helty

the slips have been posted. they didnt race each other at the track. jason (the white POS rustang) beat him the night before on some back roads. the next night at the track he was busy beating a mach 1 with DR's. go ahead, ask for the slips. i have his 11.15 and my 11.64 ready to post. the guy with the SS/SC ran an 11.98 which is damn impressive for that car. this isnt he said she said. its history. it happened and everyone who witnessed it called it like they saw it. then we all went and drove around. like real car enthusiasts do.

the above quote by "anonymous" was by the guy in the SS/SC. he openly said he lost and didnt make a stink about it. what more do you want? should i build a time machine and take you back so you can see it too?

i find it funny how you say "we are all car enthusist just suck it up take it to the track and let the slips do the talking By the way also who cares it is a 8 cyl car vs a 4cyl supercharged car if the 8 cyl barely beats us or we beat it it dosent matter bottom line is that the car has a 8 cyl and power per cyl is terrible for it and the rustang shouldnt even be mentioned in the same sentence as the ss/sc"

that is spoken like a true ricer. now are you going to tell me how its pathetic ford had to put a blower on the 4.6 to get 300hp? i'd expect that from a honda owner, but not anyone who is a true enthusiast. people like you give the decent SS/SC owners, like the guy i watched race, a bad rep. you contradict yourself by saying we're all car enthusiasts and then start bashing a car with more heritage now than the cobalt will ever have.

Blainestang

Oh boy...

Look everybody, it's specific output guy.


First you say, "let the slips do the talking," but then you start talking about how the Mustang isn't even isn't even worthy to be mentioned in the same sentance, even though it's faster in the 1/4 because it has a bigger engine.

Make up your mind. Either be the car enthusiast you claim to be and "run what you brung," or be a ricer and keep whining about specific output.
__________________________________




BTW, just so you know, comparing specific output of an N/A and a S/C car directly by atmospheric pressure volumetric engine displacement (4.6 vs. 2.0) is retarded. Apples vs. Oranges.

Essentially the Mustang displaces 4.6L of air at atmospheric pressure, but because the Cobalt is supercharged, it displaces much more than just 2.0L of atmospheric pressure air.

A much better way to determine efficiency would be to compare how much displacement each has at the same pressure, which, for this purpose, we will use a pressure of 1 atmosphere, or 14.7psi. We will assume a stock boost pressure of 12psi for the Cobalt

https://www.cobaltss.net/forums/show...ht=Stock+Boost

So,

Displacement of Air at pressure of 1 atmosphere

Mustang = 4.6L

Cobalt = 2.0 + 2.0* (12 / 14.7) = 3.633L



Power

Mustang = 235 whp

Cobalt SS = 210 whp



Specific Output (WHP/L)

Mustang = 235 / 4.6 = 51.09 whp/L

Cobalt = 210 / 3.633 = 57.8 whp/L


So, looking at a (more) true comparison, the Mustang is ~90% as efficient as the Cobalt SS/SC... hardly the discrepency you made it sound like.



BTW, by these calculations,

RSX Type-S = 180 / 2 = 90 whp/L


So, by your amazing logic, maybe the SS/SC shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentance as a Type-S considering it only makes 64.2% of the Type-S's specific output.

helty

^^^ I <3 you.

in the "car enthusiast" way that is.

codyss

So basically the last few posts confirm this:

1- Performance parts make a car faster
2- Jasons car is a little faster then Helty, but Jason still knows nothing
3- A 1000ft track is worthless

Seriously though I have nothing against any type of car just certain drivers. One thing here is true though the Mustang like the Camaro has deep roots and a serious heritage. People need to realize that the Cobalt SS/SC is a serious contender against V8's. The 99-04 SOHC Mustang GT is by no means untouchable by a SS/SC. Quite frankly it's a drivers race no in the 1/4 the GT has the low end and the SS/SC has the top end. And weither you like roll racing or not the GT will simply lose to a SS/SC from a roll.

Assuming both cars are 100% stock, when modding starts anything can happen.

helty

alright man, now you're starting to make more sense. but let me clear a few things up, just my .02.

first of all a 1000ft track isnt worthless. it still gives accurate 1/8 times and its where im learning to drive, so i dont consider it worthless. sometime next spring a bunch of us are looking at going to memphis or tulsa and hit the 1/4. should be fun.

i never said the SS/SC wasnt a contender against a GT. after watching the two races and how close they were, its quite obvious that they are a conteneder and are capable of beating a 99-04GT, stock or mildly modded.

i hate to do it cody, but you're contradicting yourself. before you said a modded GT had to have 4.10s, LTs, cams and/or FI to beat an SS/SC from a roll. now you're saying this is true only if both cars are stock. whether you like jason or not (and im pretty sure you dont) his mildly bolted on GT with 3.73s beat an SS/SC twice from a roll, first 40 then 20. im not making this **** up, just calling it like i seen it.

