STI vs stangGT vs EVO8

Who do you guys think would win in a drag, track and rally race

But Vote for which car you think is better over all

o ya you chould also vote for civic:cwn27:

i really love the subie... but...
the evo is already way better than a regular wrx, and at least even with an sti...

the evo8 is the "base model" evo, if you want to call it that, while the sti is the "step up" so to speak...

so if the base evo beats the base wrx, and is already a tight competitor to the step up wrx (sti)... i'll take the evo

that just means that a badass evo is on the way after the sti... hmmm...

People, why is there a 'stangGT', I'm not even going to ask about the Civic.

Clearly, the STi and Evo8 are High Performance Rally machines, the stangGT and Civic or not, they are so far form that it's nto even funny. It's alright if it was just those first two, but the comparison is like asking what's the different between a Granny Smith, a Macintosh, and Orange and an Eggplant". It's just not gin.

Originally posted by Porsche
People, why is there a 'stangGT', I'm not even going to ask about the Civic.

Clearly, the STi and Evo8 are High Performance Rally machines, the stangGT and Civic or not, they are so far form that it's nto even funny. It's alright if it was just those first two, but the comparison is like asking what's the different between a Granny Smith, a Macintosh, and Orange and an Eggplant". It's just not gin.

Yup - its clear as mud.

There's nothing to compare to, therfore i choose not to vote.

The Evo is way out of the league of the other two, and vice versa applies. The example of 2 apples and orange and the eggplant is totally accurate.

I choose not to vote on this pole simply because the comparison has gone out to lunch; so to speak. Please excuse the pun.

:o

What's the Evo 8?

well even though the EVO is much faster then the STi. the STi in my opinion is overally better. its more bareable as a daily driver then EVO. the build quality is also alot better, and in my opinion looks better then the evo. esp the 8. the 8 is just pure fugly.

take that stangGT out of the pic he dont even can smell the smok from them two cars not even my z ha ha mustang GT slow man slow...i vote for evo :lol2: :nono:

you guys, the evo is not way faster than the sti, the evo is barely faster on the track, while the sti is faster on the straights, im sure with a bit of suspension tuning, the sti would be able to take the evo out.

take that stangGT out of the pic he dont even can smell the smok from them two cars not even my z ha ha mustang GT slow man slow...i vote for evo :lol2: :nono:

I sincerely hope your kidding.:rolleyes: A stock 350Z is not much faster at all than a stock GT. What do you have done to your car? The GT, straight line wise, will keep up with all of the cars mentioned. It will not win, but it will not be a killing, straight line. On a road course, yes it will get ate up.

yeah, you guys are trippin, evo-8 is by no mean way faster than a sti.
there so close in speed its rediculous,
and a mustang gt should by no means be mentioned in this battle
and who in the hell voted for the damn car :screwy:

i dont know what to vote for. i know little about the sti and the evo, ecept that they are rally cars, which proably means they have awd. when it comes to handling, the mustang would get killed. i proably would go w/ the evo.
the cobra r is another story...

I sincerely hope your kidding.:rolleyes: A stock 350Z is not much faster at all than a stock GT. What do you have done to your car? The GT, straight line wise, will keep up with all of the cars mentioned. It will not win, but it will not be a killing, straight line. On a road course, yes it will get ate up.
if your saying a stock GT can compare with an evo8 and sti the gt will get owned in a straight line and road course
i voted sti i think it looks better then the evo8 and performance is about the same

the evo8 is the "base model" evo, if you want to call it that, while the sti is the "step up" so to speak...

so if the base evo beats the base wrx, and is already a tight competitor to the step up wrx (sti)... i'll take the evo




I thought the evo was based off the lancer and the sti was based off the impreza, right???

Therefore, an impreza is about 1000000000% better than a lancer.

There's no way I'd buy an evo. Have you guys actually looked at them? They just look cheaply made. Enkei wheels? Come on.

if your saying a stock GT can compare with an evo8 and sti the gt will get owned in a straight line and road course
i voted sti i think it looks better then the evo8 and performance is about the same

The Evo is about a mid 13 second car, hence it's 104-105 traps speed. The GT is a high 13 second car in the 1/4th if driven right, which corresponds to it's ~100 trap speed. That EVO is ahead about 4-5 cars, but it is not an all out killing. 10 cars is a killing. With that said, it probably has a bit better than a mid 13 in it if it is driven correctly.

