War Stories Post your racing wins. CobaltSS.net does not support or encourage street racing. Be smart and take it to the track.

stock '06 ss/sc vs '02 mustang gt

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 07-29-2007, 01:12 AM
  #1  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
JimHarr18's Avatar
 
Join Date: 04-08-07
Location: Warwick, R.I.
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
stock '06 ss/sc vs '02 mustang gt

i work with a guy who has an '02 mustang gt with exhaust (but i don't think he has intake). i work off a long straight road with a 2 lights probably a half mile apart and no side streets except at the lights, so its a great road to run hard on cause cross traffic is not a problem.

anyways, so i leave work one morning and i pass him, i get to the light which just turned red. he pulls up next to me, and the expected happens. light turns green, and i hammer it getting probably the best launch i've ever gotten in my car. i could feel the front tires struggling to keep traction, 5 more hp and i probably would have spun them. so we're going and i'm focusing on driving more than where i'm at with him because this is really my first big race and i'm focusing on my shifts and whatnot. towards the end of 2nd, we're still neck and neck, which surprises me quite a bit. i didn't expect to get killed, but i didn't expect to hang with him so well.

so i hit 3rd and i start to inch ahead of him slowly. i probably got my front wheels up to the front of his front bumper, buuut in my shock and awe of how well i was doing.... i forgot about shifting. i hung onto 3rd a tad to long and hammered the rev limiter pretty good, which brought him right back up. so i hit 4th, but at that point we're at the next light, traffic is merging on... and i'm somewhere around 85-90mph in a 45. so i let up and the car feels like wings come out from the sides cause i felt LIGHT!

he said he took it easy on the very start, when the light just turned green, then he realized that my car's pretty fast. so that was probably just enough for me. still a fun race though. all in all, i consider it a win for the cobalt, taking on a 4.6l v8 mustang.
Old 07-29-2007, 01:17 AM
  #2  
New Member
 
sPeEdInGsS's Avatar
 
Join Date: 04-08-07
Location: york
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
good kill
Old 07-29-2007, 01:32 AM
  #3  
Senior Member
 
invisible's Avatar
 
Join Date: 08-22-06
Location: In a house.
Posts: 7,591
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Yea good kill but gt owners talk like there car is the **** but it is (in reality) pathetic for a v8, i love beating gts its like the cherry on top, the best i love it . good kill
Old 07-29-2007, 01:42 AM
  #4  
Member
 
Onyx Dragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-14-06
Location: Virginia
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by invisible
Yea good kill but gt owners talk like there car is the **** but it is (in reality) pathetic for a v8, i love beating gts its like the cherry on top, the best i love it . good kill
Had the GT not pampered it off the line, this would be a far different story
Old 07-29-2007, 02:41 PM
  #5  
Banned
 
codyss's Avatar
 
Join Date: 05-12-05
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 2,698
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Actually it would have been the same outcome, Mustang GT's are slow and pathetic.

I raced several in my SS/SC in stock forma nd with Stage 2 and never once did they win. From a dig it can be close but from a roll it's over 5 seconds after it starts.

Mustang fanboys will try to bullshit and say they are 13 second cars but thats a joke. I killed them in my LT1's and are they called 13 second cars, nope. 99% of 99-04 GT's will run mid 14's.
Old 07-29-2007, 03:51 PM
  #6  
Senior Member
 
cakeeater's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-17-07
Location: right behind you.
Posts: 9,378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by codyss
Actually it would have been the same outcome, Mustang GT's are slow and pathetic.

I raced several in my SS/SC in stock forma nd with Stage 2 and never once did they win. From a dig it can be close but from a roll it's over 5 seconds after it starts.

