98 Cobra vs 02 Camaro
04-02-2011, 12:00 AM
#241
TECH Addict
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: N. FL
Posts: 2,708
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well...it really is a good point if you think about it for a second. If that's an "excuse" then nobody should ever be able to say that the 2000 Cobra R was super rare and never seen...either way, it was faster than the F-bodies of 2000. Although it is usually not acknowledged by the uneducated masses that say "Ford couldn't keep up until this time!"
It's similar to the f-body guys who say "See! Ford couldn't make a run of the mill GT, they had to produce a Cobra to compete with F-bodies." (which, off topic, was slower than F-bodies of the same year, anyway).
Not trying to start an argument, I think he was just saying that the cars you saw on the road everyday weren't SS's and Firehawks nearly as much as they were your run of the mill Z/28 for instance...which is a true statement.
It's similar to the f-body guys who say "See! Ford couldn't make a run of the mill GT, they had to produce a Cobra to compete with F-bodies." (which, off topic, was slower than F-bodies of the same year, anyway).
Not trying to start an argument, I think he was just saying that the cars you saw on the road everyday weren't SS's and Firehawks nearly as much as they were your run of the mill Z/28 for instance...which is a true statement.
04-02-2011, 12:10 AM
#243
Launching!
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Greenhaven/ South Sacramento 'Burbs
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Well...it really is a good point if you think about it for a second. If that's an "excuse" then nobody should ever be able to say that the 2000 Cobra R was super rare and never seen...either way, it was faster than the F-bodies of 2000. Although it is usually not acknowledged by the uneducated masses that say "Ford couldn't keep up until this time!".
04-02-2011, 12:17 AM
#244
Staging Lane
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Rent Free in Hio's Mind
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 35 Likes
on
30 Posts
Well, you asked if "that was y'alls excuse", referring to the rarity of the car. So if someone said "there were only 300 R's!" I would ask if that was their excuse, as well.
04-02-2011, 12:17 AM
#245
TECH Addict
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: N. FL
Posts: 2,708
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Insofar as the 2000 R, it wasn't average either. And nobody says "But the Cobra ran 12.4's in 2000" as an argument here... It wasn't like the average Mustang beyond the shell. Taking that model into consideration alone, the whole argument of which keeps up with which is a closed case.
modular-blower= weak
04-02-2011, 06:45 AM
#247
11 Second Club
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: E-town raceway
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come on now.
04-02-2011, 11:13 AM
#248
TECH Addict
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: N. FL
Posts: 2,708
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I often get "active" in threads I take any part in. Even though that's the case, I have well under 1/2 the posts here that Redfire has... He's clearly here to argue, but that's okay. For you to complain two others are, who COMBINED have fewer responses... That's just wrong.
04-02-2011, 02:29 PM
#249
Launching!
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Greenhaven/ South Sacramento 'Burbs
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
First it was "LT1s don't run 13's"
Now that we settled that straight its "oh but its only the SS's and they only made 6000 of them".
What's the next?
04-02-2011, 04:23 PM
#251
Staging Lane
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Rent Free in Hio's Mind
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 35 Likes
on
30 Posts
Come on now.
04-02-2011, 11:30 PM
#252
TECH Addict
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: N. FL
Posts: 2,708
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How well do you actually see it though?
Who actually said that? I'm asking because you put it in quotes, signifying someone did.
Who said their were only 6,000 of them? I thought that was you, saying 6,300... What's next just MAY be you realizing you're argument is against... YOU!
You "settled that straight" by showing us links to articles about the LT1 cars and ONLY those non-standard Z/28's actually ran better than 14.00. I pointed out what you had provided as fact. Now you're saying it's a fact that "they" ran 13's based on about .09% of them having done it, even though all those that did were SS or Firehawk models. From the start, I claimed the average LT1 didn't run 13's. Clearly, I was 100% correct, no matter how much you argued against that fact... It is indeed a fact.
Want us to believe the average standard LT1 Z/28 ran 13's? Don't waste your time. That is all.
First it was "LT1s don't run 13's"
Now that we settled that straight its "oh but its only the SS's and they only made 6000 of them".
What's the next?
What's the next?
You "settled that straight" by showing us links to articles about the LT1 cars and ONLY those non-standard Z/28's actually ran better than 14.00. I pointed out what you had provided as fact. Now you're saying it's a fact that "they" ran 13's based on about .09% of them having done it, even though all those that did were SS or Firehawk models. From the start, I claimed the average LT1 didn't run 13's. Clearly, I was 100% correct, no matter how much you argued against that fact... It is indeed a fact.
Want us to believe the average standard LT1 Z/28 ran 13's? Don't waste your time. That is all.
04-03-2011, 10:25 AM
#253
10 Second Club
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: CALI
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How well do you actually see it though?
Who actually said that? I'm asking because you put it in quotes, signifying someone did.
Who said their were only 6,000 of them? I thought that was you, saying 6,300... What's next just MAY be you realizing you're argument is against... YOU!
