I'm thinking about selling my 98 Cobra and getting a 93

Discussion in 'SVT Tech Forum' started by black98snake, Jun 20, 2004.

  1. Alright then.....We'll agree to disagree. :rolleyes:
  2. Well, as the owner of a 93 Cobra, I am a bit biased. That being said, I think I would have to agree with what everyone else is saying. If you are looking for a daily driver then do NOT get the 93 Cobra. It lacks almost all of the creature comforts of even a 94/5 Cobra. As far as performance, in stock trim I think you are going to be a bit dissappointed when going from your 98. As far as that goes I have to agree with Rydeon that it is a lot cheaper to make a 5.0 outperform a 4.6 so you could easily put a few mods on it and be leaving 98s in the dust. Of course then you have changed a bit of what makes it so special anyway, so why not just mod an LX? Well, in the end I really don't know what to tell you because I am actually trying to decide whether to sell my Cobra and buy a 1999+ GT just because they are almost as fast and are a lot more comfortable as a daily driver. Mine has 50,000 miles on it.

  3. Well, It was looking like a two guy post for a while. :nonono:
    I'll chime in with chodge89. If it were me, I would stick with your 98. Why? They are two totally different cars in stock trim and that is how "most" cars come from the factory. In stock trim. Apples and oranges as far as the fox body and sn95 cars. Maybe you just want a 93 Cobra because you want one. If's that's the case just buy it and don't think twice about what someone else thinks. But, you did post this thread so here we all are.
    The 98 is the newer platform and just drives like a more refined car all around. Enough said. Both cars have huge amounts of potential. Your 98 is stock now? How long have you owned it? If you have owned it for more than a month and have not started to mod it then I don't understand any reason why you should care at all about the potential of either cars abilities to produce serious power. If your just gonna buy it to get something different just stick with your 98. If you have to have that 93 then make sure you buy the cleanest, low mileage car you can find because at some point you will want to re-sell again and that's that.

    89 Saleen hatch still own it
    90 Saleen hatch put lots of miles on it, sold it, still regret it.
    90 LX hatch broke it sold
    88 LX vert stolen. wifes old car
    93 Cobra had to sell at the time. still bummed un-modded
    94 Cobra best friend totaled it, wish I still had it.
    02 Saleen N/A write off car. sold it, could'nt make it go fast enough
    95 Saleen S351 never sell it.

  4. The Cobra has been with me for two years now. I don't plan on any mods to it. I've been there and done that to several other mustangs I have owned. My dilema is that there are not many clean 93's around anymore. If I wait too long none will be clean and low mileage. I feel if I want another 98 that time is on my side due to the fact that I can get that style from 96-98. I appreciate every ones replies. Still haven't decided.
  5. Well, either way you go, I don't really think you can go wrong as both cars are really nice. I think you will also always be able to find a couple of low-mileage, super-clean 93s as well, as there are a lot of people like me who don't really drive them that much and take really good care of them. The price may appreciate a bit as time goes on but I wouldn't worry too much as it has already been 11 years and you can find many 93s with less than 10k miles on them going for less than $20k. Either way, you can't really go wrong.

  6. Gearbanger, I felt the same about Cobra’s before I bought mine in March. My neighbor keeps offering to buy for $12k, bought it under $10k with 119,000. all I can say is, “oh yeah baby”, a lot better than my 91 lx. As for cams, the cobra cam was designed specifically for the cobra, then later used on t-birds. It also has more lift, but same lobe separation. This is true, so don’t argue the fact. Also the tb is 65mm, not 70mm. I don’t drive the cobra to much, but when I do, it’s the best mustang I driven(stock for stock), haven’t driven an 03 or special mustang though. 98’s are a dime a dozen. 93’s are hard to find in good condition. My friend and I went to see one last week in riverside, it was junk. Two original wheels were missing, replaced fenders(seller said, “oh, there just regular mustang. They are, but the numbers don’t match), different cam, no power, bad tranny, dumps, and a bunch of rubber under the rear bumper from the slicks. Once you own a 93 cobra, you’ll know the feeling. I did drive my friends 98, pedals seemed to close, my 93 felt a lot better
  7. Scorp69, I can appreciate your view of the '93, but I still stand firm on my opinion that it's just a glorified GT. Like I said previous, I don't think they're junk or anything, but they were a disappointment as far as strait line performance was concerned. I just think if you're going to spend that kind of money on a car, you should be able to have the best of everything and not just handling and braking. True the Cobra was still a little quicker than a standard GT/LX, but only marginally. I guess I (and several others) just expected more from a vehicle that adorned the "Cobra" name. As far as my comment in regards to the 70mm TB, I reread my post and you are correct, it is a 65mm TB. My comment was acutally meant to reflect the on the small side 70mm MAF meter and not the throttle body....my mistake. On that note, I'm afraid I’m going to have to correct you on your cam knowledge. For one, the later model MN12 T-Bird/Cougar and '93 Mustang Cobra used exactly the same grind. There were no variations what so ever! The only valvetrain differences at all was the use of 1.7:1 Roller Rockers found on the Cobra Vs. the 1.6:1 stamped steel rockers used on everything else. Feel free to check the Ford part numbers if you still wish to debate the issue. And it was used first found in the T-Bird/Cougar, then the Cobra not the other way around. Why do I know this, because all V-8 T-Birds/Cougars after '93 (...when the Cobra debuted) converted to a 4.6L SOHC, which would make it pretty tough for them to run an OHV camshaft after it was used in the Snake, wouldn't it? Now, This is true, so don’t argue the fact! :rolleyes:
  8. As being someone who has owned both at the same time (no longer have the 93), I prefered the 96 by a landslide. Performance wise, it out performed the 93 in every aspect except the launch, as you are aware, the bottom end TQ on the 4.6 just is not there, but the ability to wind out the DOHC more then makes up for it. As for the handling, hands down the SN95. The total package was improved with the new body style.