Mustang fanboys will try to bullshit and say they are 13 second cars but thats a joke. I killed them in my LT1's and are they called 13 second cars, nope. 99% of 99-04 GT's will run mid 14's.
that's a pretty general statement the 2v's were somewhat disgraceful, but for the money were still not too bad performance wise...the new gt is the fastest car for the money hands down and you should know since everybody seems to compare them to your gto even though the gto msrp's for 7k more. Im not a fan of the new edge 2v's by any means, but the new 3v's are pretty impressive for the cash especially modded. 12 sec cars with the right bolt ons and you can get em brand new for 25k pretty optioned out.
Old 07-29-2007, 04:19 PM
  #7  
New Member
 
04Venom's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-20-07
Location: Ohio
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

Am I missing something? Looks pretty even to me:


2002 Mustang GT

4.6L 260 hp V8
Horsepower 260 @ 5250 RPM
Torque (lb-ft) 302 @ 4000 RPM
Curb weight 3273


2005 Coblat SS/SC

2.0L 205 hp I4
Horsepower 205 @ 5600 RPM
Torque (lb-ft) 200 @ 4400 RPM
Curb weight 2991
Old 07-29-2007, 04:32 PM
  #8  
Banned
 
codyss's Avatar
 
Join Date: 05-12-05
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 2,698
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Sorry to generalize but GT's of any year are slow.

The 2005+ S197 is included in that statement, they still havent caught up to a 1998 Z28. Not to mention unless you buy a Deluxe GT with no options which stickers around $26,000 99% of the premium GT's at dealerships have stickers around $29,000. The sticker on my GTO was $32,000 thats $3,000 well spent if you ask me. It's not like it matters anyway Mustang fanboys will make claim after claim about the S197. Truth be told it's what I would call slightly better than a 99-04 GT.


I have had 2 LT1's and 2 LS1's a 2003 GT and my GTO and have heard enough bullshit about GT's and Mach1's to tell stories for years. If you want a car that is good at 1/8 mile sprints a Mustang will fill the bill. If you want a car that does it all look elsewhere.

The only Mustangs I ever worry about have reptiles on them or whine.
Old 07-29-2007, 04:47 PM
  #9  
New Member
 
04Venom's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-20-07
Location: Ohio
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

Ok, that's another topic though (about Mustangs being slow, etc, etc, etc). Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Compared to a GTO, SRT8, etc, a stock Mustang GT is slow.

However, if what you believe is true, based on the numbers from my previous post, a stock Cobalt SS is slow as well.
Old 07-29-2007, 04:53 PM
  #10  
Senior Member
 
blackngold20's Avatar
 
Join Date: 10-01-06
Location: Newport News, VA from Pittsburgh, Pa
Posts: 3,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
^^^yeah but for a 4 banger isn't bad
Old 07-29-2007, 05:03 PM
  #11  
New Member
 
04Venom's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-20-07
Location: Ohio
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

Originally Posted by blackngold20
^^^yeah but for a 4 banger isn't bad
Oh, I agree! Don't get me wrong.... Remember, I never said that a Cobalt SS/SC is slow. I am stating that a race between a 02' GT, and a Cobalt SS/SC is a even race, just like what I think was stated.

However, if you hit the rev limiter, should the race be pretty much done? I've hit the rev limiter before, and it takes a couple of seconds for the fuel to return while you try and figure out what the hell just happened, in the middle of traffic while racing someone. A couple of seconds is alot of time.
Old 07-29-2007, 10:08 PM
  #12  
Member
 
Travi-ss-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: 05-24-06
Location: Fridley, mn
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 04Venom
Am I missing something? Looks pretty even to me:


2002 Mustang GT

4.6L 260 hp V8
Horsepower 260 @ 5250 RPM
Torque (lb-ft) 302 @ 4000 RPM
Curb weight 3273


2005 Coblat SS/SC

2.0L 205 hp I4
Horsepower 205 @ 5600 RPM
Torque (lb-ft) 200 @ 4400 RPM
Curb weight 2991
not exactly.....figure in the drivetrain loss for the mustang and your sittin closer to 230ish. also take into account that the ss/sc almost always dynos at over 210 whp......some as high as 220 whp. that would even it up i think and consider that the one he raced may have been an auto.
Old 07-29-2007, 10:41 PM
  #13  
Senior Member
 
Deathcult's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-12-06
Location: Florida
Posts: 921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
mustangs are crap and the cobalt won.

i eat GTs like frosted flakes.