You "settled that straight" by showing us links to articles about the LT1 cars and ONLY those non-standard Z/28's actually ran better than 14.00. I pointed out what you had provided as fact. Now you're saying it's a fact that "they" ran 13's based on about .09% of them having done it, even though all those that did were SS or Firehawk models. From the start, I claimed the average LT1 didn't run 13's. Clearly, I was 100% correct, no matter how much you argued against that fact... It is indeed a fact.
Want us to believe the average standard LT1 Z/28 ran 13's? Don't waste your time. That is all.
Who actually said that? I'm asking because you put it in quotes, signifying someone did.
Who said their were only 6,000 of them? I thought that was you, saying 6,300... What's next just MAY be you realizing you're argument is against... YOU!
You "settled that straight" by showing us links to articles about the LT1 cars and ONLY those non-standard Z/28's actually ran better than 14.00. I pointed out what you had provided as fact. Now you're saying it's a fact that "they" ran 13's based on about .09% of them having done it, even though all those that did were SS or Firehawk models. From the start, I claimed the average LT1 didn't run 13's. Clearly, I was 100% correct, no matter how much you argued against that fact... It is indeed a fact.
Want us to believe the average standard LT1 Z/28 ran 13's? Don't waste your time. That is all.
See below:
You can believe, and even say whatever you want, but I've raced too many of each to believe you. All the talk here will never convince me the Cobra wasn't a mid-high 13 second car from 96-01 when driven correctly. All that talk won't make me believe the LT1 ran 13's either. Sure, a handful did... Most ran 14.1-4's, even driven correctly(OHV's got it like that, no learning curve required)... That's just what it was.
Yippee for you. The "question" wasn't about what your car did. It was about what 96-98 Mustang Cobras did when new and stock vs the LT1's times... Not what the children of the day claim as reality these days, but what was actually happening then. We all know the typical LS1 F-body would beat the typical Cobra of those years and the reasons. Many (ignorantly) believe the LT1 was also a 13 second runner, or that the Cobra was not... While many Cobra owners didn't yet know how or when to shift for best results, it was capable of 13's. The LT1 didn't require any learning curve. It just ran low 14's for nearly anyone on any given day. Given each car had a great driver and neither broke anything, the LT1 would be expected to lose 100% of the time. If it was better as is, GM probably would've held off on the LS1.
in attempts to save the argument:
Most wouldn't argue that point either, but still... There were 6300 of how many V8 F-bodies? A couple hundred thousand that didn't run as well as the modified versions. I don't even bother considering them modified really... Just limited to the point they weren't average.
I wouldn't say they (LT1s) are 13 second cars stock, just because there's enough on the other side of the line to make it close, but it's not unreasonable to say they can go easily. Not going to watch the videos, but the times posted are mostly 96/7 SS's...we all know most LT1s are not 96/7 SS's. Let's see more Z28 times, or normal T/A times. It's like claiming high 12s out of LS1s, plenty have done it, just not enough to say it as a matter of fact
edit: These are more like what I see.
"M/T 93 Cobra-14.4@97 vs. 93 Z28-14.0@98
M/T 96 Cobra-14.0@101 vs 96 Z28-14.2@98"
edit: These are more like what I see.
"M/T 93 Cobra-14.4@97 vs. 93 Z28-14.0@98
M/T 96 Cobra-14.0@101 vs 96 Z28-14.2@98"
Well...it really is a good point if you think about it for a second. If that's an "excuse" then nobody should ever be able to say that the 2000 Cobra R was super rare and never seen...either way, it was faster than the F-bodies of 2000. Although it is usually not acknowledged by the uneducated masses that say "Ford couldn't keep up until this time!"
It's similar to the f-body guys who say "See! Ford couldn't make a run of the mill GT, they had to produce a Cobra to compete with F-bodies." (which, off topic, was slower than F-bodies of the same year, anyway).
Not trying to start an argument, I think he was just saying that the cars you saw on the road everyday weren't SS's and Firehawks nearly as much as they were your run of the mill Z/28 for instance...which is a true statement.
It's similar to the f-body guys who say "See! Ford couldn't make a run of the mill GT, they had to produce a Cobra to compete with F-bodies." (which, off topic, was slower than F-bodies of the same year, anyway).
Not trying to start an argument, I think he was just saying that the cars you saw on the road everyday weren't SS's and Firehawks nearly as much as they were your run of the mill Z/28 for instance...which is a true statement.
04-03-2011, 10:34 AM
#254
10 Second Club
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: CALI
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And incase you didn't know, the 96 SS/WS6 was GM's answer to the 96 Cobra. The base LT1 Z28/Formula were intended as direct competition for the Mustang GT. Just so happen the base F-bodies were so close to the Cobra in terms of performance the two were often compared.
04-03-2011, 03:04 PM
#256
I just find it annoying when people talk about LT1s being 13 second cars like it's no problem, or make it out to be as easy as LS1s running 13s. Not saying you are, but some do. I'll leave it at that, because this really is a stupid thread that needs to die. If anything hit home, it's correlation of how petty these arguments get as the page numbers climb. 
