Sifrino3
May 19th, 2004, 01:42 PM
I was looking up some numbers and found them to be a little low or at least to me. Maybe the information I am getting is wrong. But here they are side by side. Just blahing!
1990 Lincoln Mark VII
5.0L H.O. 302 V8
Horsepower ~ 225
Weight ~ 3779lbs
Hp ~ 225@4200rpm
Torque (lbs-ft) ~ 300@3200rpm
16.1 sec @ 88 mph
1993 Ford Cobra
5.0L H.O. 302 V8
Horsepower ~ 235
Weight ~ 3255lbs
Hp ~ 235@4600rpm
Torque (lbs-ft) ~ 280@4000rpm
14.4 sec @ 98 mph
Jibit
May 19th, 2004, 02:17 PM
I was looking up some numbers and found them to be a little low or at least to me. Maybe the information I am getting is wrong. But here they are side by side. Just blahing!
1990 Lincoln Mark VII
5.0L H.O. 302 V8
Horsepower ~ 225
Weight ~ 3779lbs
Hp ~ 225@4200rpm
Torque (lbs-ft) ~ 300@3200rpm
16.1 sec @ 88 mph
1993 Ford Cobra
5.0L H.O. 302 V8
Horsepower ~ 235
Weight ~ 3255lbs
Hp ~ 235@4600rpm
Torque (lbs-ft) ~ 280@4000rpm
14.4 sec @ 98 mph
That sounds about right, the 5.0 didn't have that much power. Why do you think everyone was going with the Camaros and TransAms back then. I remember hearing a track test and they couldn't get the cobra up to speed (comparable to the GM's) until they put tape on the hood, window, and any other spot they could find to allow the air just to flow over the car. Even then it still couldn't play with the big dogs. I always heard that they had traction problems as well.
Sifrino3
May 19th, 2004, 06:15 PM
1990 Chevy Camaro IROC-Z
5.0L V8
Horsepower ~ 210
Weight ~3077lbs
Hp ~ 210@4400
Torque (lbs-ft) ~ 285@3200rpm
14.4 sec @ 96mph
1993 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am
5.7L V8
Horsepower ~ 275
Weight ~ 3581lbs
Hp ~ 275@5000rpm
Torque (lbs-ft) ~ 325@2400rpm
14.8 sec @ 95mph
Jibit
May 20th, 2004, 08:34 AM
1990 Chevy Camaro IROC-Z
5.0L V8
Horsepower ~ 210
Weight ~3077lbs
Hp ~ 210@4400
Torque (lbs-ft) ~ 285@3200rpm
14.4 sec @ 96mph
1993 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am
5.7L V8
Horsepower ~ 275
Weight ~ 3581lbs
Hp ~ 275@5000rpm
Torque (lbs-ft) ~ 325@2400rpm
14.8 sec @ 95mph
The TA quarter looks low but then again the thing weighs a lot more thant the IROC Z. Maybe it was the top speed that they the GM's were better at. Where are you getting these stats from. If they are from the manufacturer themselves I wouldn't trust it. A lot of manufacturers were known to derate the vehicles. The comparison I saw was from "Car and Driver", which I think is more of a real world situation but I don't remember what year the cars were.
SC_Steve
May 20th, 2004, 12:08 PM
the IROC times seem to be off... especially for a 305.
I've raced many stock 305 IROC's and I absolutly RAPED them with my old supercoupe which hit a BEST of 15.0 flat
