• Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.

Smoked a COBRA last night... heh

Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jul 24, 2000
Messages
768
it was a 95 5.0 Mustang Cobra... a middle aged guy was driving it... pulled up between two mustangs.. .one a cobra and one a mere GT... i didnt pay any attention to the GT, but looked over at the Cobra and right about that time the light turned green... took off and by the time i was half way thru 2nd i was gone by about 2 car lengths... suprised the hell out of me that i took him with that much distance.. i could hear that he was pushing it pretty hard... if not as hard as he could... so the next corner i gave him a side ways two fingers and he replied with the same... took the clover leaf ramp at about 65mph and left him...
smile.gif
 

Edo

Experienced Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
May 13, 2000
Messages
990
Location
Lake oswego, OR
You know, those 5.0 Cobra's are only rated at 240hp and 285lb-ft of Torque. If you want a decent challenge try the 4.6L Cobra's. The one I had was rated @ 305hp from the factory. (4.6L DOHC 32 valve V-8)
It had some good strong torque, something I miss in the NSX. But looking back, I think the Cobra was not nearly as fast as the NSX, even if it did give you a serious kick in the pants every time you mashed the throttle..
In either case, the NSX is light years ahead of the Cobra's in performance and handling. I think the NSX is MUCH quicker than the magazine posted 0-60 in 5.9 seconds..
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Feb 4, 2000
Messages
27,000
Location
Chicago IL
You know, those 5.0 Cobra's are only rated at 240hp and 285lb-ft of Torque. If you want a decent challenge try the 4.6L Cobra's. The one I had was rated @ 305hp from the factory. (4.6L DOHC 32 valve V-8)

And the new Cobra R is rated at 385 hp, I believe. And costs $60K.

I think the NSX is MUCH quicker than the magazine posted 0-60 in 5.9 seconds..

Most magazines have tested the manual tranny 3.0L '91-96 NSX coupe at 5.0 to 5.4 seconds, the 3.2L '97+ NSX-T at 4.8 to 4.9 seconds, and the 3.2L '97+ NSX coupe at 4.5 to 4.6 seconds.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Feb 21, 2000
Messages
1,413
Location
Austin, Republic of Texas
The Cobra R is rated at 385 hp, but they did not make many of them. I believe they have the engine from the Navigator in them.

The current 4.6L Cobras are being recalled as they are well short of the promised 320hp. In fact, the SVO people are so busy fixing them, there will not be a Cobra model offered for a whole year.

Mustangs are hardly a basis of comparison, however, as my full-sized, four door Mercedes will run with an auto-trans GT in the quarter mile. Big whup. The sad thing is that a Camaro or Trans Am will smoke an NSX in the quarter mile or stoplight-to-stoplight. Torque is a wonderful thing.

[This message has been edited by David (edited 02 August 2000).]
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jul 24, 2000
Messages
768
Yes my coworker has a 97 Cobra ..with the quad-cam V8 4.6L... he's let me drive it and yes it is VERY fast.. but the gear box just isnt as tight as the NSX (i love the throw on my NSX) and the clutch and handling are just RAW in the Cobra to me... hence the reason I chose the NSX over everything I drove... (supra TT - 300ZX TT, RX7-TT etc) .. .my NSX carries on the name of my previous car - my 92 Prelude Si - >Click here for pix of my prelude if interested...
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Feb 22, 2000
Messages
356
Location
vancouver canada
I've never raced with Mustang cobras so I don't know how fast they are. But I've killed 2 Camero Z28 on street and highway.
Feel so happy everytime I kill those muscle cars.
 

