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

Discussion in '1994 - 1995 Specific Tech' started by Pokageek, Dec 1, 2008.

  1. Well, the competing car from GM that year would have been the GTO. I would also like to add that I am incredibly board right now.

  2. The GTO was not in the same segment though IMO. Sure from a outward appearence it seemed so but I think they really tried to mature the f-body/pony car image with it and go after M3's and such. They failed as the GTO is just not that car, it was nice but the IRS killed it along with it bland look like a 2 door grand prix styling.
  3. From what I've observed over the years...

    Your typical mustang owner buys a mustang because they want to "look cool" or to attract the opposite (or same, i suppose) sex...
    Mustangs aren't typically sold to performance minded people

    They are a middle of the road kinda car - one that is a "sports car" but works pretty good for toting small children around in. I honestly can't count the number of women I see picking up their kids from school in mustangs of various years..
    Or guys that buy them solely for the "tailing power" of the car (which is much higher than what my vette had IMO - but thats a different topic)

    My room-mate is a good example of this.. He bought an 05 mustang gt because he wanted a "mustang".. The guy has no interest in the car its self, only how much attention he gets from women in it (which suprisingly is alot.. but i'd venture to say a mustang is a "chick car" for the most part)

    F-Bodys (and most other LSx powered cars) seem to be purchased by a more performance oriented crowd.. I don't think I've ever seen a woman driving a new GTO... As such, they appeal to a much smaller crowd of people...

    Thats not to say theres not a fairly large following of performance minded people for the mustang, but as a % of overall mustang drivers, I'd say its pretty small....

    Its all in the marketing though.. and Ford has done a much better job of marketing the mustang to the general "boring car driver" than GM was able to do with the F-Bodys
  4. I really like the look of the GTO. Unfortunately the depreciate like crazy, they are slow, and they don't sell very well. Just saying, it's the closest platform to the Mustang GM has had in the last few years.

  5. Very well put. You basically "get what you pay for" with these cars. :nice:
    Slow compared to your car in particular perhaps, but the 4th GEN LS1's were quick enough to outun any stock Mustang built before 1999 and the later LS2's will walk away from any Mustang GT built after that. All while possesing a more plush and roomy interior, more creature comforts, as well as a smoother ride.

    .....all while still being a lot bigger and heavier than an SN95. :shrug:
  6. I don't know dude. Most of the GTOs I've seen at the track were running high 14s in the quarter. Something about that car just makes it slow. It's certainly on par with a late model Mustang. I think the GTO is a sleak looking car, and the interior is sweet too. I honestly don't know why that car sells so poorly.

  7. Its not mean looking enough IMO. It looks too much like the bastard offspring of a Sunfire GT and a Grand Prix. I think if they were a little more aggressive with the styling, they would have sold a lot more units.....especially considering they didn't have the T/A or the Camaro to compete with anymore. Perhaps they were afraid that if they made it look too good, it might take sales away from the Corvette?

    Keep in mind too.....the GTO was only sold in the US. They never sold them here in Canada. That couldn’t have helped either. :shrug:
  8. Well, the reality is that the car wasn't an original car brought to market anyway. A GTO is just a rebadged Holden Monaro. the Monaro is a GM based Australian sports car. It was an easy way for GM to bring a sports car to market quickly to replace the Camaro/Firebird that was cancelled due to a plant closure in Canada without spending any money on development. So really they weren't able to do anything to make the car look more aggressive.

  9. The real problem is if ya bought the $20,000 car you would still be sittin here trying to get 10 more horses and ya would be into her for $50,000 by the time it was all said and done. If ya dont believe me ask yourself this "Could I use 10 more ponies right now?"
  10. What GM should have done is what ford did with the mustang. Go back to the 67 version of the GTO and start your design from there. IMO it just didn't pay enough tribute to the orginal GTO. Nothing about the car said GTO, I think it insulted more people then it impressed. IMO the car would have sold better it they just called it a Monaro.
  11. Exactly. Time, when you have so little, is priceless! I too have transitioned into such a lifestyle, needing to eek out every minute and constrain needless effort for use for work, school, family, and little for myself.
  12. I skimmed through the thread, so I just thought I would make a few comments.

    My stock '93 notch weighed 3,184 lbs (AOD, full tank). My '93 hatch weighs 3,170 lbs with aluminum heads.

    My buddies stock Sn-95 with a T5 weighed 3,380 lbs with a full tank. A friends loaded 00 GT weighed 3,337 lbs with half of a tank.

    Yes this is a difference, but it is not near the issue that many make it out to be. The new cars do not weigh as much as they make them out to be.

    The SBF and the LsX engine has many things in common, actually. A few aftermarket parts can even the playing field real quick. Per liter, the 3V 4.6L are making more HP per cubic inch, than the ls1 engine. That is with a more emissions friendly small bore engine/large stroke 4.6L.

