> >> >> > Tell me about your car.
> >> >> I would if I could, but I don't have it yet. ;) I just bought it.
> >> >> Getting
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> >> >> only know of one other here in Calgary. How about yours... I'm quite
> >> >> curious.
> >> > I got mine in '98 with 3X,000 miles. At the time it was also pure
> >> > stock. It's black with a gray gut. Soon after purchase I added a full
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> > tossable. But the Cobra has far more grip and it rides much
> > smoother.
> >> I know Ford did a few things different with the Cobra.
> > The rear springs and shock valving are softer and the front sway bar
> > is smaller.
> > To sum it up, the GTs and 5.0 LX are boy racers. The Cobra is more
> > mature.
> > I was thinking of putting in the
> >> Ford C springs, but maybe the F... not sure what kind of difference there
> >> is
> >> between the two vs. the stock Cobra.
> > Stiffer.
> So, the F are stiffer than the C? Maybe that is the way I will go then.
I don't know much about the Ford springs. I was referring to
Motorsport springs vs stock Cobra.
All I can say about springs is I was very happy with my LX's
progressive-rate Eibachs.
> Not looking for a Sunday driver with this car, more like a Saturday nite
> driver.
I caution you to think long and hard before you make lots of changes.
IMO, these cars (5.0s) are starting to come into their prime. 5-10
years ago the modified cars got all the attention, but I think it's
starting to swing back the other way. The clean original/original
looking cars are the ones most desired/respected.
> What's with the smaller front sway bar?
A softer suspension sticks better on bumpy streets.
> What about tires? Do you find the 245s are good enough? Might one go a bit
> wider, especially on the rear?
IMO, going a size larger won't even be noticeable. Plus, you won't be
able to rotate your tires. Keep the 245s.
> How about the 3.08s? I think that is too tall (yes, coming from 2.73s) for
> such a car. 3.55s should be the way to go here.
Most modifiers will say go with 3.73s. But for my tastes, 3.73s are
too steep with the 3.35 first gear. 3.55s tame that gear down a bit
and still have plenty of pull. Most will call me crazy, but if I were
to do it again, I'd now go with 3.27s. With 3-buck-a-gallon gas and
speed limits/expectations of 75-85 mph, 3.27s would be a little
friendlier/funner.
> I don't know, I want subs, chassis stiffening, power adder, gears,
> suspension, exhaust... holy, I think I just rang up $20,000 in bills there!
If I was going to do something "radical", I'd pop on a Kenne Bell S/C,
dial in a mild boost level (upgrade the fuel pump and ignition
system). Then if I ever decided I no longer needed all that fun, it
would be quick and easy to take it back to pure stock.
> lol. But then there is the 100% stock angle. Those are the sweetest over
> time. I'm so confused!!
I think you know my opinion by now.
Patrick
'93 Cobra (only has a couple upgrades, I like 'em looking stock.)
BradandBrooks - 22 Sep 2007 06:49 GMT
>> >> >> > Tell me about your car.
>
[quoted text clipped - 109 lines]
> Patrick
> '93 Cobra (only has a couple upgrades, I like 'em looking stock.)
Yeah, it's a tough call. Regardless what I do, or not, I'm keeping the
stock parts. And if I'm not mistaken Eibach makes the Ford springs.
Damn, I hope the car gets here soon. It's been a month now since I bought
it, but I hear it's finally across the border!
TTYS.
Brad
BradandBrooks - 22 Sep 2007 07:13 GMT
>> >> >> > Tell me about your car.
>
[quoted text clipped - 109 lines]
> Patrick
> '93 Cobra (only has a couple upgrades, I like 'em looking stock.)
Oh, one more thing... the only car rag, er, mag, I could find on a 1993
Cobra road test said that the extra 30 horsepower comes "via low-end torque"
(though the torque numbers are the same as the GT) and "thus, driveability".
WTH does that mean? I can't imagine a car you can start from a dead stop in
2nd gear with 2.73s out back sacrificing driveability. (I've done this in
my GT before many times... yeah yeah... hard on the car, whatever...) Any
idea what this means or is it another mis-guided comment from a car rag?
Brad
NoOption5L@aol.com - 22 Sep 2007 13:48 GMT
> <NoOptio...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 121 lines]
> my GT before many times... yeah yeah... hard on the car, whatever...) Any
> idea what this means or is it another mis-guided comment from a car rag?
Brad,
No, they're correct. It simply means the torque curve is a little
higher in rev range compared to the standard 5.0. In other words,
it'll feel a little less punchy/torquey down low, but it's stronger up
top -- it's more of a rever than a grunter.
Patrick
BradandBrooks - 23 Sep 2007 09:56 GMT
>> <NoOptio...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>
[quoted text clipped - 145 lines]
>
> Patrick
Cool. Thanks. Some 3.55s will rectify that I am sure.
Gawd, my car better get here soon! I'm going crazy! lol
B
WindsorFox - 24 Sep 2007 01:02 GMT
>>> <NoOptio...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 124 lines]
>
> B
Man up, get the 3.73s

Signature
"Wow, I want a billion Dollars and a pet monkey!" - Dale Jarrett
"Paul's vocabulary is rather large, but
most of the words have no meaning in English" - Joe Canuck
BradandBrooks - 24 Sep 2007 08:28 GMT
>>>> <NoOptio...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 124 lines]
>
> Man up, get the 3.73s
I dunno. I was once shown some really interesting math by the guys at
Waterloo Ford in Edmonton (ugh, Edmonton, I know...lol ;)). Anyway, they
showed me how 3.55s were the best gear for acceleration on the 5.0 given the
tranny ratios. It was totally cool. I wish I had saved that.
Brad