As for the STI, I wasn't thinking and for some reason though the comparo was mentioning a WRX base model even though it said STI, so my bad. The STI, is about the same quarter mile as the EVO, if a bit faster.

I never said they wouldn't wax a GT in a road course.

the evo isnt about as fast as the STI, the STI is faster than the evo. here are the times i got from car and driver magazine for both cars.

STI 0-60 4.6 sec 1/4 13.2 sec, mitsubishi evo 0-60 5.0 sec 1/4 13.6 sec, i know different resources get different times, but almost all, or most of them tend to get the STI at least around .4 sec faster than the evo for the 1/4 mile. for 0-130 mph, STI gets 24.5 sec, evo gets 28.5 sec.

for the 1.1 mile road course, the STI got 1:04.34, the evo got 1:04.18. on the off road section, STI gets 48.89 sec, evo gets 48.62 sec, now those are really close times. both get .90 on the 300ft skidpad, but the STI still has a softer ride, and more roll, which means the STI has better balance. if you fix that, and improve the brakes a little, then i bet it would beat the evo. emergency lane change for the STI was better, 72.5mph vs 71.5mph. braking is better for the evo, 157ft vs 166ft.

well people he's not lying, it does say 13.6 but it also doesnt state if there talking about the evo-8 or evo-7
in moter trend the stats are

evo-8 1/4mile 13.1 at 105
wrx sti 1/4mile 13.2 at 104

so like i stated there so close, it probably depends on the driver

the evo isnt about as fast as the STI, the STI is faster than the evo. here are the times i got from car and driver magazine for both cars.

STI 0-60 4.6 sec 1/4 13.2 sec, mitsubishi evo 0-60 5.0 sec 1/4 13.6 sec, i know different resources get different times, but almost all, or most of them tend to get the STI at least around .4 sec faster than the evo for the 1/4 mile. for 0-130 mph, STI gets 24.5 sec, evo gets 28.5 sec.

for the 1.1 mile road course, the STI got 1:04.34, the evo got 1:04.18. on the off road section, STI gets 48.89 sec, evo gets 48.62 sec, now those are really close times. both get .90 on the 300ft skidpad, but the STI still has a softer ride, and more roll, which means the STI has better balance. if you fix that, and improve the brakes a little, then i bet it would beat the evo. emergency lane change for the STI was better, 72.5mph vs 71.5mph. braking is better for the evo, 157ft vs 166ft.

Quarter-mile times are usually worthless when comparing two similar performing cars. Why? Because, as you just pointed out, two different magazines can get two different times out of the same car. That is why people use trap speeds when comparing cars. Trap speeds show where the real horsepower is. Both cars trap within a mile of each other. That is close. Hence, why I said both cars are similar in performance.

Why is there a Mustang GT being compared with an sti and evo8, especially in a rally event?

Like you've heard already, the GT would get its ass handed twice to it.

Evo8 and Sti are just to damn close to compare. Their almost like twins, in the performance perspective. Granted the sti is more tame for daily commute, their still pretty close to call.

I would take the Sti over the evo and.....the other one.

Really, be honest, was the GT thrown in for shits and giggles or what?

Okay...just for shits and giggles. First, lets get in relatively the same price range first of all. Hell, a GT costs enough less than an Evo or STI in comparable trim to go to Jamaica three times....and stay at a d*&n nice hotel.

Even a Mach 1 costs less than a comparably equipped STI or Evo...look it up you can see it all day long on the manufacturer's site... they call it MSRP. An Evo stickers for 32 grand and that's dang near a stripped car.....you still have to select freakin' floor floor mats as an option, not to mention the good brakes, and the wing, and the wheels everyone wants. So lets take a reality pill here.

For about three grand more...sticker to sticker....than an Evo that isn't nearly as well equipped I can have a 03 supercharged Cobra. Get the Evo as equipped as closely as you can and its more like two grand or less. My point is, put simply, that on everything except dirt or a very twisty road circuit, an 03 Cobra will hand an Evo or an STI it's...well, you know;)

For our friend with the Z...Car and Driver may have picked the 350Z as their favorite car in their Cobra, 350Z, RX-8 comparo. But, take another look and notice performance figures. The Cobra beheaded the 350 Z EVERYWHERE, even on the road course. It was not a close race. And, whoever told you a 350Z would outrun a GT in the 1/4 was smokin' something cause I have seen the 350Z get blown off badly enough to know that it ain't so.