you;re absolutely correct, once the modding starts anything can happen. the biggest and most important mod we all have to remember is the driver. (get the BS flag out) the night after jason raced the SS we all went to the track. after me and him got our first runs in (which i have a vid of if you wanna see it. nothing special) he raced an 03 mach 1 with exhaust and DRs. HE BEAT IT!!! he probably shouldnt have but he did. the kid can drive and thats what won him that race. the mach driver didnt get off a good launch and jason took over after that. i think he ran an 11.3 to the mach's 11.45 or something, i'll have to ask him for the slip.

so, here's what i think*

1. the 99-04 GTs and SS/SC's are on the same playing field, stock for stock. from a roll i'd say the SS wins 9/10, from a dig the GT

2. modding changes everything. a bolt-on GT can and has beaten an SS from a roll. doesnt mean it always ends up that way.

3. learning to drive is better than any mod (imo)

that it all, im done now.

Tofu

That video I posted a few days back was against my buddy in his 02 GT AOD w 4.10's/h-pipe/flows/chip from a roll. He had three people in his car on an empty tank, it was just me w/ a full tank in my SS. Granted a full tank for the cobalt is only about 80 lbs, so it's hardly a comparison in weight. Anyway, I pulled pretty good in the video...on a normal basis, when there are no passengers involved it's usually dead even (I'll pull sometimes simply because his GT takes a second to downshift ). From a dig he usually gets me by a car length in part because of wheel hop, and his 4.10's lol.

wesmanw02

I'll agree there. Its very possible for a stock Mustang GT to run a 13.79, but its not too common. Most run about 13.9-14.2 totally stock with a decent driver, so they are about a 1/2 second faster than an SS S/C. Its funny though how one SRT-4 runs a 13.7 though, and all of a sudden they all do - as opposed to being 14.0-14.4 second cars like they really are

Perhaps, but I'm not quite sure how true that really is. I've ridden in my Cousin's 2001 GT 5-speed, and it was pretty damn quick to say the least, even from a roll. There's just power and torque available everywhere in the powerband. I'd say it felt about half a second faster than the SS S/C going from a stop, but maybe its a different story from a roll, as you said - due to gearing, top end power, weight, ect.

codyss

I had a 2003 Mustang GT with these mods:

- Diablosport programmer
- Ford Racing Aluminum DS
- Ford Racing 70mm TB with ported stock plenum
- Steeda plenum spacer
- Ford/Mach1 springs/shocks/struts
- MotoBlue UD water pump pulley
- K&N filter w/ silencer shortened
- Borla mufflers
- B&M shifter

With these mods and on the stock Goodyears I ran a best time of 13.89, that day I only got two runs in and I sold it the following week.

Still though with those mods a stock SS/SC would've lost in the 1/4 but out on the highway a SS/SC would have killed my GT. GT's with stock gears just plain run out of useable power mid way through fourth gear. The trip from 120mph to 140mph takes a day or two.

The SOHC 4.6 responds poorly to mods. The best mods end up being gears, LT's, cams and Drag radials.

Xenozx

OK for all you # racers this thread is pointless. the Stock mustang GT 99- is slow as hell. I had a auto SE-R that ran with quite a few, and that was like a high 15 second car....


now 99+ is another story. One night me and my bro where driving and a silver 02+ GT was there, not a new body but somewhere inbetween. I weigh about 200 my bro weighs about 200. The guy in a stang was alone. Light turned green he punched it, we punched it. He took about 1/2 a car length at launch, by the time we hit 60, we where a carlength ahead. This was a guy in a business suit in a GT stang. he got owned and looked pissed too. Me and my brother where in shock but laughing so hard.

Cvenom2122 will back this up, if we kept going we would ahve kept pulling, this was in stock form. So the GT stock is slow. I would think because of the v8 it would take well to mods much like the SS would because its SC. A friend of mine had a GT with 320 HP to the wheels with gears and a few other mods. I dont remember what but we was running low 13's with it all day. Stock tho It was probably a mid to high 14 second car. Most of that is from the dig from a roll they arnt all that.

P.S the 260 HP is no where what it gets to the wheels...



looking at this sheet they peak at 234 real low and then drop off, the Cobalt SS keeps gaining and gaining power the higher you go.

also they wiegh in at about 3600 LBS. Cobalt ss is about 2900-3000.

Xenozx

P.S....

WTF said they had the 4.6L for 1 year? your a NOOB. Its been there since 1995. they have had the 5.0 before 95 or 93 and ever since its been the 4.6 in the GT up until atleast 2004.

helty

actually, 96 was the first year for the 4.6 in a mustang. 94 was the first year of the SN95 body style and had the 5.0 302 in it for 94-95. FYI.

