Cobra Intake vs. Stock Intake - Ford Mustang Forums : Corral.net Mustang Forum
Go Back   Ford Mustang Forums : Corral.net Mustang Forum > Windsor Tech Forums > 5.0/5.8 Engine Tech

Corral.net is the premier Ford Mustang Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-11-2008, 05:57 PM   #1
Registered User

Trader Feedback: (12)
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 176

Cobra Intake vs. Stock Intake

I was thinking of ordering a Cobra Intake Upper/Lower. And was wondering if there is how much performance increase over the Stocker???
jermdawg is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 03-11-2008, 06:05 PM   #2
Registered User
 
90 LX TC's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (53)
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Stafford,VA
Posts: 1,899

a good bit..as the major restriction in the stock set-up is the lower...why not save a 100-150 bucks and get a Explorer set-up??? same thing and they look better IMO. run one on my car.
__________________
90 LX Fully Built 2.3T88GT 302400RWHP/402RWTQ
Scoupe89 is a idiot/doesnt know what the hell he is selling. Buyer beware!
90 LX TC is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-11-2008, 06:07 PM   #3
Registered User

Trader Feedback: (12)
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 176

Don't know much, actually haven't read up much on the Explorers. I guess I will have to look into them. THANKS
jermdawg is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-11-2008, 07:13 PM   #4
Registered User
 
Michael Yount's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (7)
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 31,663

Cobra/Explorer/Mountaineer/GT40 tubular all share the same lower -- and as with the stocker, it's the flow restriction, so they all perform about the same.
__________________
Michael Yount - Charlotte, NC - 82 Volvo 242 - 5.0L, T5Z, 8.8" rear; '10 Cayman S
Michael Yount is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-11-2008, 07:44 PM   #5
Registered User
 
90 LX TC's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (53)
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Stafford,VA
Posts: 1,899

and just to clear it up stock mustang lower puts out around 130-140 cfm while stock GT-40 style put out around 190-205cfm...stock heads flow around 160ish CFM...so with that intake the heads become next in-line for the restriction.
__________________
90 LX Fully Built 2.3T88GT 302400RWHP/402RWTQ
Scoupe89 is a idiot/doesnt know what the hell he is selling. Buyer beware!
90 LX TC is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-11-2008, 07:54 PM   #6
Registered User
 
Michael Yount's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (7)
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 31,663

....and, if you're not gonna replace the heads, the more economical approach is to have tmoss port the stock lower - he can take it up to around 180-190 cfm....
__________________
Michael Yount - Charlotte, NC - 82 Volvo 242 - 5.0L, T5Z, 8.8" rear; '10 Cayman S
Michael Yount is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-11-2008, 09:02 PM   #7
Registered User
 
$uperstang's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (11)
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,789

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Yount View Post
....and, if you're not gonna replace the heads, the more economical approach is to have tmoss port the stock lower - he can take it up to around 180-190 cfm....
Better yet get yourself the gt40 based intake with a tmoss port job and have it flowing 240-250cfm.
__________________
1990GT - AOD
325ci Stroker
11.85@116 NA with Drag Radials
1.59 60'
$uperstang is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-11-2008, 09:27 PM   #8
MFE
Super Moderator
 
MFE's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 25,839

Putting a Cobra intake, 65mm TB, and 75mm MAF on my stock 5.0 top and bottom end, with nothing else installed prior other than shorties, pulleys, K&N, cat-back and 3.55's, netted me a solid and infinitely repeatable 3-4 tenths and 3-4 mph in the 1/4.
MFE is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-11-2008, 10:15 PM   #9
Registered User
 
tmoss's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (42)
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: St Louis, MO
Posts: 9,619

there is a lot of info on this subject on my website - spend some time reading in the tech section.
__________________
Tom Moss
88GT Vert 5spd 3:73,Crower 15511 @ 109,70mm MAF w/19# injs,70mm TB,GT40P 1.85/1.55,Jet-Hot P headers, H pipe w/dumped Flows (no more drone),Holley SMII intake.www.fastlanecars.comhttp://tmoss.efidynotuning.com/
tmoss is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-09-2008, 01:39 PM   #10
Registered User
 
hypersurf1's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (0)
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Millstone, NJ
Posts: 52