A Mach 1 will even take the Evo or an STI in a straight line (it will stomp the Z into dust) and it's cheaper than either. I have been to the track, and I have seen the Subie's run, no Evo's as yet.....Put simply , they are over-rated, and waaaay overpriced. One of my best friends has a Turbo Supra (an import but worthy of respect), and he is an import guy all the way. He got out of a drive in a WRX and summed it up perfectly. "What's all the fuss about?". Having driven a WRX, those are my sentiments exactly...and another four tenths wouldn't change my mind

Okay...just for shits and giggles. First, lets get in relatively the same price range first of all. Hell, a GT costs enough less than an Evo or STI in comparable trim to go to Jamaica three times....and stay at a d*&n nice hotel.

Even a Mach 1 costs less than a comparably equipped STI or Evo...look it up you can see it all day long on the manufacturer's site... they call it MSRP. An Evo stickers for 32 grand and that's dang near a stripped car.....you still have to select freakin' floor floor mats as an option, not to mention the good brakes, and the wing, and the wheels everyone wants. So lets take a reality pill here.

For about three grand more...sticker to sticker....than an Evo that isn't nearly as well equipped I can have a 03 supercharged Cobra. Get the Evo as equipped as closely as you can and its more like two grand or less. My point is, put simply, that on everything except dirt or a very twisty road circuit, an 03 Cobra will hand an Evo or an STI it's...well, you know;)

For our friend with the Z...Car and Driver may have picked the 350Z as their favorite car in their Cobra, 350Z, RX-8 comparo. But, take another look and notice performance figures. The Cobra beheaded the 350 Z EVERYWHERE, even on the road course. It was not a close race. And, whoever told you a 350Z would outrun a GT in the 1/4 was smokin' something cause I have seen the 350Z get blown off badly enough to know that it ain't so.

A Mach 1 will even take the Evo or an STI in a straight line (it will stomp the Z into dust) and it's cheaper than either. I have been to the track, and I have seen the Subie's run, no Evo's as yet.....Put simply , they are over-rated, and waaaay overpriced. One of my best friends has a Turbo Supra (an import but worthy of respect), and he is an import guy all the way. He got out of a drive in a WRX and summed it up perfectly. "What's all the fuss about?". Having driven a WRX, those are my sentiments exactly...and another four tenths wouldn't change my mind

Who's comparing a Mach 1, 350Z, Cobra, or price? I (along with mostly everyone else) am comparing an Sti, Evo8, and a Mustang GT; which brings me to my last question, are you on the right thread?

Who's comparing a Mach 1, 350Z, Cobra, or price? I (along with mostly everyone else) am comparing an Sti, Evo8, and a Mustang GT; which brings me to my last question, are you on the right thread?

No..let me clarify what some (ahem) are doing. SOME people are trying to make a couiple of over priced, over rated, and under performing rice burners look better than they are. If you want to get stupid about comparos lets compare the new Ford GT to the Evo8 and the STI. Hey, it ain't about price...right? Wonder who would win THAT one?

Apparently Somebody always has to to show up with a reality check for Evo and STi enthusiasts. I just made a point..and a relevant one I might add. If the little sedans cannot take the heat of the competition...well, the kitchen does have a door and they can leave the racin' to the real cars. I figure the hamsters could use a break anyway.

A Mach 1 will even take the Evo or an STI in a straight line


And the STi or Evo will take the Mach 1 on any condition other than dry pavement. Stop being so narrowminded.

