The Cobra cam is the exact same cam that was in the 5.0 MN12 (89-93) Thunderbirds and Cougars. It is a 270/270 cam with 0.282" lobe lift giving 0.451" with 1.6's and 0.479" with 1.7 rockers. Lobe angles are 115/121.5 intake/exhaust giving a very wide 118.25 LSA. Ford doesn't publish 0.050" durations but it's probably around 210 degrees.

 

I got a corbra cam for $40 and want to use it. I know it's not the best stick in the barrel, but it's close to what I've been looking for. I just need a little info on it; what are the specs on this cam, what degree does it perform best at, and does it like high compression?

How was it close to what you're looking for if you didn't know any of the specs?

 

lol Well detective, I was originally going for the Comp XE258 35-10-8 cam, which Ive heard is like a roided out snake stick with a similar power band. But, Im having to scale back my build a little. Overall Im just trying to see how much power I can squeeze out of this cam.

 

Here's a bone stock '93 Cobra dyno. It makes a big flat torque curve. And nice horsepower too for a totally stock engine. The only real differences of these engines were the cam, 1.7 roller rockers, GT40 heads, intake, injectors, TB, MAF, ECU.

 

Ooo, I like flat curves, and it hits on early too. This has pleased me. My build is pretty much a stock cobra build, just with an a9l tuned to 24lb injectors, shaved gt40p heads (57-56cc i think) fms headers and an xpipe. Im going to need the torque since the car this engine is going into is about 1,000lbs more than a foxbody.

 

I’ve had this, but I’ve also heard from various sources that it’s a crap shoot. Just use it as reference.

 

I’ve had this, but I’ve also heard from various sources that it’s a crap shoot.



View attachment 1059555

Yeah that's the published specs. It's fair to say "your specs may vary". LOL

 

Do you want your power to peak at 4200?? An E Cam would be better than that turd..

 

Its a cam that'll get me on the road for now for less than 100, eventually im going with the XE258 which is has a wider band than the ecam. And even then, whatever racing I'll do will be dig racing. Rolls are boring.

 

What heads and intake are you going to use?

 

gt40p heads, but they're being worked on. I think the cc's are going to be around 56-57 once their planed, and the chambers are going to be polished to help reduce the chance of detonation. As far as intakes go, either the explorer or cobra intake, which ever I can find a deal on first to be honest. Same guy, forgot the pass to my other account.

 

TURD

Google Search

 

Lord forbid I use a stock stick

 

Your money. Your car. Run what you want to run. If it meets your desires for cost, availablity, etc...RUN IT.

 

Here’s my stock 5.0 embarassment

 

TURD CONFIRMED... LOL


That's a truck cam.. It will be cool to pull thru traffic, but the dude with a rear gear and a higher powerband will bust your ass.. My girlfriends 2015 Taurus will give it a run for the money and it probably weighs 1000lbs more.. LOL

Just wait and get the cam u want. It's a lot of work in the car, why would you do it twice?

 

At the time those cars were made they were definitely not turds.

 

Welcome to 2020.

LMAO!

 

I'll leave you with this..
Unless you're launching with sticky tires, that T5 will be just fine. How much power do you think you'll make with that XE cam anyway??

 

Like 320, maybe 330? Its definitely below 400. Maybe Im just getting a little too over analytical with it lol

 

I regret not doing a stock dyno on my 92 auto. Regret not doing a dyno after my rebuild which included ported polished heads intake and b303 cam with 2200-2400 stall. I tried to do a dyno for years but my work schedule never allowed me to

 

 

FUKIN CARROL BASKINS

 

The car had/has VERY respectable power for its day. But it is not comparable to today's cars. If you can't see why that car deserves respect for what it makes with the parts it has, you have no understanding or appreciation for why we have the powerhouses we have today.

 

Please.

Saying it’s slow by today’s standards has zero to do with taking away from what a 5.0 mustang did 25 years ago. If you can’t accept that, so be it.


I love fox bodies and what you’re able to do with them today, but get off your pedestal. They’re great cars from the factory, and respectable power can be made even for the production parts. That doesn’t change the fact that they can get walked by a newer family sedan.

 

FWIW- I love my bone stock 94 Cobra. I accept it for what it is, and it's a pleasure to drive. I've owned cars that were a lot quicker, but this one does what it does for me. Pulls nicely in any gear from down low in engine speed. Has the V8 rumble, bigger brakes, handles great, AC blows cold, it's the right size. Anyone can fix it. Someone else will always have a quicker car than you no matter how much you spend. Don't take me wrong, would love to have that 11 second car! Kudos to the guys that have one that's thoroughly street sorted.

