'93 Motor Trend Cobra Vs Z28

[90lxwhite]

Pretty decent article I thought. I'm sure we all know how the shootout comes out but it was a fair read anyway. Yesteryear ya know.

http://m.motortrend.com/features/ar...et_camaro_1993_ford_mustang_cobra_comparison/

 

[elarm1]

Nice read!

 

[Gearbanger 101]

I remember when that article actually came out. Probably have it on a shelf somewhere in my closet. lol

Was pretty bummed when the Mustang lost, but it was a close one....and GM needed another 48ci to run down the Pony, so it wasn't so bad.

 

[91TwighlightGT]

In one sense, you hate to see the Cobra lose, but on the other hand the latest and greatest Z28 should have been expected to roll over the rebodied 78 Fairmont. I think the fact that it was so close is a testament to the fact that the Fox had some decent staying power and the reason the F-body would be dead in less than 10 years.

I will say if the 93 Z28 had been LS1 powered things may have been different. Although I prefer the front end styling of the 93-97, the 98-02 certainly had the better powerplant.

 

[90lxwhite]

In one sense, you hate to see the Cobra lose, but on the other hand the latest and greatest Z28 should have been expected to roll over the rebodied 78 Fairmont. I think the fact that it was so close is a testament to the fact that the Fox had some decent staying power and the reason the F-body would be dead in less than 10 years.

I will say if the 93 Z28 had been LS1 powered things may have been different. Although I prefer the front end styling of the 93-97, the 98-02 certainly had the better powerplant.

Yeah but see ford had to bring in their big gun to try and hang w chevy's entry level. That's what bums me out. It's been like that forever until now but now I gotta throw 40 g's at one!?

 

[Gearbanger 101]

Yeah but see ford had to bring in their big gun to try and hang w chevy's entry level. That's what bums me out. It's been like that forever until now but now I gotta throw 40 g's at one!?

True, but it's satisfying to know that GM had to stuff their "big gun" Corvette engine into the Camaro for it to barely beat Fords gussied up pick up truck engine. Besides, t.he '96 Cobra edged out the Camaro SS when they first went head to head...so Ford kinda stayed on top again for a couple of years. GM really didn't start putting any distance between the two cars til they stuff the LS1 between the fenders and Ford went with the torqueless modular motors.

A step back for Ford....not really....more of a lateral move IMO. The 4.6L ran about the same as the outgoing 5.0L....but vastly improved over time. As bad as GM beat on Ford from '99-'02, they never could do it on an even playing field. In the end, it was still the little 281ci holding it's own against GM's big bad 346ci. GM had always used big displacement in lieu of superior engineering....and it seems they still haven't learned their lesson.

 

[91TwighlightGT]

I still think that Ford made a mistake (hear me out!) going to the over head cam engines. Although I believe that the modular engines are in general a better engine than the 302 (and it should be, based on the 302 roots going back to the 50's or whatever) I still wonder what Ford could have done with an aluminum block push rod engine designed with modern equipment like GM has in the LS series.

When you get right down to it, the Ford engines really haven't out performed the LS in power or fuel economy and they have more difficult packaging and maintenance requirements to boot. The only upside was that they could market that they didn't use "old" push rod technology, which isn't much of a plus in my book.

 

[91TwighlightGT]

Yeah but see ford had to bring in their big gun to try and hang w chevy's entry level. That's what bums me out. It's been like that forever until now but now I gotta throw 40 g's at one!?

That is true, but again the 93 Z28 was a new redesign compared to the 93 Mustang which was essentially the last of a 6 year run since a major redesign. I think the disappointing thing for Ford fans was 1994 when the new body style came out and power was very marginally better (HP was 215 compared to 205 IIRC) but saddled with the extra weight it was actually slower than the 93. On top of that, as Gearbanger mentioned 1996 which was a bright spot if you were a Cobra owner with the DOHC 4.6L, but the run of the Mill GT got another kick in the nuts with the SOHC 4.6l which was even slower than the 5.0L version of that same car.

From a performance standpoint, the Cobra was the only bright spot until 1999... but of course by then GM had upped the ante again with the LS engine and stomped the blue oval once again. The mid to late 90's were just a tough time to be a Ford fan.

