the cobalt would beat a 2000gt from a roll. from a dig thats a different story. the 2000's had less hp than the 2001's up. if the cobalt had slicks then it would be close until the mustang got into 3rd and then the cobalt's top end comes in. ive seen a cobalt stay next to a 1999 cobra from 45 up and that was a 100% stock cobalt ss.
Team MF Member #2046 Posts: 12516
Joined: 1/22/2004 From: United States Status: offline
quote:
ORIGINAL: redstanger
i had a friend that had a 99gt that had mid-pipe and catback and intake. i beat him with my 2001 gt that just had catback.
rofl this has NOTHING to do with your compression ratios. Not only is there a difference driver to driver, but there will always be a difference in cars, even ones that are exactly the same.
Look at LS1s. I have heard of them dynoing 320+ WHP, and others dynoing inthe 280 range, with the same trans/year/everything.
I dunno who told ya about the compression ratios but they were wrong.
< Message edited by 2000GT4.6 -- 6/5/2006 9:36:10 PM >
this is the page i think. 99's have lower compression than 2000-2004. 2000 had the same compression but different belt tensioner so there is a difference somewhat lol.
well 2000, i do remember seeing somewhere there is a slight compression difference, but it is nothing that matters any,,
all 99-04's are drivers race, if you beat a 99 with catback and midpipe and you had just a catback, you beat a car that MIGHT have had 2-3 more hp than you
if they were different transmissions from one another, then it negates the mods
Team MF Member #2046 Posts: 12516
Joined: 1/22/2004 From: United States Status: offline
quote:
ORIGINAL: redstanger
this is the page i think. 99's have lower compression than 2000-2004. 2000 had the same compression but different belt tensioner so there is a difference somewhat lol.
check out that page closely and they ahve the same compression ratio for the 98s as they do the 99s. I am 99.99 percent sure it is a typo.
there are a few minor diferences in the cars (IAT sensor location, size of the bungs on the intake, etc etc) but the average 99 will run with the average 04 all things being equal. Also, the eariler cars had a t-45 and the newer ones have a 3650 with a slightly different 5th gear ratio.
Thats not what got your buddies car beat though. Either you car simply ran better from the factory or you outdrove em.
and I dunno wtf was with the cobra vs coblat race you saw. Something was up, cause a coblat definatly will not run door to door with a 99 cobra stock to stock
EDIT: The more I look at it hte more that page is screwed up. It also shows some funky ass number for the t/b on the 99s. I definatly know that the 99 T/b is exactly the same as the 2000. It also shows the 2000 has a bigger combustion chamber and the same piston but a higher compression ratio? WTF?
< Message edited by 2000GT4.6 -- 6/5/2006 9:52:03 PM >
idk i thought it was weird to. the thing is the cobalt had a little more momentom than the cobra did. i was suprised to. you should of seen the kid in the cobra. his face was priceless. lol.
aw. look at codyss. STAGE2 moron. he is around 270. while you are down at 230. lets see this mmm. less weight, more power, better gear ratio. mmm dont you remember physics.your odds are against you.
Team MF Member #2046 Posts: 12516
Joined: 1/22/2004 From: United States Status: offline
when did mach ever say he could beat cody?
Mach's car should run a mid/high 13 with a good driver.
What I love about this thread is that cody instantly claims it was a ****ty driver. If a slowbalt driver goes down it was the driver, if they manage to hold a GT within a carlength it was the super duper coblat ss
< Message edited by 2000GT4.6 -- 6/5/2006 10:07:31 PM >
Printable Version
RE: Me vs. Cobalt SS/SC - 