Edo

Experienced Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
May 13, 2000
Messages
990
Location
Lake oswego, OR
A SS Camaro or Firebird (stock) will NOT smoke a 3.0L NSX.
A Camaro SS runs the 1/4 mi in something like 13.7 or so. That is not nearly as fast as some of the guys here are running unmodified 3.0L's. The '98 Cobra I owned (the pre-320hp/lower than advertised Car) Was fast, and had torque, but I think that my '91 could smoke it easily.
The handling was piss poor, the tranny blew up 3 times in the first 5000 miles, and throw on the shifter was long, and the power band was something like 1500rpm's or so. Unsophisticated muscle. Big engine big torque on a car, nothing more.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 6, 2000
Messages
141
The sad thing is that a Camaro or Trans Am will smoke an NSX in the quarter mile or stoplight-to-stoplight. Torque is a wonderful thing.


Sorry but this comment is absurd. A stock 91 NSX can easily run mid 13's and those GM products are high 13's at best. I've personally ran agains many a camaro and even a new C5 and never had a problem, especially at higher speeds where the NSX will leave em for dust. Even raced a supercharged trans Am GT, he was fast 1-3rd gear but after that I pulled on him.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Feb 21, 2000
Messages
1,413
Location
Austin, Republic of Texas
A new LS1 Camaro or ram-air Firebird will beat a new NSX in real world stoplight to stoplight driving. Against a 5 spd, 3.0L NSX it isn't even close. They just have too much torque and a suspension that is much more suitable for hole shots. A live rear axel is a pain in the curves or on an uneven surface, but is useful for drag racing.

If you really beat a supercharged TA, he has a lame setup. Getting a blown TA or Camaro to run in the 12s is easy. Many heavily modified street TAs run 10s/11s. 0-60 times on them are really low as well. Also, launching those cars is easy - anyone can do it after a couple of tries. Launching an NSX well is much, much more difficult. My twin-turbo NSX won't hook up without drag tires.

Sorry, but your comment that a stock 91 NSX will 'easily' run in the mid-13s is the absurd part. I go to several import drag events a year and I have only seen a couple of other NSXs run in the 13s and have never seen anyone else's get far into the 12s. Even the Comptech show car ran in the mid-to-high 12s at Houston, which is possibly the fastest drag track in the world.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 22, 2000
Messages
7,787
Location
Planet Earth
Since I presently own both of the cars being discussed in this thread, I just had to add my $.02. My '95 Convertible Cobra with a Steeda suspension, 3.73 rearend, Tremec T-5 tranny with pro shifter, and Vortec S-Trim Supercharger will kill my '94 NSX. Although the Cobra isn't as refined or exotic as the NSX, for tens of thousands of dollars less it is a pure monster. My Cobra has also won many first place trophies and even an editors choice award from Mustang & Ford and Super Ford magazines at some national shows. I'm not bashing the NSX, since I happen to love mine and use it as my daily driver. But, I must also warn many of you unsuspecting street racers that many Mustangs are heavily modified and if you challange the right car with the right driver you will be embarrassed. I state this because I am presently having a 392ci Supercharged Stroker engine built for my Cobra. So if you happen to live in S. Florida and see a Rainbow Extreme painted Cobra, just wave hello and I'll know that you read this post. The moral of this story is, although the Mustang Cobra and NSX are completely different cars, they both achieve the same goal; great performance and loads of fun to drive.

Cheers.
-Dr. Lane
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Feb 4, 2000
Messages
27,000
Location
Chicago IL
A new LS1 Camaro or ram-air Firebird will beat a new NSX in real world stoplight to stoplight driving. Against a 5 spd, 3.0L NSX it isn't even close.

Baloney. Check the magazine reviews and you'll see that the tested times are very close, within a car's length of each other. And it's no wonder; the LS1 Camaro is almost FIVE HUNDRED FRIGGIN' POUNDS HEAVIER than a 3.0L NSX. If you add 18 percent horsepower and add 16 percent weight, you'll wind up with almost the same power-to-weight ratio. Duh!
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Feb 4, 2000
Messages
27,000
Location
Chicago IL
Originally posted by David:
They just have too much torque and a suspension that is much more suitable for hole shots.

