much more expensive and elite foreign offerings. I'd argue that it's the U.S. auto makers that PAY the magazines to get lopsided tests like that published. For the Cobra to even get mentioned, or considered, on the same level as, say, the BMW M3, at a fraction of the price, is in itself a victory for Ford. The fact that it can hold it's own is nothing but good P.R. and exposure. And the fact that the comparisons are being made directly causes Ford to place the M3 as a target, an aspiration, a goal, which eventually will result in us, the Mustang crazy fans, getting a car that is LIGHT YEARS ahead in every respect, rather than just being a hopped-up version of a cheap car. No, Ford had the foresight and the cojones to put the Cobra up head to head with the M3, took the bad criticism with the good, took it honestly, and improved from there, noting the FACT that there's still a long way to go, and alot more involved in being world-class than just putting a gorilla under the hood and fat tires on the back.
Sorry for the long post..