Mustang GT < Cobalt SS S/C

end of story.


good kill man. try a cobra next time. those put you to the test. or if you have some *****, try a shelby. =P
Old 07-30-2007, 12:19 AM
  #14  
Member
 
Onyx Dragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-14-06
Location: Virginia
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 04Venom
Am I missing something? Looks pretty even to me:


2002 Mustang GT

4.6L 260 hp V8
Horsepower 260 @ 5250 RPM
Torque (lb-ft) 302 @ 4000 RPM
Curb weight 3273


2005 Coblat SS/SC

2.0L 205 hp I4
Horsepower 205 @ 5600 RPM
Torque (lb-ft) 200 @ 4400 RPM
Curb weight 2991

Yeah, you're missing about 102 torque. How is that close to even?
Old 07-30-2007, 12:21 AM
  #15  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
JimHarr18's Avatar
 
Join Date: 04-08-07
Location: Warwick, R.I.
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Travi-ss-
not exactly.....figure in the drivetrain loss for the mustang and your sittin closer to 230ish. also take into account that the ss/sc almost always dynos at over 210 whp......some as high as 220 whp. that would even it up i think and consider that the one he raced may have been an auto.
nope, its a 5 speed. other mods he had that i know of were wheels (not sure of what kind) and he took the wing off to go along with the exhuast. i don't know a whole lot about the car, he doesn't talk a whole lot, and we're in different departments so i only see him on occasion. i brought up the race the other day, to which he said we were gonna try it again, so he knows he got beat, and seeing he's a ford guy, he don't like it!
Old 07-30-2007, 03:39 AM
  #16  
Senior Member
 
cakeeater's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-17-07
Location: right behind you.
Posts: 9,378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by codyss
Sorry to generalize but GT's of any year are slow.

The 2005+ S197 is included in that statement, they still havent caught up to a 1998 Z28. Not to mention unless you buy a Deluxe GT with no options which stickers around $26,000 99% of the premium GT's at dealerships have stickers around $29,000. The sticker on my GTO was $32,000 thats $3,000 well spent if you ask me. It's not like it matters anyway Mustang fanboys will make claim after claim about the S197. Truth be told it's what I would call slightly better than a 99-04 GT.


I have had 2 LT1's and 2 LS1's a 2003 GT and my GTO and have heard enough bullshit about GT's and Mach1's to tell stories for years. If you want a car that is good at 1/8 mile sprints a Mustang will fill the bill. If you want a car that does it all look elsewhere.

The only Mustangs I ever worry about have reptiles on them or whine.
i disagree, and i don't want to start a flame war here and will admit i probably fit the bill of a mustang fan boy, but i almost bought an 05 gt before i bought my mach. I coulda had it out the door for 27k fully loaded, and i have seen them at the track bone stock run mid 13's, which is signfigantly better than a 2v. One of my buddies runs low 13's on street tires with intake/tune/exhaust and lower control arms. For the price i'd hardly say it's slow. LS2 GTO's run low 13's (sometimes dipping into 12's, but are generally a low 13 sec car) and are base price to base price 7k more while being a mere half sec faster at best. (im going by best recorded times AND average times). If they were equally priced, yea the s197 would be slow, but you are comparing cars in different price classes here, and imo it's a pretty unfair comparison...an ss/sc is slow compared to an s197 gt and they have the same price difference between them and the s197 as there is between an ls2 and an s197. I don't know where you are getting your "mach 1" bull ****, but i know quite a few mach 1's that will give most lsx cars damn good runs and alot are on motor. i dont wanna start an argument or anything im just trying to be fair here. Oh and my car doesn't whine or have a snake on it and im pretty sure you'd wanna worry about mine. the v2-sq is quiet

Originally Posted by Onyx Dragon
Yeah, you're missing about 102 torque. How is that close to even?
gearing and weight. the mustang is behind in both...i beleive the 2v gt's had 3.27's while the ss/sc has what...4.05's? and the ss/sc is quite a bit lighter.