At NHIS (road course) a few weeks ago, I ran my STi in bone stock condition (stock tires, even), and was 3 sec/lap slower than a very well driven, well prepared Mustang GT with suspension mods and DOT Track tires (I think he was running Kumho Victoracers) in the dry...and it was the first time I'd ever had the STi on track. Having driven on several different tires, I figure those alone are good for about 4 sec/lap, and racing brake pads are good for another 2. There was also another, older 5.0 mustang on the track with me similarly prepped, and I pulled 10 (ten!) car lengths on him coming out of the slowest corner on the track and up (steep hill) the following straight. Frankly, not many people run Mustangs in SCCA because they aren't competitive with the GM products in the same class. (AS, T1, T2, specifically)

-STi owner still waiting for reality check

Hey, I am glad you like your car. And, if outrunning a much less expensive, relatively straight line oriented car in your road race inspired vehicle makes you feel good there is no law against it. I just find it very interesting that STi and Evo guys evade comparisons to the much more competitively priced (to an STi or Evo) 03 Mustang Cobra. As I said maybe on dirt or an extremely twisty track...and as someone mentioned above in rain. However, I don't see a lot of people scrambling to race on dirt or in rain as yet. Must just be the area.

Your reality check has a snake on it;)

No..let me clarify what some (ahem) are doing. SOME people are trying to make a couiple of over priced, over rated, and under performing rice burners look better than they are. If you want to get stupid about comparos lets compare the new Ford GT to the Evo8 and the STI. Hey, it ain't about price...right? Wonder who would win THAT one?

Apparently Somebody always has to to show up with a reality check for Evo and STi enthusiasts. I just made a point..and a relevant one I might add. If the little sedans cannot take the heat of the competition...well, the kitchen does have a door and they can leave the racin' to the real cars. I figure the hamsters could use a break anyway.

Apparently sombody needs to show up with a reality check for Mustangs. A Ford GT would beat the Evo8, Sti on a track, strip, but not in a rally event. Needless to say it would be embarrassed. Price didn't matter there. You see, an sti, and the evo8, have other purposes than track, strip driving, just as well as Mustangs have other purposes.

What I am replying to (until now) is the topic at hand, maybe you should post a thread on a 'non-stupid comparo' that includes a mustang.

At NHIS (road course) a few weeks ago, I ran my STi in bone stock condition (stock tires, even), and was 3 sec/lap slower than a very well driven, well prepared Mustang GT with suspension mods and DOT Track tires (I think he was running Kumho Victoracers) in the dry...and it was the first time I'd ever had the STi on track. Having driven on several different tires, I figure those alone are good for about 4 sec/lap, and racing brake pads are good for another 2. There was also another, older 5.0 mustang on the track with me similarly prepped, and I pulled 10 (ten!) car lengths on him coming out of the slowest corner on the track and up (steep hill) the following straight. Frankly, not many people run Mustangs in SCCA because they aren't competitive with the GM products in the same class. (AS, T1, T2, specifically).

Like you said yourself, a bone stock STI racing a very well driven, well prepared Mustang GT with suspension mods and DOT Track tires. So basically, a modified Mustang GT, beat a stock STI. I can belive that.

Lets try this one. A stock Mustang GT, beat a stock STI.....not quite. Any vehicle can be modified to beat other vehicles. It just so happens that (most of the time) Mustang's have to be modified to compete, which you so generously prooved.

Ah, still avoiding the shootout with the Mustang in the price range I see. I could buy the "it was about the GT versus the ricers" argument except comments like "Mustangs have to be modified" need to be qualified with stamements that acknowledge that this is not the Mustang the STi and Evo compete with price wise.

Otherwise, you just end up looking foolish, or like you are making excuses for the Evo and STi. Although, nobody would be making excuses for these cars if they didn't need them.... now would they.

As there is no more f-body to compete with (unfortunately), in their respective price ranges the Mustangs do very well indeed....virtually standing alone. In fact, I think it is more of a reflection on the STi and Evo that their enthusiasts have to resort to comparisons to much less expensive automobiles in order to feel like they can win.

Hey, why not start a Kia Reo/STi/Evo comparo. It'll make the Subie and Mitsu look gooood.

I used the Mustang GT (2000, I believe, with the 4.6) as an example because it makes the Mustang Cobra look better. The only 2003 Mustang Cobra I've seen this year has been slower than the (better driven) Mustang GT by 5+ sec/lap over similarly prepared (suspension upgrades, track tires, intake) Mustang GT. There is even some merit to the GT being better on a road course, as the restrictions for the suspension geometry of the IRS in the Cobra placed on the engineers by the Ford bean counters basically nullify the advantage that a properly designed IRS has, though the power difference does make up for it.

BTW, I've been on track 7 weekends this year, and it's rained at some point while I've been on track 5 of those weekends. 4 wide at the start on the front straight at Lime Rock is very interesting when you can't see through the spray in front of you.

