Ford Mustang Forums banner

1 - 20 of 30 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
848 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I have been hearing that the 94-95 cobras were under rated at 240 hp. Has anyone else heard this? Anyone dyno their stock cobra?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,626 Posts
As far as i know, from reading the guys post on here, the Cobras are defently under rated, Thers enough cobra guys on here , that can give u real numbers, but i think there around 250-255h/p or somthing like that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
does any one know if the gt's were underrated too?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,626 Posts
I really doubt the GT's are under rated, Ther more like over rated actually. 215 is stock for 94-95 that is flywheel h/p , now im not good with math, but the GT isnt close to making even 200 RWH/P. Thats sad, concidering its one of the modern day muscle cars. Comon now ,they could have gave us atleast 300 h/p to be up with the camaros or anything really for that fact.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
533 Posts
When my buddies bone stock 94 cobra including air silencer got dyoned (I forgot the RWHP) but when we figured it at the crank it was somthing like 260 hp and 319 ftlbs :eek: thats way off from the factory ratings of 240 hp & 285 ftlbs
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
145 Posts
I beg to differ...

Hey,

I have a near stock 94 GT with an auto. I've dynoed my car and it put 201.9 HP to the drums. That was an average over five runs. the most I got was 203.4 and the least was 199.6. You can see in my sig. that I have no motor mods with verry few exhaust and intake bolt-ups. I was disappointed but was satisfied with the numbers as a starting point. With a 215 flywheel rating the car is outdoing that by a good deal, especially when considering more drivetrain loss is encurred with an automatic tranny as oposed to a manual. With a generous 10% drivetrain loss I should be looking at 193. With that same percentage added to my actual HP, I'm looking at 222 HP at the FW. Granted, a whole 7 RWHP difference is not that impressive, but, the actual drivetrain loss I am probably experiencing is closer to 15%. That number comes to a grand total of 232 HP at the crank. That same percentage give me 182.75 HP at the wheels with the supposed 215 FW rating. That difference comes to a 20 RWH difference...that is big. So you can see that there is no arguing that my car is slow...for the time being, but there is room for argument on the underrating of the stock FWHP. Now that I've worn myself out writing this thing, I'm going to bed.

Mike Smith
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,188 Posts
Re: I beg to differ...

they say the 94 95 was really 225 but it was underrated to make the 96 4.6 look better i hear the loss is 15% rear wheel...so if you dyno 200 at the wheels then that would be like 235 id say 230 would be a real good guess cause i beat all stock 4.6 96-98 not by much.. but im stock and so are they
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,394 Posts
Re: I beg to differ...

CobraR said:
Hey,

I have a near stock 94 GT with an auto. I've dynoed my car and it put 201.9 HP to the drums. That was an average over five runs. the most I got was 203.4 and the least was 199.6. You can see in my sig. that I have no motor mods with verry few exhaust and intake bolt-ups. I was disappointed but was satisfied with the numbers as a starting point. With a 215 flywheel rating the car is outdoing that by a good deal, especially when considering more drivetrain loss is encurred with an automatic tranny as oposed to a manual. With a generous 10% drivetrain loss I should be looking at 193. With that same percentage added to my actual HP, I'm looking at 222 HP at the FW. Granted, a whole 7 RWHP difference is not that impressive, but, the actual drivetrain loss I am probably experiencing is closer to 15%. That number comes to a grand total of 232 HP at the crank. That same percentage give me 182.75 HP at the wheels with the supposed 215 FW rating. That difference comes to a 20 RWH difference...that is big. So you can see that there is no arguing that my car is slow...for the time being, but there is room for argument on the underrating of the stock FWHP. Now that I've worn myself out writing this thing, I'm going to bed.

Mike Smith
This is bench racing, but...

Start with a little more realistic AODE parasitic lost of 15%, and your 201.9 becomes 237.5 (201.9/.85 = 237.5) at the flywheel. Manual tranny loss is about 12%, but at least your left calf isn't twice the size as your right one ;). Stock you should be about 183hp.

