as the op stated, it's an '04 mustang, which i think was rated at about 190hp and 210ft-lbs tq, although those cars are about 500lbs heavier than an base cobalt, unless its a vert which is heavier still. it will come down to who's a better driver. whoever launches and shifts better will win, my guess is that it will be the mustang just because it's an easier car to launch and bang the gears.

 

i've raced a 3.8 stock vs me with an intake and 2 ppl, and my 2 12" kicker L5's. I won. they r boats. 0-60 they r peppy though.

 

Not a technical discussion, thread moved

 

you bastard. you beat me to it.

 

you beat me to moving, i posted before the move

 

now that's teamwork.

 

oh and

 

2004 V6 had 193 HP and 225 tq. ~3115 lbs

2007 2.2 148HP 152 tq. ~2750lbs I think?


Mustang has 30% more HP, 48% more torque, and only about 13-14% more weight. And this is all assuming 100% stock on both ends...ie, not including all that dead weight from your system.

I've driven both cars, a lot. I can pretty much guarantee a win for the Mustang if driver skill is out the window...but with kids, anything can happen.

 

if you think a 2.2 actually puts down 148/152

 

u think its less?

i've beaten alot of v6's around town. mustangs, tiburons, the other night i smoked a Lincoln. idk if it was a zephyr or a new town car, but i still smoked him, and he got the launch bc i didn't know we were gonna race.

my mods i have are clutch, and intake. well, painted interior and hood stripes add another 25 whp. lol. but also, i have my system in my car too.

 

I would be surprised to see a stock LS put down +140, most do 130 stock... and with 18" and 2 10" subs without any performance mods, he most likely is SLOWER then a bone stock 2.2

case & point: https://www.cobaltss.net/forums/2-2l-l61-performance-tech-45/got-dyno-s-102085/

 

i don't think they do. i know they don't.

i was simply going off manufacturer claim #'s. actual #'s put down vary car to car, day to day.

 

Simple YOUR GOING TO LOSE.

18's and those subs. I freaking struggled stock with a muffler. And 1 1/2 cars for me is struggling.

Driver.

 

All else being equal, he *should* win.


With good driving, it's a low 15-second car. He *should* win as well.


My 2000 V6 Mustang had a shipping weight of 2995lb. It's not a ~500lb difference.


Any 1/4-mile times? I may have asked you before, actually.

A stock 5-speed 3.8 99-04 *should* beat a 2.2 w/ an just intake and a bunch of added weight. Not that I don't believe it happened. Anything can happen, and it's not as if the Mustang is 3 seconds faster in the 1/4-mile or something... I'm just saying what *statistically* should have happened.

 

99+ should beat you, 05+ should RAPE you, 98- should be a close. 96-...you will rape him.

 

94-98 3.8's are all virtually equal (assuming equal transmissions).

145-150hp, 2.73 gears, etc. There's very little difference.

 

oh ok. I thought they switched away from the single port in 96. ok so 98- = slowest thing on the planet.

 

ur ganna get killed nuthin agenst ur car cuse i got a 2.2 to but i raced one and got smoked good luck to ya

 

Yeah, the switch occured along with the body-style change... so yeah, the 94-98's are pretty slow. Probably not as slow as my 2.3L Mustang, though

 

I don't know what "shipping weight" means, prolly the same as dry weight, but going by the curb weight as published by the manufacturers, the 2004 Mustang V6 coupe is 3114 lbs, while the cobalt LS coupe is 2730 lbs, which makes a difference of 384 lbs, give or take a few lbs depending on specific options and how much gas is in the fuel tank. Add to that the fact that V6 mustangs are usually driven by fat kids, and there's your 500 lb difference.

 

no i haven't gone to the track yet. n im not saying that statistically he should lose. its just that people know their car better than others. i know the powerband, and i know how to shift. lol. some people don't. people just punch it to the floor n go, which is wrong(auto-wise). lol.

 

A new v6 stang is gonna rape you hard. No lube style.

 

finally the info that they aren't uber slow is starting to spread around. They are by NO means fast, but people still think of v6 mustangs as the single port high 16 second cars of the mid 90's...not as good as the v8, but i think low 15's, high 14's are very respectable for a car that can be had for under 20 grand.

 

got my 99 mustang for barely over 3 grand KBB on it at the time was over $6500...but i bought it from a girl who had just bought a scion xB...if that's any indication of how easy it was to convince her that KBB was irrelevant.

 

OK... use whatever weird logic you like. Fact is, 500lb was a significant overestimation any legitimate way you slice it.


Yeah, we're on the same page... I was just wondering