I do agree that the original thread with the Mustang GT is a bit silly, and that the SVT Cobra would be a much better car to compare it to, even with the extra $3k price tag on the Cobra, and makes things a lot closer, and on a dry track may be faster than the EVO or STi until the brakes go.

I live in an area where it snows as well, and the Mustang is useless with the white stuff on the ground.

It seems the only argument you have is that a Mustang is cheaper than the others. It would of been easier just to say that than to go on and on.

But ok lets see what could be compared with a Mustang GT in a respective price range. We've got a new SRT-4 starting around 20k, Toyota MR2 turbo 20k, 350Z 28k, S2000 29k, Mustang GT 25k. Now since the 350Z/S2000 cost more than the GT, can I compare them?

Now the GT stang will be able to stay with these in the quarter, but on the track, I'm guessing its going to be playing tag at the back of the line. It considerably outweight all of these vehicles, closest to the 350Z. The GT Stang does not virtually stand alone in its class, more like virtually stands in the back. We can also throw in a standard WRX 25k, that would be fun to watch to.

Ah, still avoiding the shootout with the Mustang in the price range I see.

why start talking about price range, fact is it can't compete period.
who can't say, "well i can put $10,000 into my rx-7 and beat a 2003 viper"

were not speaking on those terms, discussion is evo-8, sti,or mustang (can't hang) gt. :iceslolan :evillol:

No question, give me the Evo 8. I feel that the Mustang GT just has no chance of competing with the STi or the Evo 8 on the track or on a rally course. I have to pick the Evo 8 over the STi because I don't like all the electronic stability and tracktion control crap it comes with. I like the raw handling of the Evo 8 over the STi, plus I just like how the Evo 8 looks over the other two.

My vote goes to the Evo....purely on personal tastes..!

Hey, I'll give kfoote his due as at least he seems to get it. He made a logical (look it up if the meaning is completely mysterious to some) argument as to why he prefers the Subie..... And, I can respect that...all...day...long.

I do not agree with everything he said, especially about the GT possibly being a better track car. (Although I do agree that the Cobra's IRS is compromised....it also happens to work very well, if not always with the finess one might expect) But, I can respect his opinion because he makes sense and knows what he is talking about. His argument has merit and he recognizes a bit of foolishness when it pops up.

I have more dragstrip time than road course time...However, I do have a decent amount of roadcourse time. I have no doubt that the Mustang is a more difficult car to drive well than the Evo or the Subie, and the Cobra would be the most difficult of all.

My point, and kfoote reinforced it for me when he acknowledged that the GT was a bit silly when the Cobra is right there, is that you can narrow a comparo down to an ignorant level and assure that your car, in your circumstances, will win. Hooray for our side.

A buddy of mine has a very, very well done mild MkIII Supra Turbo with about 330 -340hp at the wheels And more torque than most in here would believe. Almost 400lb-ft at 2500 rpm and up. (As an aside I am betting kfoote can tell you how you can make that kind of torque in a small dislacement turbowhen the peak hp # says you shouldn't.

Why??? Because, he knows what he is talking about. But, I am wondering how many of the rest of you guys can. With all his turbos I am bettin' Polygon knows too, just to add him in and give credit where it's due.

Back to the Supra, his car could make more power than it does, but delivery is smooth and the torque curve is unbelieveable for a turbo six. Handling has been addressed too, and the boy has some serious experience on a road course in some very serious cars. Much more than me or most other folks.

Just for fun he autocrosses on the weekends, and the two fastest cars on the track are usually a tweaked ZX3 Focus (Non SVT too) and a late model MR2 (Just as an FYI in response to an earlier post unless you are talking aftermarket or used Toyota does not make a turbo MR2 anymore...never did on this platform)

Frankly, he has a lot of seat time in MkIV Supra's including full on road race cars. And, he will tell you there is no way a MkIV turbo could even match the times of those nearly stock cars, never mind his MkIII. Why? Well, autocross couldn't favor those lithe, little cars much more if it tried....it is simply the nature of the beast. To base an opinion that the MR2 or Focus was a better performance car under those circumstances would be even more laughable thabn the comparo drawn here. But, it makes my point.