Remember, what is responsible for acceleration is torque AT THE WHEELS. This is engine torque multiplied by gearing, less any drivetrain losses. The NSX has a very flat torque curve combined with a very high redline. This enables the NSX to have very high torque at the wheels, and have an acceleration advantage, because it can stay in a lower gear while a higher-torque car is forced to upshift, thereby suffering a loss of torque at the wheels due to the gearing disadvantage. The horsepower figures reflect torque at the wheels as a better indicator of acceleration than engine torque, because they take this gearing factor into account at the upper RPM's where the NSX power peaks.

Hole shots? WTF is that?
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Feb 21, 2000
Messages
1,413
Location
Austin, Republic of Texas
Wow. How do I respond to the insightful, razor-like insight of 'duh!' I guess you win.

However, while you are explaining how torque AT THE WHEELS is higher on the NSX, please elaborate as to why when I put both cars on a dyno and measure torque AT THE WHEELS, it is higher for the TA/Camaro than for the NSX. Even supercharged NSXs have less measured torque AT THE WHEELS than a stock LS1 F-body. Are you using some new definition of 'very high' that I am not familiar with? Perhaps it has something to do with pot?
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Apr 21, 2000
Messages
405
Location
Vancouver, Canada
hey hey,

Let's not get to upset about this and get angry at one another. I think we all had this conversation a few time already (Viper/NSX, Supra/NSX) so they're 2 different things.

Cheers!

l8z
 

Lud

Legendary Member
PrimeAdmin
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Feb 3, 2000
Messages
3,942
David - If someone isn't getting a 3.0L NSX into the 13s they either have a weak car, are running under poor conditions, or aren't driving it to the best of it's ability.

I know someone who ran a stock '95 -T at MIR in the mid-13s and that's a couple hundred pounds heavier than the 3.0 coupes (and no, it did not dyno as an especially strong car.) I know plenty of other similar cases.

That being said, the "stripper" Firebird Formula (no power windows, etc.) should beat a stock 3.0L NSXs in the 1/4 mile. If you stripped an NSX out to the same extent it would probably be more competitive though. The regular Firebird or the Camaro SS should run about the same as a stock 3.0L NSX coupe through 1/4 mile. If you are racing more than 1/4 mile the NSX will probably come back and beat either of them to 150 MPH.

Firebirds are easy to launch but the Camaro SSs are not. There is a very fine line between spinning and bogging on the Camaros. I find the NSX much easier to launch. Though a forced induction NSX like yours is probably much harder to launch correctly as you said.

A live axle is good for drag racing, but having all that weight over the rear on the NSX makes up for the IRS. I never get wheel hop on the NSX like you do on say a new Mustang which has IRS and very little weight towards the rear.

nsxtasy - "Hole shot" or "coming out of the hole" refers to the start of an acceleration run. Not limited to cars.


[This message has been edited by Lud (edited 03 August 2000).]
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Feb 4, 2000
Messages
27,000
Location
Chicago IL
Originally posted by David:
Wow. How do I respond to the insightful, razor-like insight of 'duh!'

I don't know, but I noticed you didn't respond to my comment about the published magazine tests by quoting tests from the major magazines showing the LS1 Camaro with much quicker acceleration numbers than the 3.0-liter NSX. Obviously, this must be because there aren't any. No wonder you try to put up a smokescreen by responding to "Duh"!

Also, I notice you insist on comparing the earlier, lower-horsepower 3.0-liter NSX to the newest Camaro with its recent horsepower increases. Don't you think it would be fairer to compare a new Camaro with a new NSX?

However, while you are explaining how torque AT THE WHEELS is higher on the NSX, please elaborate as to why when I put both cars on a dyno and measure torque AT THE WHEELS, it is higher for the TA/Camaro than for the NSX.

The key here is that there is not one number for torque at the wheels; it varies by road speed. Plot the curve of torque at the wheels vs road speed for each of the two cars, and you will see that the torque drops with each upshift. And the Camaro will need to upshift sooner, thereby suffering a disadvantage vs the NSX at the road speeds following the upshift.