It was hard for me not to pull the trigger on a set of AFR's and have the intake ported- staying with the stock cam. No dyno tuning for me. I wish it had another point in compression, I wish it had a 2.75 first gear (not 3.35) - even with the stock 3.08 gear. but in the end the car is rather like a Euro sports car from back in the day- with a V8. I've owned them all. At 72 now I appreciate that I don't need a now a very expensive big block Chevelle and a Healey 3000 both, the Cobra covers those bases nicely.

You can have fun with 100 horsepower- On my way to fastest time of the day in 1974 attached. See, I told you I was old. Don't need a trailer anymore either- Bonus.

.

 

I didn't say it wouldn't get walked by a family sedan. I said comparing it to modern car performance benchmarks is stupid. Its pretty much the same as trying to compare a 1923 Model T to a 1950 Ford. They are wildly different cars with very different technology. Yes in older form it will be slower. Less comfortable. Have more noises. Not handle as well. Not ride as well. Not stop as well. Not run as clean. Not get as good fuel economy. Etc, etc, etc..

Is the Lamborghini Countach a turd? What about the Ferrari Testarossa? There's much more to a car than all our speed or getting walked by a family sedan. We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

I didn't say it wouldn't get walked by a family sedan. I said comparing it to modern car performance benchmarks is stupid. Its pretty much the same as trying to compare a 1923 Model T to a 1950 Ford. They are wildly different cars with very different technology. Yes in older form it will be slower. Less comfortable. Have more noises. Not handle as well. Not ride as well. Not stop as well. Not run as clean. Not get as good fuel economy. Etc, etc, etc..

Is the Lamborghini Countach a turd? What about the Ferrari Testarossa? There's much more to a car than all our speed or getting walked by a family sedan. We'll have to agree to disagree.

I’ve always thought countachs were turds lol.

Yeah if you asked me if a 1923 and a 53 Ford were turds, I’d probably tell you yes. Doesn’t make them undesirable, or not fun to drive. A car can still be **** slow (by modern standard) and a lot of fun at the same time.

A bone stock 1990 gt with a 5 speed is still a good time, and in a lot of instances more desirable and valuable than one that’s got every aftermarket part.

 

My '92 LX hatch with a Mac exhaust and cone style K&N air filter would spank on my brother in law's '68 Firebird with a 400/4spd all day every day......if you want to compare old/new. The Fox platform in stock form was very respectable power wise. People have modded cars forever but the Fox era began a craze because of what they were right out of the box. Just look at the aftermarket parts following...it says a lot.

To the OP, get whatever cam you want and build your car the way you want it. It's yours.

 

My '92 LX hatch with a Mac exhaust and cone style K&N air filter would spank on my brother in law's '68 Firebird with a 400/4spd all day every day......if you want to compare old/new. The Fox platform in stock form was very respectable power wise. People have modded cars forever but the Fox era began a craze because of what they were right out of the box. Just look at the aftermarket parts following...it says a lot.

To the OP, get whatever cam you want and build your car the way you want it. It's yours.

Thank you.
If I wanted to build something that's made to slap, I sure as hell wouldn't re-use stock parts, let alone a 4,000lbs station wagon.

 

Hey wht88cpe, that's a great photo and it looks like you were having a mighty fun day! Where was it taken?

Looks like somewhere a lot more tropical than PIttsburgh!

 

Hey wht88cpe, that's a great photo and it looks like you were having a mighty fun day! Where was it taken?

Looks like somewhere a lot more tropical than PIttsburgh!

For sure, it was Key West Florida. Ecurie Vitesse SCC event. Ended up there with new girlfriend after 1st divorce, couldn't go any further ... The Keys are big into autocrossing. Check out the Bay Bottom Crawl, better have your **** together for that annual event. Check it out here on YouTube- Bay Bottom Crawl One mistake and you're in the mangroves.

OP- Gotta say my fave motor of all time is the 289/271. They were high compression, early ones were 11.6, quickly went to 10.5. Selected parts made this the sweetest ever, that it wouldn't break out of the 14's stock was of no consequence to me. Instant throttle response, exploded to life. And the sound. While you're in there- if the harmonic balancer is original just replace it. I had mine replaced with a Powerbond as the original seemed to be out of true. First drive and it immediately reminded me of that 1965 HiPo feel- and that motor used a totally different balancer than the typical 289. Just sayin ..

 

The older SBF's were 28oz unbalanced, and I think there were a few rare slightly lighter versions. But those weren't a part you'd want now, you want to stick with modern stuff. I have a new Cleveland balancer I bought myself in about 1988, but it's not special really. I upgraded the balancer in one of my 98 Explorers last year, the Power Bond model is a much better part than the OEM 50oz type, which do come apart with old age, or higher rpm's.

Here's an OEM 28oz balancer I had made into what's needed for a 347 Explorer engine. I had two made, and one did slip(the rubber seam part) on another Explorer's 347, he was running near 6000rpm only(4R trans shifting automatically). So buy a quality balancer for the rpm range you have. Below that is a 50oz Power Bond Explorer balancer, about $150.