Now, I am waiting for someone in here to tell me how much better a performance car the new MR2 is than a MkIV Supra because in a typical Autocross the Supra's weight and size don't cut it.
Nobody would..Why? Because, again it is a stupid assumption on it's face as it is within a very limited environment (a loaded comparo I would say) and the argument just isn't logical.

The Evo and the STi are good cars....in their element on their terms. Just like every other car. But, if the majority of you guys want real respect, from guys who really walk the walk. You cannot run from real competition or comparisons and pick your competition because you think you will win. My Supra buddy doesn't, I don't, and I would bet kfoote and Polygon don't either.

Sorry to double post. But just to make sure people know. I stand by my argument that I feel, overall, the Cobra is the better track car. And, that I think the initial comparo was just loaded and illogical.

No question, give me the Evo 8. I feel that the Mustang GT just has no chance of competing with the STi or the Evo 8 on the track or on a rally course. I have to pick the Evo 8 over the STi because I don't like all the electronic stability and tracktion control crap it comes with. I like the raw handling of the Evo 8 over the STi, plus I just like how the Evo 8 looks over the other two.

The STi doesn't have traction control. If you're referring to the center differential control, some people claim it's fine in Auto mode. Personally, I have found when you are pushing the limits of the car, very bad things happen in the time the diff is changing between settings. I just leave it in manual mode, and it is a very useful (and easy to adjust) setting if used properly. It's the single biggest deciding factor in why I chose the STi over the EVO VIII.

what are the hp/torque/1/4 mile stats on the evo and sti?

and
i think the '03 cobra imho is just a GT that can do the 1/4 mile faster. i dont think it can keep up.

BUT i do think the 2000 Cobra R can
its designed specifically for track driving- bodykit and wing provides 5x the downforce @ 200 mph. other good preformance cars that would do well would be the steeda Q400(i want that car!) the Saleen's, and Roush. i think that the evo and sti would get there asses handed to them. the cobra r out handles the viper, even though its slower than it.
the only stock american car that can outhandle the cobra r is the corvette.

no dude, the 03 svt cobra has indep rear suspension, reinforced chassis, supercharger giving it 390hp 390tq, and closer steering ratio compared to the gt mustang. the cobra can do the 1/4 around 12.9-13.4, i think the car can keep up, its a fast car in the straights, and the corners. the 03 svt cobra is about as fast as the cobra r in the straights, and corners almost as good.

the only stock american car that can outhandle the cobra r is the corvette.

ok, and the sti and the evo-8 out handle the corvette.
meaning the cobra r would not hand the two there asses.

times for the sti and the evo-8
evo-8 runs 13.1 273hp and 60-0 in 106ft 0-60 in 4.6
sti runs 13.2 300hp and 60-0 in 111ft 0-60 in 4.9

not to mention the evo-8 destroted the 2003 ford svt cobra coupe.

[QUOTE=poison_ivey]
i think the '03 cobra imho is just a GT that can do the 1/4 mile faster. i dont think it can keep up.

BUT i do think the 2000 Cobra R can
its designed specifically for track driving- bodykit and wing provides 5x the downforce @ 200 mph.[QUOTE]

That would be great if it could go 200 MPH

The 2000 Cobra R was a good idea gone bad. At 3500 lbs, it's way overweight. It is faster than the standard 2000 Cobra, but was also way overpriced (I think they were something like $55k new), which puts it into the Z06 price range...where it gets killed. It is faster in a straight line than the EVO or STi, but the extra 500+ Lbs is too much to overcome.

that was a beautiful comment :iagree:

the cobra r out handles the viper, even though its slower than it.
the only stock american car that can outhandle the cobra r is the corvette.

:screwy:

Think again, ANY Viper will outhandle ANY Mustang. There are a horde of American built cars that can take down the Cobra R. What a stupid statement. Just to let you know that the heavier the car the worse it will handle.

No..let me clarify what some (ahem) are doing. SOME people are trying to make a couiple of over priced, over rated, and under performing rice burners look better than they are. If you want to get stupid about comparos lets compare the new Ford GT to the Evo8 and the STI. Hey, it ain't about price...right? Wonder who would win THAT one?

Apparently Somebody always has to to show up with a reality check for Evo and STi enthusiasts. I just made a point..and a relevant one I might add. If the little sedans cannot take the heat of the competition...well, the kitchen does have a door and they can leave the racin' to the real cars. I figure the hamsters could use a break anyway.