Quote:
Originally Posted by tmoss View Post
there is a lot of info on this subject on my website - spend some time reading in the tech section.
What is your website? I recently got an 88 vert im looking to put some more power into N/A and on a budget. Thanks.
__________________
2007 Shelby GT, Paxton 2200 SL, 4.10's, 499RWHP 440RWTQ

Last edited by hypersurf1; 12-09-2008 at 01:41 PM.
hypersurf1 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-09-2008, 02:04 PM   #11
Registered User
 
DangerWillRobinson's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (46)
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: MIAMI
Posts: 1,171

The GT40 intake setup helped me lay down 246/300 at the wheels. It's A BIG difference from stock.
DangerWillRobinson is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-09-2008, 02:04 PM   #12
Registered User
 
DangerWillRobinson's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (46)
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: MIAMI
Posts: 1,171

How much does a tmoss port job run anyway? I cant see his sight.
DangerWillRobinson is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-09-2008, 03:16 PM   #13
Registered User

Trader Feedback: (0)
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: SoCal
Posts: 495

or you could get the holley systemax I lower...


http://www.gofastnews.com/board/tech...ranteed-2.html
__________________
my personal site thatmetalbox.com
Hamutoff is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-09-2008, 04:30 PM   #14
Registered User
 
hypersurf1's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (0)
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Millstone, NJ
Posts: 52

how would explorer GT40 heads/intake ported and polished, with 70mm bbk TB, and comp cams 1.7 rocker arms wake up a stock 1988 GT?
__________________
2007 Shelby GT, Paxton 2200 SL, 4.10's, 499RWHP 440RWTQ
hypersurf1 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-09-2008, 04:44 PM   #15
Registered User
 
DangerWillRobinson's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (46)
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: MIAMI
Posts: 1,171

Quote:
Originally Posted by hypersurf1 View Post
how would explorer GT40 heads/intake ported and polished, with 70mm bbk TB, and comp cams 1.7 rocker arms wake up a stock 1988 GT?

You'll notice it! Without the heads I made some impressive numbers and the car feels MUCH better. It's completely different car at the top of the rev's now.
DangerWillRobinson is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-09-2008, 04:52 PM   #16
Registered User

Trader Feedback: (0)
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: -
Posts: 3,419

Quote:
Originally Posted by jermdawg View Post
I was thinking of ordering a Cobra Intake Upper/Lower. And was wondering if there is how much performance increase over the Stocker???
Be aware that the Cobra intakes are now made in China and have had issues like excessive oil burning,distributor clearance problems,poor casting quality.

I would try and find an original made in USA Cobra instead of the made in China junk version or use a lower cost Explorer intake.
8950HO is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-09-2008, 04:56 PM   #17
Registered User
 
hypersurf1's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (0)
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Millstone, NJ
Posts: 52

Quote:
Originally Posted by DangerWillRobinson View Post
You'll notice it! Without the heads I made some impressive numbers and the car feels MUCH better. It's completely different car at the top of the rev's now.
Did you have to do anything special to get the intake to work? I see some have had to drill into the manifold for some reason.
__________________
2007 Shelby GT, Paxton 2200 SL, 4.10's, 499RWHP 440RWTQ
hypersurf1 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-09-2008, 06:37 PM   #18
Registered User
 
Trey LePark's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Greenville, NC
Posts: 1,505

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamutoff View Post
or you could get the holley systemax I lower...


http://www.gofastnews.com/board/tech...ranteed-2.html
It's kinda pointless to send someone looking for something that is impossible to find. Holley only made a few of those lowers and they're harder to find than a glacier in the Sahara desert.
__________________
'92 5.0 5 speed
Trey LePark is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-09-2008, 09:53 PM   #19
Registered User
 
tmoss's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (42)
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: St Louis, MO
Posts: 9,619

my website is down indefinately - that post referring you to my site was done last March. My Webmaster/Site Host lost his business and my site had to come down.