I'm not saying that the Camaro doesn't have higher torque at the wheels at SOME speeds, or higher peak engine torque; it does. I'm saying that when you plot the overall curve, it will not show an advantage for the Camaro throughout the acceleration range (i.e. at ALL road speeds).

The Camaro does have some advantages over the NSX - less expensive to buy, easier to modify, etc. If you want a muscle car, the Camaro will fit your needs. But the as-tested numbers don't support your claims about superior acceleration, comparing one stock car to another.

[This message has been edited by nsxtasy (edited 03 August 2000).]
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jul 9, 2000
Messages
456
Location
TN
Let me try to correct some misconceptions. Although, chasis Dynos measure so called torque at the wheels, they actually measure torque and RPM of the rollers and then calculate horsepower from these inputs. This would be a direct measure of horsepower "at the wheels" which already accounts for frictional drivetrain losses. But, engine torque is amplified due to the transmission and ring and pinion gearing (as NSXTSY said). Therefore, the dyno must back calculate engine torque "at the wheels" by using the engine RPM (instead of the roller RPM). In addition to the graph, this is why the dyno needs an RPM sensor.

Because torque is amplified by the transmission and ring and pinion gearing, engine torque by itself doesn't mean a hill of beans without accounting for the gearing. If you don't believe me, try driving at a speed where you can be in 2nd or 3rd gear, but at that constant speed the "engine torque" is the same due to the shape of the torque curve, just at different RPMs. Then starting from that speed test the acceleration in each gear. As you already know, the lower gear will have considerably better acceleration because the torque is being amplified more. By the way, you can ignore all of this gearing effect on torque, just by looking at horsepower instead of torque. Torque to the road (adjusted for gearing) is directly proportional to horsepower and this is why all acceleration numbers coorelate best with horsepower to weight ratio.

Bob Butler
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 16, 2000
Messages
393
Location
Southern CA, USA
My son is in India, and he just wrote me a letter explaining that he had SMOKED COBRA for dinner.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Apr 20, 2000
Messages
110
Location
Lady Lake,Fl
Ok, I'll post my comments here because I own a 91 NSX (Stock) and a 99 Firebird Formula (LS-1, stock). Just seat of the pants and informal timing, both are about the same to 100. The Firebird requires a lot more shifting to keep it in the power range and makes a lot of noise. The NSX is smooooth power and is very deceiving about it's power level. Above 100 Mph the NSX would definitely beat the firebird. Both are a kick to drive but are completely different kind of driving. One thing to add, I will never take my NSX to a crowded mall parking lot because of fear of dings/dents , the Firebird on the other hand I don't care too much about and is mostly dent resistant plastic (GM's wonder material). On the other hand the Firebird is already falling apart (water leaks, transmission syncros are going bad, brake rotors warped, etc) though and the NSX still looks and drives like new. My guess is the Firebird will be junk by 100K miles and the NSX will be still in great shape.

H. Gunner
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2000
Messages
128
Location
Los Angeles
You're all missing the point. Anyone can build 0-60 demons. The question is how you keep it in control. a shopping cart can do 0-60 in 3.6 with a jet strapped to it.

Let's end this tiresome debate.

------------------
94 Red & Tan NSX 5spd
1999 Cosmos BMW M Coupe 5spd
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Apr 20, 2000
Messages
110
Location
Lady Lake,Fl
I think we all agree that the car is the sum of the parts and there is more than straight line accelaration, but the theme of this thread is "Eating smoked Cobra (from India I think)"?

Most real world competative performance experience is stop light to stop light. It's hard to tell that Cobra/Firebird/Camaro sitting next to you that this road is too straight. And it hurts when a car that sells for half the price smokes your NSX. But there are the Dr. Lane's in the world (and many other modified 'Stanges/'Birds/Camaros) so beware when one pulls up to a light with you, you may be the one getting smoked. Of course if some curves should appear that could be more fun.

I do enjoy these threads because I like to hear of real world expreience. I've read the magazines and digested the numbers but nothing compares to other peoples experience on the road/track. Maybe I live vicariously.
 
Top