K, then compare a stock GT vs. a stock WRX. How do you explain an under performing rice burner pulling on a gt from a 25 mph roll? not even using the huge awd advatage off the launch.

The Cobra R was actually a good start for Ford. Its a far better performer than the standard Cobra. I've got a video of a comparision of the Cobra-R, 01 Z06, and the Viper ACR, needless to say the Viper was at the back in the track. Although I wouldn't say that would be the case for the SRT-10, the old ones were quite lacking in many competitive abilities. The Cobra-R stayed with the Z06, it was only 1 sec. slower around the tested track.
Most people weren't eager to buy this car considering the 55k price tag and only 300 being produced. It was a stripped down version of the Cobra, specifically designed for racing. (hense the R in its name) No A/C, power anything, backseat, this car was bare to the bone. But the fact that its on the same body makes it weak and overweight. The CobraR still outweighted the Z06, and Viper by a few hundred. Hopfully the new Ford GT will revive Ford to be a more competitive performer again.

in case some of you didnt know, the 00 mustang cobra has around 320 hp, but i heard that it was actually less than that, and people were complaining, while the 03 has 390 hp.

what are the hp/torque/1/4 mile stats on the evo and sti?

and
i think the '03 cobra imho is just a GT that can do the 1/4 mile faster. i dont think it can keep up.

BUT i do think the 2000 Cobra R can
its designed specifically for track driving- bodykit and wing provides 5x the downforce @ 200 mph. other good preformance cars that would do well would be the steeda Q400(i want that car!) the Saleen's, and Roush. i think that the evo and sti would get there asses handed to them. the cobra r out handles the viper, even though its slower than it.
the only stock american car that can outhandle the cobra r is the corvette.

Quotes like that show why some people have no business even talking about cars at all.

Actually, I have to agree about the Viper statement, although I don't think it was that big a deal. The fact that the Cobra R handled better than the Viper is no big surpirse, as, quite to the contrary of what everybody thinks the original Viper didn't handle that well.

The car stuck to a skidpad great, but the Viper was a porky puppy and slalomed like a pig. Also, the only term I consistently heard come up concerning 1st gen Viper handling was "scary". And, how long did the car go wthout anti-lock brakes again. I have heard it said over and over that with mods the car handled great, but Dodge never made them.

The Viper was awesome, but it was more straight line bruiser than road course cruiser in stock trim. Outfitted for racing they did much better though from what I have seen. In a straight line it would murder either Cobra...big surprise.

I am not actually a fan of the last Cobra R as IMO at that weight you may as well have left all the power amenities in it and not pretended the car was a lightweight to begin with. I don't think the performance benefits of the Cobra R outweighed what you gave up in comparisson to the new 03 Cobra. But, I do believe the Cobra R would outrun the 03 bone stock on a road course due simply to it's much improved handling.

And as far as that comparo above where the Viper lost to the Vette and the Z06 goes, before you shake your head at it if I recall they had a pro road race driver in the cars. If anyone thinks he is better than someone who does it for a living I am certain some team in the American LeMans series is likely hiring a driver.

If on only one thing the guy earlier was correct. If you wanna outhandle the 2000 Cobra R with a factory American car your car better be a C6 or a SRT10 Viper. Nothing else will do it. Again, to outhandle the first generation Viper in stock trim was no big deal. Frankly, for the money it handled awful.

If I recall the driver comlained that while it handled fine if everything went just right it was a mother to get everythiing just right and the car was wildly unpredictable. This jives with everything else I have ever heard.

.
I am not actually a fan of the last Cobra R as IMO at that weight you may as well have left all the power amenities in it and not pretended the car was a lightweight to begin with. I don't think the performance benefits of the Cobra R outweighed what you gave up in comparisson to the new 03 Cobra. But, I do believe the Cobra R would outrun the 03 bone stock on a road course due simply to it's much improved handling.

And as far as that comparo above where the Viper lost to the Vette and the Z06 goes, before you shake your head at it if I recall they had a pro road race driver in the cars. If anyone thinks he is better than someone who does it for a living I am certain some team in the American LeMans series is likely hiring a driver.