 

[90lxwhite]

My biggest gripe is price then and now. Then because the gt and z28 were same price nearly and as performance goes the gt's are racing Hondas... Y'all get my gist

 

[90lxwhite]

Ps: why didnt all the 302's use "crappy ole truck parts?"

 

[91TwighlightGT]

Because it was cheap, and it got the job done as far as Ford was concerned.

I do wonder what year Ford decided that the 302 was going set aside for the 4.6L. It debuted in the Town Car in 1991, but the 302 slugged along in the Explorer all the way until 2002 when they changed to the 4.6L. I have to imagine that development was intended to replace the 302.

 

[D.J]

I still think that Ford made a mistake (hear me out!) going to the over head cam engines. Although I believe that the modular engines are in general a better engine than the 302 (and it should be, based on the 302 roots going back to the 50's or whatever) I still wonder what Ford could have done with an aluminum block push rod engine designed with modern equipment like GM has in the LS series.

When you get right down to it, the Ford engines really haven't out performed the LS in power or fuel economy and they have more difficult packaging and maintenance requirements to boot. The only upside was that they could market that they didn't use "old" push rod technology, which isn't much of a plus in my book.

yes and no..
lt engines dominated the gm engine line due to a new factory head that out flowed all others in the past by a land slide and with reverse cooling they could run higher comprestion ratios on pump gas. after the intro of lt, started a new head with cathedral port that out flowed the lt head with a new block design but without reverse cooling. the ls3 head is by far the most superior of all with a flow chart of over 300cfm stock with only 2v.

if ford would have just spent more time with head development they to could have been on top with there base pony car. that new 5.0 mustang is no punk it will put a ss to same quick. but if you line up a gt500 vs ZL1 i dont think the ford owner is going to be happy lol

now how long do you think the ls line is going to stay around with the new LT engine back out? the base C7 LT vette walks on the c6 z06

 

[Gearbanger 101]

When you get right down to it, the Ford engines really haven't out performed the LS in power or fuel economy and they have more difficult packaging and maintenance requirements to boot.

I'm not sure how you figure that? The new 5.0L TiVCT puts out almost identical power figures in comparison the GM's LS3 in their Camaro and it does so with a full 1.2L "less" displacement. It even knocks out a couple more miles to the gallon that the bigger GM. As far as difficult maintenance requirements. The new 5.0L TiVCT is pretty much "gas n go".

but if you line up a gt500 vs ZL1 i dont think the ford owner is going to be happy lol

You think kicking the piss out of GM's flagship Camaro would make the Shelby owner unhappy?

 

[stykthyn]

Yay another what s better thread. I remember reading that article. It was a good read. Ive owned z28s and have had several foxes. IMHO the camaro didn't really have an edge until the ls engine. The body became a rocket ship with a top end that didn't want to quit. Great car but it lacked the feel and personality that you get with the Fox or even the 94/5 gt. Which is why I keep coming back to the mustang. The sound and feel of the car really is a throwback to muscle car roots and you just don't see clean foxes rolling down the street these days. I dd'd my Fox over the summer and it drew compliments DAILY. Even chebby guys love the sound of a cammed 5.0 burbling down the street.

 

[91TwighlightGT]

I'm not sure how you figure that? The new 5.0L TiVCT puts out almost identical power figures in comparison the GM's LS3 in their Camaro and it does so with a full 1.2L "less" displacement. It even knocks out a couple more miles to the gallon that the bigger GM. As far as difficult maintenance requirements. The new 5.0L TiVCT is pretty much "gas n go".



You think kicking the **** out of GM's flagship Camaro would make the Shelby owner unhappy?

The coyote makes 420 hp compared to 426 hp for the LS3.

The coyote motor weights 430 lbs. The LS3 weights 418 lbs.
The LS3 is a lighter motor.

Fuel economy is 19 combined for both, with the heavier Camaro still besting the Mustang by 1 mpg in city. The Mustang does 2 mpg better on the highway, though.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=33431&id=33812

When I say maintenance requirements, I am referring to the complexity of parts replacement and costs. Change cam profile on the LS series? One cam. Change cam profile on the new 5.0? Change four cams, buy special cam alignment tools, etc. Cam phasers wear out which are expensive. There is no cheaper engine to work on than the LS series in terms of dollars/performance.