Blainestang

1. First of all, stock 99-04 GT's don't run mid-high 14's. I went to the track in my '01 GT and my dad drove it once. It was his 1st run in the 1/4 EVER. The results were...

- 2.26 60' (not good for a GT)

- Missed a gear

- It was 90 degrees out with disgusting humidity

and he still ran a 14.5


Anyone running mid-high 14's in a 99-04 GT either has an automatic convertable or they are in even worse conditions and worse at driving than the above story.


2. I find it interesting that, when someone brings up a car like a RSX Type-S or a Spec V or something like that, eveyone is like...

TORQUE... TORQUE is AWESOME... Can't beat TORQUE.... TORQUE, TORQUE, TORQUE...

But when it comes to a car that makes 80wtq more than the Cobalt, everyone is mysteriously quiet.

I'm the first to agree that torque is often misunderstood and can be overrated in its usefulness, but I just thought this was interesting

Xenozx

04 mustangs are probably low 14 to high 13 second cars. I know 99's 01's and 02's have the same engine but for some reason they dont seem to be as efficient. They usually will be mid 14 second cars.

all of this though is dependant on a driver.

what amazes me is how both torque and HP fall off the higher you go in the RPM's with a Mustang GT, where as with the cobalt its the complete oposite.

04 Mustang dyno.

04 Saturn ION redline dyno


torque falls off a little, but horse power goes up and up and up. They cut that dyno off at 6000 RPMS however the car can go to 6.5.

codyss

Thats why I hated my 2003 GT, I bought it right after owning my first LS1 and I wasn't used to my car falling on it's face at 5000rpms.

I think to many people here are over rating the capabilities of a stock 99-04 Mustang GT. Syaing they are 13.9-14.2 cars with a decent driver is complete BS. Try a range of 14.0-15.0 running a 13.XX in a stock Mustang GT is only achived when you drive it like you stole it and after numerous runs in the 14's.

helty

maybe you just couldnt drive it. if anything the majority of this board underrates them. a lot of you are driving around thinking you can easily "walk" a 99-04 GT because you beat a 96-98 one time. i agree from a roll, stock for stock the SS should win. from a dig the GT. but its safe to say most GTs willing to race arent stock. 3.73s, intake and exhaust with a decent driver and its a different story from a roll.

Xenozx

half the road is clutters with mustang GT's. Many noobs buy them and think they like "pwn noobs and stuff" because they like "have a big v8 and yeah" when in reality, they suck, and so does there car so they get owned. Most of these are stock, or have a exuast or someing. Those who are serious about modding their cars will put lots of money into their Mustangs can run, but the mustang has always been the runt of the V8 arena

2002 Camero and firebird v8's stock vs stock own the mustang GT's. They dont hold a candle to them in any way.

we are talking stock v stock #'s I think the cobalt would win in a roll period and would possibly even play catch up in the 1/4 mile.

modded doesnt matter because you can mod both cars and then its not a fair comparison anyway.

helty

agreed, for the most part. the LS1 > all, right? personally i think T/As are bad ass looking cars, just dont like the cat-fish styling of the camaro. i never called the superiority if the LS1 into question.

the mustang GT has never been very impressive stock, thats why theres a Mach 1 and a Cobra. fact is not many people who want a mustang with a V8 can afford a Mach or Cobra, like myself. Uncle Sam doesnt pay too well so i was stuck with a GT, and couldnt be happier.

if you're going to bring how much money people spend or how much each car costs based in performance, then save me the time and call yourself a ricer. i bet you think its sad how the 03/04 cobra needed FI to hit 390hp too?

wasey13

Xenozx

Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level then beat you with experience

wasey13

I would love to know who you are calling an idiot?

Xenozx

I just thought it was funny, a friend of mine just said that and when I saw your pic I had to comment Hence the LOL.

Blainestang

Where the powerband is at with relation to rpm means nothing.

I could show you a dyno from an RSX Type-S and by the logic of which one continues to make more and more power, the Type-S would be the clear winner, but again, that means nothing.

The only thing that matters is the area under the curve in the rpm range that you use when you are racing.

___________________________


Secondly, with regard to the Mustang always being the "runt" of the V8's, that was not the case in the late 80's early 90's... the years of the Fox Body. The 3rd gen Camaros were generally turds and the 5.0's brought back the pony car segment from the dead...

ybnormal07

I was going to point out that the dyno curve is earily similar to that of a honda vtec motor, but you beat me to the punch. Area under the curve is what it's all about.

Tofu

geez lol, to be honest after reading this last page I'm not even sure what the original argument was about.

wasey13

This thread is all about this! The horse is dead, but people keep on beating. Rodney King on a **** horse!