Do you know why the 00 CobraR was pushing such low hp numbers compared to the 03 Cobra? Isn't the engine in it the same in the 03 Cobra? And yeah the 00 Cobra R would of been a lot better if it were pushing the hp of the 03.


Theres no better comparison than having a pro race driver compare each car.

03 Cobra is supercharged.

The 03 Cobra is a supercharged 4.6L DOHC V-8 based on the "modular design or Romeo series engine...whichever you prefer to call it. The 00 Cobra used a naturally aspirated 5.4L DOHC V-8 based on the same engine family but quite diffrent internally.

If Ford based a Cobra R in the spirit of that 00 model on the 03 Cobra...retaining the 03's supercharger (Good luck fitting a supercharged DOHC 5.4L Romeo under a hood that doesn't look like it came from one of Bob Gliddens old pro stock cars.)..Well, a Cobra based on the 03 Cobra would likely outhandle the 00 to a pretty significant degree as well....not just outrun it in acceleration.

However, the old fox based chassis...even in this configuration...is ready for pasture. Ford has done amazing things with it, but it truly is time to come out with that completely new Mustang for 2005. I can't wait ;)

Hopfully this new Mustang that comes out doesn't retain as much weight as its predecessors. I would be very disappointed to see a new and just as heavy mustang as the others. Do you have anything on whats to come? I'm curious

Okay, the new Mustang will be based on a variation of the DEW98 platform used in the current T-Bird, Lincoln LS, and Jaguar S-Type. (Called DEW-lite on the pony) The chassis will be light years ahead of this one without doubt.

There are some changes from the more expensive DEW based cars......like the front suspension is going to be a MacPheron strut unit instead of the upper and lower A-Arm setup in the Jag, Bird, and Lincoln. Rumour mill has it this is due to problems with getting a 5.4L V-8 literally "up in there" on a production line with those big control arms in place.
Reduced cost probably didn't break Ford's heart either. Before anyone shoots MacPherson struts down note that every BMW made uses MacPherson strut front suspension.

In the rear the live axle will live on...at least in the GT and base V-6 versions. Nobody seems to have any idea what the Mach-1 will get when it shows up, and the Cobra gets IRS for sure. My guess is IRS will at least be an option in the Mach-1 if not standard. And, I believe IRS probably show up as an option in the GT eventually, but not right away.(Just my opinion)

If you want my two cents I think the move to struts up front was smart as they can be made to handle great, and they are much lighter for the drag racing crowd...less costly is a nice benefit too. I don't mind the live axle sticking around, but I do think IRS should be an option even on the lower dollar GT.

The new Mustang is getting a longer wheelbase, but overall length isn't changing much. (I am betting overall length is actually going to be a bit shorter IMO) Put simply proportions are going back to what they were like in the sixties. Most of that longer wheelbase is between the front of the door and the front wheel well as it used to be...and as it should be. (Pictures have shown this)

The car should weigh less than the current one if you take into consideration what current production DEW-based cars weigh. The Lincoln LS and Jag are both longer, larger, and more "content" heavy than any Mustang would be. And, those cars don't weigh a lot more than a current fully loaded Cobra.

For example the Jaguar S-Type is just under 4000lbs...03 Cobra is just under 3700lbs. How much lighter will it be than the current car?....we will have to wait and see. I would bet a Cobra should be at least 200lbs lighter than the current one, probably more.

As for engines the Cobra is the car Ford's SVT wants to go after the Z06 and the Viper with, not the new GT, so it is getting a major Wheaties infusion. Ford says the GT is going after bigger fish so the Mustang is left to play with those two. Seems the snake is getting a 5.4L V-8 this time around with a Lysholm style supercharger instead of the current rootes set-up.

The number 500+ hp for the nest Cobra has been tossed around even by the head of SVT...how much that plus will be nobody seems to know. The new C-6 Z06 is supposedly in this range and we know where the Viper already is so it fits. Shelby is working with Ford again, so some people wonder how this will mix up the Mustang line and wether the next "Cobra" will be badged an SVT or a Shelby...and what exactly it might be called. The rumour mill is buzzing on that one.

There are a lot of other changes too.....GT gets a lot faster.....The look is goin back to the original just as the concept car showed. You can get more info over at Brad's Mustang site...same place I get mine on the Mustang...especially the new 05. the site is awesome and the info on the new car is great.