You have done some of the best bolt on mods you can with the pullies (~8hp) X-pipe (~10hp), CAI (~3-5hp), and free'ed up exhaust. Add all of that up and you'll notice that you are very close to where you should be. GT's seem to be making exactly the hp that Ford said they do.


To the original point: my 95 with shorty headers, K&N, and bumped timing (on the second of back to back run) put out 220hp which is about 250hp at the flywheel. My opinion and experience is they are underrated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,249 Posts
Yes the Cobra's were under rated. I had my 94 Cobra dynoed with only a Bassani X with cats and it put 232 rwhp (app 267 at the flywheel). After headers, cat back, pullies, Pro M77 MAF meter I put 248 rwhp & 295 rwtq, with 105k miles.
Consider the GT are 215, add Cobra intake, GT-40 heads, 24 lb injectors, little bigger cam and small under drive pullies and that only add 25 hp. The FRPP catalog say that should add 50 hp (if you believe advertisements) with GT-40 intake & heads.
Remember this was right before they introduced the 4.6 mod motor in the GT and Cobra, so they wanted it to sound like the mod motors were better and put out more hp. Good business to make the new sound better than the old. Not necessarly true.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
120 Posts
94svt5.0 said:
Anyone dyno their stock cobra?
http://www.corral.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=78603


I have the dyno graphs available on a Dynojet run-viewer, but can't figure out how to post them. If someone knows how, I'll put it up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
120 Posts
remedial computer skills

Looks like the link copy didn't work. Anyway, that post had:

220.6 rwhp --> 259.5 hp
271.4 rwtq --> 319.3 ft-lb


Maybe this explains why this BONE stock Cobra had a '00 GT (with 3.73's and Bassani exhaust) beat by 2-3 car-lengths in a little challange to 65mph last night. The '00 driver was totally surprised and couldn't believe a '94 could take her '00. She's bringing it back to the shop today for more work!

"Keep your horsepower, I'll take the torque on the street."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
533 Posts
Re: remedial computer skills

long-time5.0fan said:
Maybe this explains why this BONE stock Cobra had a '00 GT (with 3.73's and Bassani exhaust) beat by 2-3 car-lengths in a little challange to 65mph last night. The '00 driver was totally surprised and couldn't believe a '94 could take her '00. She's bringing it back to the shop today for more work!

Dennis.... beating up on girls again? :p :p :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
137 Posts
Parasitic loss of 12%? With a auto? A auto with a unlocked converter? Shees, I gotta say that your wrong, like big wrong. The guess if 20% at said powerlevel is prolly right on, if he was making another 200hp it would prolly be over 25%. How do I know this? Well my 463rwhp 3500lb with driver 3.27 geared 95GT went a 132 in the 1/4, back when it was turbo charged. I dont think anyone would argue that is at least 575hp at the crank, or more most likely. A friends Street Outlaw motor off the spray made 815 on the engine dyno and 630 at the wheels, this was good enough for 148 1/4's. So if he locks the converter up then yeah prolly 15% maybe. Most stick stuff is gonna fall in between 12-15%, so I dont know if he would get as low as 15% locked up, even locked up with a auto you still drive thru all your clutch packs and bands plus their gears.

Antony
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
120 Posts
94SVT said:



Dennis.... beating up on girls again? :p :p :D

HAHAHA!! Actually, I never look to see who the driver is until after the heads-up jaunt is over. This red GT had an AMP Performance sticker on the driver's side rear window, so I felt the need to challenge (expecting to get spanked)! I should've known who would be behind the wheel because "Daddy's Girl" is on the license plate bracket :eek:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,394 Posts
antonymooreus said:
Parasitic loss of 12%? With a auto? A auto with a unlocked converter? Shees, I gotta say that your wrong, like big wrong. The guess if 20% at said powerlevel is prolly right on, if he was making another 200hp it would prolly be over 25%. How do I know this? Well my 463rwhp 3500lb with driver 3.27 geared 95GT went a 132 in the 1/4, back when it was turbo charged. I dont think anyone would argue that is at least 575hp at the crank, or more most likely. A friends Street Outlaw motor off the spray made 815 on the engine dyno and 630 at the wheels, this was good enough for 148 1/4's. So if he locks the converter up then yeah prolly 15% maybe. Most stick stuff is gonna fall in between 12-15%, so I dont know if he would get as low as 15% locked up, even locked up with a auto you still drive thru all your clutch packs and bands plus their gears.