    Kevin (04Sleeper) dynoed 400 RWHP with a K&N with his 04 Cobra. He is now at 600 RWHP with a little help from a Whipple.
  13. No the difference in weight is not a lot but 200lbs is 200lbs. The only thing a SBF and an LSX engine have in common is the fact that they are both pushrod engines, short of that they have nothing in common. The LSX is a far superior design and way more efficient then the SBF, comparing the two is ridiculous. As far as a few bolt on parts evening the playing field, perhaps. As long as the LSX is bone stock and your talking about a 93 and older fox mustang they I agree with you. If your talking about a 94-95 then a few bolt ons is misleading. Those few bolt ons better include a really good HCI combo and you need to address your new computer issues immediately with some sort of tune. This goes just a little out of the realm of a few bolt on parts IMO.

    The 3V 4.6 is a totally different animal and by far makes more hp than an LSX engine per cubic inch. Doesn't mean it will put the LSX away NA but it is more effiecient.

  14. It appears you think I am talking about comparing a 281 vs. a 346, or a 346 vs. a 302 stock for stock.

    The overall picture is much bigger than that.

    Let us hear what the LsX has that is so superior to the 302 base block, that we cannnot add to the 302 base block.

    Believe me, I can debate it for either side. ;)
  15. Really??? Please, elighten us. With the LSX engines I see a larger displacement small block with a great set of factory aluminum heads and a decent flowing factory intake. Otherwise, I fail to see what makes these engines so "superior" or "way more efficient"?

    These are all features that can and have easily been made up with aftermarket parts. Especially when you even the playing field in the displacement field and start with a 351W right off the bat.

    Don't mistake a decent flowing top end for a better over all engine. ;)
  16. Do you two really believe that Im suggesting that a 302 block cannot be built to compete with an LS1? Really? I didn't think I had to spell this out but let me do so for the record.

    " How fast you go is directly related to how much your willing to spend."

    Everyone happy, are we all on the same page?

    I ain't saying you can't build a fast SBF engine, yes the aftermarket it there. 302, 331, 347, 351, 408 choose your weapon. Regardless of what you choose my point remains the same. Its still older technology that cannot be compared to the same technology that went into the LS1 or 3V 4.6 for that matter.

    What makes an LS1 superior in design and more efficient. Read for yourself, if after reading you still think the 302 is in the same class as the LS1 thats your business. Im not so in love with my stang I can't recognize a better designed motor when I see one. The windsor based SBF motor has been around since 1962 and ain't much changed. How you can compare it to a totally new designed LS1 is beyond me, but again thats your business. For the record, I own both cars I know exactly how much money it takes to eqaul the playing field between the two. And when it comes to the stang you better get your wallet out cause it ain't gonna come cheap.

    Ls1, Gen III, Chevy 350ci Small Block - Review, Overview - Hot Rod
  17. That is a great technicle article. I have had that saved on my favorites for a long long time.
  18. ditto
  19. I am still waiting on what is so technologically advanced on the ls1 engine? It is a 346 cubic inch engine with decent heads and a decent intake, that traps 105-109, depending on model/trim.

    A 347 SBF with some tiny GT-40 heads, OTS camshaft, and intake to match would trap that, even with the same race weight.

    They all have pistons, rods, crank, cylinder heads, valvetrain, intake, TB, MAF, etc.

    What is so much better about it? Keep in mind, NASCAR utilizes a big bore/small stroke (4.185" x 3.253") for efficiency, not the other way around, which is what the Ls1 utilizes.

    The Ls1 engine is so 1990.... :) There are much better engines now. This debate should have went on about 5-7 years ago.

    Their 200cc head is similar to a 190cc SBF head.

    A good H/C/I set-up will take-out an Ls1. I trapped 3-4 MPH faster in my full weigh hatch with a stock bottomend with my daily driven 5.0L, then my buddy with his 99 4L60E SS, or the two buddies with Ws6's (T56 and 4L60E).

    Just waiting to pull out the big guns...:)

    Happy Holidays everyone.
  20. Being you have to compare a stroked aftermarket setup to a stock engine should let you know something. The LS1's are far lighter and will handle much more power than a pushrod SBF. That is not a debate thing, that is fact. I know the LS1 has displacement on the 302 but people seem to look past what the engine is able to do. It is far more efficient than any pushrod sbf. Obtaining hp levels n/a with simple setups where most times you would need boost or spray with the 302.

    I will agree that the heads and intake are alot of what does it for the LSX power wise but you have to look past power output to see why it is better. The overall design is better, that is shown in it making the hp/tq it does while still running on regular unleaded fuel, obtaining the milage it does, and being a very reliable engine considering it is a all aluminum performance engine in cars that get beat on daily.

    They are just rock solid performers. What Ford small block will gain 130 to 160hp from a heads/cam/tune that is 100% daily driver freindly?