Originally Posted by Deathcult
mustangs are crap and the cobalt won.

i eat GTs like frosted flakes.

Mustang GT < Cobalt SS S/C

end of story.


good kill man. try a cobra next time. those put you to the test. or if you have some *****, try a shelby. =P
i hope you are talking about old cobras... like 03<. and like i said before s197 gt> ss/sc. at least there is no denying that one codyss, you have to admit that one is true.

Last edited by cakeeater; 07-30-2007 at 03:42 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Old 07-30-2007, 08:56 AM
  #17  
Banned
 
codyss's Avatar
 
Join Date: 05-12-05
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 2,698
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
cakeeater

I know a S197 is a little quicker than a stock SS/SC only in the 1/4 though. From a roll they still die just a little later than a 99-04 GT.


As for the other stuff:

- Mach1's are only a match for a average driven LS1 F-Body on a bad day. Even with the DOHC 4.6 they still suffer from 1/4 only syndrom just like the GT.

- And why compare what you could have got a GT for vs MSRP on a GTO? Alot of dealers would gladly let a GTO go for under $30,000 not to mention the last few were reduced to $28,000.

- Also why do people keep saying GTO and Mustang aren't in the same class, price doesn't dictate a cars class. Neither are your typical sports car and both are usually considered moder day muscle cars.



Back to the topic like I said befor SS/SC > 99-04 GT period.
Old 07-30-2007, 09:59 AM
  #18  
New Member
 
04Venom's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-20-07
Location: Ohio
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

Originally Posted by Deathcult
mustangs are crap and the cobalt won.

i eat GTs like frosted flakes.

Mustang GT < Cobalt SS S/C

end of story.


good kill man. try a cobra next time. those put you to the test. or if you have some *****, try a shelby. =P
Yeah, just don't try a 99/01 Cobra. You'll be seeing tail lights....... There's no need to go any further.

Originally Posted by Onyx Dragon
Yeah, you're missing about 102 torque. How is that close to even?
As in the Mustang has a 102 LB FT/TQ more, and 55 more horses? You're getting
302 LB FT/TQ at 4000 RPMs VS 200 LB FT/TQ at 4400 RPMs.

At the very least, this race should be dead even.

Last edited by 04Venom; 07-30-2007 at 09:59 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Old 07-30-2007, 10:02 AM
  #19  
Senior Member
 
cobi's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-06-06
Location: Indiana
Posts: 1,589
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Onyx Dragon
Yeah, you're missing about 102 torque. How is that close to even?
The 300 lb difference in weight, and the fact that not near that much torque gets to the pavement.
Old 07-30-2007, 10:13 AM
  #20  
New Member
 
Villain's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-06-06
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Being a GM fanboy I still think that the Gt would have pulled on you. I have seen these races before at the track, and the Gt usually wins i'm afraid. Sorry.
Old 07-30-2007, 10:21 AM
  #21  
Member
 
sSsuPerChaRgEd07's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-24-07
Location: Jersey
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
yeah stock mustangs are slow nothing special at all. But fun and easy to work on once you work the engine out they are impressive. I had a 94 mustang gt put the GT40 kit on it full exhaust intake 373 gears and traction mods and I was hittin 12s with ease. most stangs u see on the road just have an intake an exhaust. with just 373 gears exhaust system off road xpipe headers and a intake I burned a cobalt ss sc so bad it was like racing a stock civic. once I gotthe GT40 kit I was in a whole different class
Old 07-30-2007, 11:23 AM
  #22  
Senior Member
 