Budgets mods would be to port your lower intake and get the Stock HO intake to flow in the 200cfm range or get a used Explorer that flows the same in stock condition to use- but they do trake some minor mods to work if you get a 96 Explorer intake. I have three 96 Explorers with internal EGR like the stock HO intake if anyone needs one.

Take a look at my sig for the power I got from these parts.
__________________
Tom Moss
88GT Vert 5spd 3:73,Crower 15511 @ 109,70mm MAF w/19# injs,70mm TB,GT40P 1.85/1.55,Jet-Hot P headers, H pipe w/dumped Flows (no more drone),Holley SMII intake.www.fastlanecars.comhttp://tmoss.efidynotuning.com/

Last edited by tmoss; 12-09-2008 at 09:55 PM.
tmoss is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-10-2008, 01:44 AM   #20
Registered User

Trader Feedback: (0)
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: SoCal
Posts: 495

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey LePark View Post
It's kinda pointless to send someone looking for something that is impossible to find. Holley only made a few of those lowers and they're harder to find than a glacier in the Sahara desert.

really, how many did they make then?
__________________
my personal site thatmetalbox.com
Hamutoff is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-10-2008, 01:52 AM   #21
Registered User

Trader Feedback: (0)
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: SoCal
Posts: 495

on a stock 5.0 the cobra might not be the best possible upgrade for a DD even though other intake combos might be even worse

This thread talks about it..
Trickflow vs. Cobra intakes on a stock motor

Just proves that on a mild 5.0, even the Cobra intake is too much and causes a loss of torque below 3500rpm. A Tmoss ported stock intake would be better on a stock-headed, stock cammed 5.0 until it's time to upgrade those items. With better-flowing heads, the Cobra intake (Tmoss ported of course ) would then be a great mod.

and back to my eariler suggestion if we're not talking extreme engine perhaps mild/stock as I am simply guessing... the upper might be ok for you then the lower is the restirction sure port lower is a good suggestion or get the systemax I lower, I JUST BOUGHT A NEW ONE MYSELF from a www store, and they come up on eBay though they have not been made for a few years: YES true, but neither have gt40 irons, gt40p, or 5.0 fox mustangs for that matter, etc.
__________________
my personal site thatmetalbox.com
Hamutoff is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-10-2008, 01:58 AM   #22
Registered User

Trader Feedback: (0)
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: bement, IL
Posts: 232

...get an Explorer...Seems to have a little less low end than my previous cars with an extended powerband compared to my other cars....which were essentially the same but without the intake and with less weight. So the other cars seemed just as quick with less mods

Last edited by z28freak84; 12-10-2008 at 02:02 AM.
z28freak84 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-10-2008, 04:06 AM   #23
Registered User
 
302EFI's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (22)
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Melbourne, Florida
Posts: 1,345

Quote:
Originally Posted by DangerWillRobinson View Post
The GT40 intake setup helped me lay down 246/300 at the wheels. It's A BIG difference from stock.
LOL...thats not that much considering a stock HO motor is 225/300..even though thats at the flywheel...
__________________
" Do the world a favor & drive this peice of junk off a cliff "
302EFI is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-10-2008, 04:12 AM   #24
Registered User
 
hypersurf1's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (0)
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Millstone, NJ
Posts: 52

thats about 75rwhp more then stock. ford corrected the rating of the 88-93 mustangs to 205HP, the 225 number was overinflated and done to sell cars. using 205hp that would be about 174rwhp stock for a manual trans. so hes about 75rwhp higher, a pretty good improvement for minimal cash outlay. That is actually awesome considering he never cracked open the heads I would assume with some GT40 heads he would be around 275rwhp.
__________________
2007 Shelby GT, Paxton 2200 SL, 4.10's, 499RWHP 440RWTQ

Last edited by hypersurf1; 12-10-2008 at 04:16 AM.
hypersurf1 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-10-2008, 04:16 AM   #25
Registered User
 
302EFI's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (22)
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Melbourne, Florida
Posts: 1,345

Quote:
Originally Posted by hypersurf1 View Post
thats about 75rwhp more then stock. ford corrected the rating of the 88-93 mustangs to 205HP, the 225 number was overinflated and done to sell cars. using 205hp that would be about 174rwhp stock for a manual trans. so hes about 75rwhp higher, a pretty good improvement for minimal cash outlay.