    When it came time to sell one or the other I stuck with the Mystic.

    I did like thw wheels on the 93, and wish they were still available.
  9. There is one thing I am completely not understanding about your arguement Gearbanger 101. As you point out several times, a 93 cobra is "marginally" better than a 93 GT/LX. Could you define marginally please because according to various sources most sources show a 93 cobra going 14.2 in the 1/4 mile. This is 8 tenths faster than the same year GT rated at 15.0. This is for average drivers in average conditions so Im not talking about john force doing a run at a well-prepped drag strip. The difference in Cobra to GT stock performance has held at around a .8 sec difference through the ENTIRE production of SVT Cobras. Skipping ahead to '98. The DOHC 4.6 cobra, once again average driver average condition, runs a 14.0 while the same year GT runs in the 14.7 - 14.8 range. And, yes, Im talking about 5 speed hardtop cars here. Even with the blown 03's they are running the same difference from a GT. The 03 Cobra runs a 13.1 and a GT knocks off a 14 flat which still is under a sec difference for your average driver. I guess you can see my point, which is; your arguement is inconsistent if your going to say that a 98 cobra is much faster than a 98 GT and not be aware of the fact that the 93 does the same. If you look however, the word marginally in-fact does appropriately describe the difference in times between a 93 cobra and a 98 cobra. that is 2 tenths AVERAGE difference that could skew the race either way depending on drivers in either car and conditions of course. Personally, I dont care that my car was 2 tenths slower than a 98 cobra, four years ago. My car isnt stock anymore and Im having alot of fun with it. But Id like to point out the FACTS so we dont get things mixed around. cool
  10. I was thinking the same thing! I had a friend in high school that purchased one new. It was one of the fastest ¼ mile production cars at the time under 65k. Looking back on it now it doesn’t seem so fast, but he never lost a race back then.
  11. Well, I'm not trying to start a pissing match with you RydeOn and please don't take offence to this, but it sounds like you read too many Car and Driver Magazines. Anyone worth their salt should be able to ring far better than a 15.0 out of an 87-93 5-speed GT/LX and better yet in a Coupe. I've personally seen several stockers with little more than a 5-speed, K&N filter and a "10-minute tune up" runs consistent mid/low 14's. I've also witnessed a '93 Cobra struggle to run a 14.1. Besides, who is it exactly that defines the "average" driver? Is he the 16-year-old kid who's just got his drivers license and his first taste of torque and constantly blows his wad on the starting line? Or is it you die hard enthusiast who's always tuning and tinkering under the hood and has gotten a real feel for their car over the years? Personally, I don't put any faith into any Magazine stats. Putting aside varying inconsistencies in temperature, altitude and track condition....A few months back Hot Rod Magazine ran an '03 Cobra and only managed to pull a 13.3 on their best run!?! But a couple of months later MM&FF was able to run a string of consistent 12.7's in an even heavier '03 Cobra Convertible??? Were they cheating, or is it the fact that their drivers have had some seat time driving several variations of Mustang over the years?

    As for the '93 versus '98 debate, I wasn't basing my preferences on raw acceleration stats alone. Yes, the '98 is "marginally" quicker than the '93 in the quarter of a mile, but it's also got a faster top speed, rides better, handles better, brakes better, has a more ergonomic and comfortable interior and just plain and simply does everything else better. I’m not trying to burn down the old fox based cars, I’m still driving one myself, but the SN-95 models have undeniably improved on the fox cars in every aspect (save for personal taste in the looks department), just like the 99-03 cars have gotten better than the original 94-98’s and just as I’m sure the ’05 cars are going to be better still. I'm not knocking you for loving your ride. It is after all a very rare car and will be worth far more than the '96-'98 models based on production numbers alone. But sometimes it just doesn’t come down to what the car is going to be worth in a few years, or how few of them there are on the road! The basis of the original question was “What do you think I should do?” I gave him an answer based on my personal opinion and the facts that accompany it, which is what everyone else has done as well. Cool? :D