Antony
I'm not sure who you wrote that to, but the original guy posting about auto tranny loss said 10% which, like you said, is WAY wrong. The only time I see 12% above was in a post I made about STICK loss. 15-18% is good for stock auto cars.

Your example of the 815hp resulting in 630hp on your friends Street Outlaw motor is good stuff. This is the type of thing we need. There is no "set" percentage loss, and as power levels increase, % loss increase too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
848 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Is it possible the wrong loss percentage is being used and the cobras really make their advertised power?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,394 Posts
94svt5.0 said:
Is it possible the wrong loss percentage is being used and the cobras really make their advertised power?
The percentage loss figure for my recorded rear wheel horsepower of 220hp to equal 240fly wheel hp, would be 8.3% loss. I don't think the T-5 and 7 year old 8.8 in my car are that efficient, though it is possible. I've read of guys dynoing on an engine stand and then on a chassis dyno with a stick and they show in the neighborhood of 12% loss. This is for a STICK.

I can't tell from your post if you think the 94/5 Cobra's are down on their factory quoted numbers, but just in case, the actual Cobra output is higher than what Ford claimed in just about every case.
 

·
Corral Charter Member
Joined
·
3,746 Posts
Re: remedial computer skills

long-time5.0fan said:

Maybe this explains why this BONE stock Cobra had a '00 GT (with 3.73's and Bassani exhaust) beat by 2-3 car-lengths in a little challange to 65mph last night. The '00 driver was totally surprised and couldn't believe a '94 could take her '00. She's bringing it back to the shop today for more work!
Hey:

I think she needs to buy a new driver. My stock '99 GT would destroy my bolt-on '95 Cobra anywhere, anytime.

Couple the fact that the New Edge Mustangs have more hp, wiegh 300 pounds less, and have a 3:27 gear instead of a 3:08, and its no contest.

In answer to the original question, my '95 Cobra was certainly not underrated from the factory (unless you are counting curb weight).

Steve
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
723 Posts
Re: Re: remedial computer skills

LXguy said:


Hey:

I think she needs to buy a new driver. My stock '99 GT would destroy my bolt-on '95 Cobra anywhere, anytime.

Couple the fact that the New Edge Mustangs have more hp, wiegh 300 pounds less, and have a 3:27 gear instead of a 3:08, and its no contest.

In answer to the original question, my '95 Cobra was certainly not underrated from the factory (unless you are counting curb weight).

Steve
What kinda bolt ons are do you have dude?? I blow away my buddies 2000 GT pretty bad..

Stock vs Stock...99+ will hand a 94-95 Cobra its ass tho
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
120 Posts
Re: Re: remedial computer skills

LXguy said:


Hey:

I think she needs to buy a new driver. My stock '99 GT would destroy my bolt-on '95 Cobra anywhere, anytime.

Couple the fact that the New Edge Mustangs have more hp, wiegh 300 pounds less, and have a 3:27 gear instead of a 3:08, and its no contest.

In answer to the original question, my '95 Cobra was certainly not underrated from the factory (unless you are counting curb weight).

Steve

Agree with your first point about her lack of driving skills. I've been driving stick 5.0s for 16 years and she looked old enough to have a driver's license for maybe 2 years.

Got to say that your '95 Cobra must have been a total dog though if it dyno'd close to factory specs.

IMO, 0-60 street challenges depend more on low-end tq, not max hp. 1/4mi is different; hp matters there.
 
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
Top