Don't get me wrong, I think the Coyote is an awesome engine, but at the end of the day the LS is a simpler design that offers comparable fuel economy and power in a lighter and more condensed package with more displacement.

Incidentally, the fact that the Ford has less displacement is irrelevant because there is clearly no benefit in terms of fuel economy with the lower displacement. If they made the same power and had better fuel economy then it might matter, but since it doesn't...

 

[Gearbanger 101]

The coyote makes 420 hp compared to 426 hp for the LS3.

The coyote motor weights 430 lbs. The LS3 weights 418 lbs.
The LS3 is a lighter motor.

Fuel economy is 19 combined for both, with the heavier Camaro still besting the Mustang by 1 mpg in city. The Mustang does 2 mpg better on the highway, though.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=33431&id=33812

Kinda grasping for straws on the power comparison, aren't ya. The LS3 made 6hp more than the Coyote.....6!!! That is by all definitions of the term is "essentially the same" power production. And again....the LS3 had a full 1.2L....73ci to work with. Don't make me whip out the "ricer" hp per ci argument!!!

As far as your engine weights go, you've got them backwards. The Ford engine is slightly lighter by about 20lbs The Coyote clocks in at 430lbs vs the LS3 coming in at 448lbs. Sources are in the hotlink. 18lbs may not be much in the grand scheme of things, but it just goes to show you that having an engine with 3-more cams and their accompanying valve-train components, doesn't always mean you're going to be saddled with additional weight.

And again...mileage average shows Ford knocking out "a couple more mpg" as I stated...and now you, have stated. The Mustangs superior numbers could be due to the cars over all lighter weight, although the Camaro does have slightly taller tires for better highway mileage?. In any case a quick Google search of each respective car has show most Mustang owners seeing average driving figures in the mid-20's, with most Camaro owners seeing closer to lower-20's. Still great mileages for any car making 420+hp levels, but the numbers seem to be falling in the Mustang's favor, just the same.

The Coyote 5.0L TiVCT is a game changer.

 

[91TwighlightGT]

To be clear, I wasn't saying "ha, see how much more power the LS3 makes!" but rather just reinforcing the point that they are similar power levels despite the "low tech" push rod technology in the LS3.

Looks like I was wrong on the weight, I grabbed that off of Camaro5 and it was incorrect. 18 lbs. isn't much, but it does matter. The LS still carries it's weight down lower which is better from a handling perspective, and it still wins in the packaging and simplicity of design.

Again, combined MPG is 19 for the respective cars. Camaro is slightly better in the city and Mustang slightly better on the highway. Part of that is going to be the car that they are packaged in, as the Corvette has shown that the LS engines can do very well in a low drag package.

I just want to be very clear, I am in no way saying that the Coyote is a piece of junk. My whole point is that the move to overhead cams instead of pushrods hasn't proven to create a much better engine. The LS series matches the Coyote in power and fuel economy, and wins in simplicity and packaging. Think about this - For pretty much every car, there is a Chevy LS swap kit. BMW 3-series? LS swap available. Miata? LS swap available. They are cheap and can make great power, and you can fit them in just about anything. You won't easily fit a Coyote in a Miata. Also, you can find an LS motor in any junkyard at any time for a small amount of money. How many Coyotes are out there? If you find a good one, you will pay for it.

 

[RangerJoe]

The LS series motors have definetly earned their reputation. I wish Ford had been designing 4 and 6 bolt main blocks back in the 302 days like the Chevy guys did. That being said, the new coyote is technologically far more advanced. I would wager that all things being equal (gearing, weight, etc) the coyote would whoop up on its HP equivalent counter part. Now, if Ford could up the displacement to say 351"......


Joe

 

[elarm1]

good debate fellas

 

[D.J]

popcorn anyone?



ford needs to quit expecting big power out of small packages and up the CI of their powerplants. i mean really chevy has the lsx block capable of 454CI ... im just waiting for ford to do something of the similar so i can build a badass fox,falcon or something anything!