Deathcult's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-12-06
Location: Florida
Posts: 921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by cakeeater
i disagree, and i don't want to start a flame war here and will admit i probably fit the bill of a mustang fan boy, but i almost bought an 05 gt before i bought my mach. I coulda had it out the door for 27k fully loaded, and i have seen them at the track bone stock run mid 13's, which is signfigantly better than a 2v. One of my buddies runs low 13's on street tires with intake/tune/exhaust and lower control arms. For the price i'd hardly say it's slow. LS2 GTO's run low 13's (sometimes dipping into 12's, but are generally a low 13 sec car) and are base price to base price 7k more while being a mere half sec faster at best. (im going by best recorded times AND average times). If they were equally priced, yea the s197 would be slow, but you are comparing cars in different price classes here, and imo it's a pretty unfair comparison...an ss/sc is slow compared to an s197 gt and they have the same price difference between them and the s197 as there is between an ls2 and an s197. I don't know where you are getting your "mach 1" bull ****, but i know quite a few mach 1's that will give most lsx cars damn good runs and alot are on motor. i dont wanna start an argument or anything im just trying to be fair here. Oh and my car doesn't whine or have a snake on it and im pretty sure you'd wanna worry about mine. the v2-sq is quiet



gearing and weight. the mustang is behind in both...i beleive the 2v gt's had 3.27's while the ss/sc has what...4.05's? and the ss/sc is quite a bit lighter.



i hope you are talking about old cobras... like 03<. and like i said before s197 gt> ss/sc. at least there is no denying that one codyss, you have to admit that one is true.

Well I raced 2 cobras (new models) and they both beat me. one by a car length and the other by 1/2 a car length and they were stock.

but shelbys eat me alive like im a M&M and I know it.

Not till I get some crazy mods. But I dont care about most shelbys...just elanor =P
Old 07-30-2007, 11:24 AM
  #23  
Senior Member
 
light'bolt's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-23-06
Location: Texas boy stuck in an Iowa Cornfield
Posts: 2,855
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Mustang GT, Haven't had the pleasure, maybe some day.
Old 07-30-2007, 11:32 AM
  #24  
Senior Member
 
chevysalesman614's Avatar
 
Join Date: 05-03-06
Location: new jersey
Posts: 4,638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
good kill. that makes sense if he wasnt launching it hard. but watch out, cause next time you can bet your ass he will

Originally Posted by invisible
Yea good kill but gt owners talk like there car is the **** but it is (in reality) pathetic for a v8, i love beating gts its like the cherry on top, the best i love it . good kill


Originally Posted by cakeeater
that's a pretty general statement the 2v's were somewhat disgraceful, but for the money were still not too bad performance wise...the new gt is the fastest car for the money hands down and you should know since everybody seems to compare them to your gto even though the gto msrp's for 7k more. Im not a fan of the new edge 2v's by any means, but the new 3v's are pretty impressive for the cash especially modded. 12 sec cars with the right bolt ons and you can get em brand new for 25k pretty optioned out.


good one! thats the funniest thing i've heard so far today

Originally Posted by 04Venom
Am I missing something? Looks pretty even to me:


2002 Mustang GT

4.6L 260 hp V8
Horsepower 260 @ 5250 RPM
Torque (lb-ft) 302 @ 4000 RPM
Curb weight 3273


2005 Coblat SS/SC

2.0L 205 hp I4
Horsepower 205 @ 5600 RPM
Torque (lb-ft) 200 @ 4400 RPM
Curb weight 2991


Last edited by chevysalesman614; 07-30-2007 at 11:32 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Old 07-30-2007, 11:33 AM
  #25  
New Member
 
04Venom's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-20-07
Location: Ohio
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

Originally Posted by Deathcult
Well I raced 2 cobras (new models) and they both beat me. one by a car length and the other by 1/2 a car length and they were stock.

but shelbys eat me alive like im a M&M and I know it.

Not till I get some crazy mods. But I dont care about most shelbys...just elanor =P

Surely you are talking about the 99/01 Cobra's right?


Quick Reply: stock '06 ss/sc vs '02 mustang gt



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:49 AM.