Thats not really minimal cash output with the other mods in his sig

Also I beleive your wrong about your numbers...

88-92 was advertised at 225 HP

'93 was rated a 205 HP (they rated it with accs on to make the new '94 look "better" )
__________________
" Do the world a favor & drive this peice of junk off a cliff "
302EFI is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-10-2008, 07:23 AM   #26
Registered User
 
Trey LePark's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Greenville, NC
Posts: 1,505

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamutoff View Post
really, how many did they make then?
I don't know but it couldn't have been very many. I've been casually looking for one for about 5 years and I've never seen one anywhere. Do you know where there is one available?
__________________
'92 5.0 5 speed
Trey LePark is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-10-2008, 07:34 AM   #27
Registered User
 
Trey LePark's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Greenville, NC
Posts: 1,505

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamutoff View Post
get the systemax I lower, I JUST BOUGHT A NEW ONE MYSELF from a www store,
Please provide a link to a Systemax I lower for sale anywhere! I have an extrude honed stock upper I'd like to pair it with.
__________________
'92 5.0 5 speed
Trey LePark is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-10-2008, 08:25 AM   #28
Registered User
 
DangerWillRobinson's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (46)
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: MIAMI
Posts: 1,171

Quote:
Originally Posted by hypersurf1 View Post
thats about 75rwhp more then stock. ford corrected the rating of the 88-93 mustangs to 205HP, the 225 number was overinflated and done to sell cars. using 205hp that would be about 174rwhp stock for a manual trans. so hes about 75rwhp higher, a pretty good improvement for minimal cash outlay. That is actually awesome considering he never cracked open the heads I would assume with some GT40 heads he would be around 275rwhp.
The closest to stock my car ever was made 198/242 at the wheels with only an off-road x-pipe dumped.

Then I added the setup in my sig and it made the 246/300. BTW, I bought all the parts used and spent a minimal amount (less than $600).

So I'd say yes you are right sir... for a minimal amount of cash, you can make good numbers. To the OP, I would say it's a good investment if you want some more power. But when you start changing parts, it only gets worse... you wont want to stop.

This weekend I am bolting on a set of AFR 165's and 1.7rr's with a Lunati cam. I hope to hit 300/340 to the wheels now. Got those pre-owned too for a good deal.
DangerWillRobinson is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-10-2008, 08:49 AM   #29
Registered User
 
tmoss's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (42)
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: St Louis, MO
Posts: 9,619

on stock E7 or GT40 heads, no EFI intake will make as much torque and power below 4,000 rpm as a ported stock HO intake and it won't loose all that much up to about 5,200-5,500 rpm depending on the cam used.
__________________
Tom Moss
88GT Vert 5spd 3:73,Crower 15511 @ 109,70mm MAF w/19# injs,70mm TB,GT40P 1.85/1.55,Jet-Hot P headers, H pipe w/dumped Flows (no more drone),Holley SMII intake.www.fastlanecars.comhttp://tmoss.efidynotuning.com/
tmoss is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-10-2008, 10:37 AM   #30
Registered User
 
hypersurf1's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (0)
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Millstone, NJ
Posts: 52

Quote:
Originally Posted by 302EFI View Post
Thats not really minimal cash output with the other mods in his sig

Also I beleive your wrong about your numbers...

88-92 was advertised at 225 HP

'93 was rated a 205 HP (they rated it with accs on to make the new '94 look "better" )
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1987-1...-mustang11.htm

Dont be an idiot, they didnt magically downgrade the power one year. They over rated it from the get go. You probably dont even own a Mustang, go back to chevrolet world where you came from! Its people like this that make me take Xanax.

"They rated it with the accesories on" are you serious, your not that dumb are you?

Moron!
__________________
2007 Shelby GT, Paxton 2200 SL, 4.10's, 499RWHP 440RWTQ

Last edited by hypersurf1; 12-10-2008 at 12:07 PM.
hypersurf1 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-10-2008, 12:00 PM   #31
Registered User

Trader Feedback: (13)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 124

Quote:
Originally Posted by tmoss View Post
on stock E7 or GT40 heads, no EFI intake will make as much torque and power below 4,000 rpm as a ported stock HO intake and it won't loose all that much up to about 5,200-5,500 rpm depending on the cam used.
What if porting is not an option due to class rule restrictions (NASA CMC)? I assume the GT40 intake, also stock, would be the better choice with GT40 heads? How badly would the stock HO intake choke the GT40 heads or would that be a decent combo to try? I have both intakes. Currently running stock E7s with a stock SN95 HO upper/lower, stock SN95 exhaust manifolds, stock SN95 MAF, TB, etc. with off-road X-pipe. It makes 225/293 RW on a Dynojet. Looking to make some legal upgrades with the GT40 parts to get into the 250 RWHP range.
Matt King is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-10-2008, 12:05 PM   #32
Registered User
 
hypersurf1's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (0)
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Millstone, NJ
Posts: 52

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt King View Post
What if porting is not an option due to class rule restrictions (NASA CMC)? I assume the GT40 intake, also stock, would be the better choice with GT40 heads? How badly would the stock HO intake choke the GT40 heads or would that be a decent combo to try? I have both intakes. Currently running stock E7s with a stock SN95 HO upper/lower, stock SN95 exhaust manifolds, stock SN95 MAF, TB, etc. with off-road X-pipe. It makes 225/293 RW on a Dynojet. Looking to make some legal upgrades with the GT40 parts to get into the 250 RWHP range.

Im pretty sure that an unported gt40 would kill a unported stock intake on the flow bench. Its only when the stock lower is ported that it can compare to the gt40.
__________________
2007 Shelby GT, Paxton 2200 SL, 4.10's, 499RWHP 440RWTQ
hypersurf1 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-10-2008, 12:06 PM   #33
Registered User

Trader Feedback: (2)
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Manteca, CA
Posts: 1,929

Quote:
Originally Posted by 90 LX TC View Post
and just to clear it up stock mustang lower puts out around 130-140 cfm while stock GT-40 style put out around 190-205cfm...stock heads flow around 160ish CFM...so with that intake the heads become next in-line for the restriction.
+1, only I'll take it a step farther. Just MHO, but the cobra intake should not be put on stock heads unless they've been worked over. You lose ALL sorts of TQ to gain maybe 10 hp over 4000rpm. The car will drive better and probably be faster with a stock untouched intake.
slo5oh is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-10-2008, 12:22 PM   #34
Registered User
 
carrew's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (5)
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Home of the Indy 500
Posts: 16,863

I saw a new in the box systemax 1 for sale about 2 weeks ago and they wanted $650 . I know it comes with a matched cam, but thats systemax 2 pricing. You could do better and cheaper with a Explorer upper, tmoss lower, and FTI custom cam setup for that combo for about the same money.

explorer manifold - $150-$200
Tmoss ported - $150
FTI custom cam - $300
__________________
2014 Camaro 1LE
2001 Cobra White SOLD
1989 Mustang GT "F0xR0d" SOLD
12.49 @ 116.8 mph (BFG KDW Street tire)
carrew is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-10-2008, 01:45 PM   #35
Registered User
 
tmoss's Avatar

Trader Feedback: (42)
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: St Louis, MO
Posts: 9,619

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt King View Post
What if porting is not an option due to class rule restrictions (NASA CMC)? I assume the GT40 intake, also stock, would be the better choice with GT40 heads?
For classes that allow no porting, I would use the GT40 family of intakes over a stock HO.
__________________
Tom Moss
88GT Vert 5spd 3:73,Crower 15511 @ 109,70mm MAF w/19# injs,70mm TB,GT40P 1.85/1.55,Jet-Hot P headers, H pipe w/dumped Flows (no more drone),Holley SMII intake.www.fastlanecars.comhttp://tmoss.efidynotuning.com/
tmoss is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Bookmarks

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Ford Mustang Forums : Corral.net Mustang Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:22 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
© 2010-2011 Corral.net

Garage Plus vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.