Cobra vs Today's Cars

[Cobra #3170]

Just an opinion,

New cars are clearly superior to original Cobras as well as 99.9 % of the replicas. The Cobra suffers from a short wheel base, narrow track width, poor torsional rigidity, terrible suspension geometry, bad aero and most important of all, tires and wheels that are absolutely no match for modern 18-20" wheels and wide tires. I have owned a 2002 Z06, a 2005 Viper and now a Ford GT. All of these cars would destroy my Cobra when it was new in 1965 under any conditions. The biggest short fall is in the tire department. Any 15 or 16" diameter tire that will fit on a Cobra including full racing slicks is inferior to the new wide radial 18-20" street tires available on new cars. Unfortunately, the new tires require good suspension geometry to work properly and the Cobra’s (most) do not have that because of packaging limitations. The Cobra is also very difficult to drive because of the short wheel base, high power to weight and narrow track so an equal driver in a modern car will be faster. Other factors like power brakes, power steering, ABS, traction control and active suspension are additional disadvantages.

[DMXF]

Originally Posted by Cobra #3170

The Cobra suffers from a short wheel base, narrow track width, poor torsional rigidity, terrible suspension geometry, bad aero and most important of all, tires and wheels that are absolutely no match for modern 18-20" wheels and wide tires.

Bruce - Please expand on these issues, like poor handling, with data, graphs, etc. You have far more experience than me, but from what I see and hear, a properly set up original spec Cobra is no slouch. The wheelbase is almost the same as a modern Porsche, so that alone isn't that big a handicap. The biggest issue I understand with the Cobra's suspension is excessive rear toe steer, which can be minimized to a tolerable level. Vintage type tires that will fit a Cobra are slightly narrower than some modern supercars, but if you look at the unit tire loading the Cobra is still actually superior. Here's another bit of comparison:

Lap times at some race tracks also don't support the Cobra as being so bad. Here are some recent lap times from Road America:

Car Lap time (min, sec)
CSX4000 Cobra 2:24
'74 Porsche 911RSR 2:27
'98 Porsche GT3 Cup 2:30
'97 Panoz GTS 2:30.9
'96 Porsche 993RSR 2:34.9
'65 Corvette roadster 2:26.7
'66 GT350 2:31.9

I believe Bill Murray was doing about 2:23 with CSX3032, which is probably the closest you will find to how Shelby American would have prepped these cars for a works effort back in the 60's.

For comparison, here's Road America lap info I found on the web on some newer cars:

"I was at Road America too this past weekend; thankfully, Sunday's weather made up for Saturday's rain and sleet.

This was my first real time on a race track. My Z06 is stock except for Hawk Blue's, Motul brake fluid, lowered 5 turns, and a street alignment. I did a best of 2:52 and am happy with that since I was hoping to break 3:00 (..I was in the Novice class in Torch Red).

Anyway, I let my buddy drive my car who does 2:34's in his 265 rwhp Porsche 928 Euro (..the sweetest sounding car the entire weekend), and we went out in the 'A' class. Anyway, the black GT3 zipped by us after Turn 5 and we gave chase, but the GT3 slowly pulled away, and after two laps he was out of sight. I was impressed how fast it was down the straights, and impressed too we were able to hang with him as long as we did. During the session, my buddy's wife clocked us at 2:42; not too bad for someone driving a car he never took around a track before.

So I'm guessing based upon our 2:42's with the GT3 that you guys must have been slightly faster doing high-2:40's/low-2:41's; is that close?"

I've also seen lap times of what Bill Murray can do in CSX3032 at Watkins Glen and I think it's notable better than a Z06. I'm not saying the Cobra is perfect, but I bet if you tasked McLaren's race shop to prep an original Cobra for vintage racing and specified they retain most of the major original components, I bet it would smoke just about anything off the showroom floor on a smooth track, short of something like a McLaren F1 or the like. The power to weight advantage is just so superior its hard to make up for with subtle improvements here and there.

[Cobra #3170]

I do not wish to get in one of your "look at this 1967 graph that shows bla bla bla" public debates; the laws of physics have not been repealed to my knowledge. Short cars have a tendency to be unstable, especially high horsepower cars, why do you think dragsters have such long wheel bases?
Narrow cars transfer more weight to the outside wheels than wider cars, how many modern race cars are narrow? A stock Cobra has very little camber gain front or rear, you have to compensate for body roll and tire distortion with camber change, the Cobra does a very poor job of that.
You are quoting amateur driver times and vintage racer times both of which are usually quite slow. I believe Mr. Murray may be the exception to that and probably has a superbly prepared car to go along with his talent. A CTS-V Cadillac in race trim laps Road America in 2:15 and a similarly prepared Gt-3 Porsche does about 1:20. I would say that answers the question of superiority.

If you will have your car ready I would like to challenge you to a Cobra vs. Ford GT race at SAAC 35 in Willow Springs. You can bring your Weber carbed 427, with Ferrari designed valve train and I will bring my bone stock Ford GT and we can compare lap times. We all love Cobras here but the past is the past, let it go and enjoy the car for what it is, an untamed animal that can be a blast to drive. Part of the cars charm is that whenever you drive it really fast you think you have just cheated death. My GT does not make me feel like that although the Corvette did a little bit with the stability control off.

Please let me know if you will be available for SAAC 35 and I will make sure I have a clear calendar. I would like to leave it at that rather than get in one of those long post after post debates.



Lap times at some race tracks also don't support the Cobra as being so bad. Here are some recent lap times from Road America:

Car Lap time (min, sec)
CSX4000 Cobra 2:24
'74 Porsche 911RSR 2:27
'98 Porsche GT3 Cup 2:30
'97 Panoz GTS 2:30.9
'96 Porsche 993RSR 2:34.9
'65 Corvette roadster 2:26.7
'66 GT350 2:31.9

I believe Bill Murray was doing about 2:23 with CSX3032, which is probably the closest you will find to how Shelby American would have prepped these cars for a works effort back in the 60's.

For comparison, here's Road America lap info I found on the web on some newer cars:

"I was at Road America too this past weekend; thankfully, Sunday's weather made up for Saturday's rain and sleet.

This was my first real time on a race track. My Z06 is stock except for Hawk Blue's, Motul brake fluid, lowered 5 turns, and a street alignment. I did a best of 2:52 and am happy with that since I was hoping to break 3:00 (..I was in the Novice class in Torch Red).

Anyway, I let my buddy drive my car who does 2:34's in his 265 rwhp Porsche 928 Euro (..the sweetest sounding car the entire weekend), and we went out in the 'A' class. Anyway, the black GT3 zipped by us after Turn 5 and we gave chase, but the GT3 slowly pulled away, and after two laps he was out of sight. I was impressed how fast it was down the straights, and impressed too we were able to hang with him as long as we did. During the session, my buddy's wife clocked us at 2:42; not too bad for someone driving a car he never took around a track before.

So I'm guessing based upon our 2:42's with the GT3 that you guys must have been slightly faster doing high-2:40's/low-2:41's; is that close?"

I've also seen lap times of what Bill Murray can do in CSX3032 at Watkins Glen and I think it's notable better than a Z06. I'm not saying the Cobra is perfect, but I bet if you tasked McLaren's race shop to prep an original Cobra for vintage racing and specified they retain most of the major original components, I bet it would smoke just about anything off the showroom floor on a smooth track, short of something like a McLaren F1 or the like. The power to weight advantage is just so superior its hard to make up for with subtle improvements here and there.[/quote]

[REAL 1]

Chaplin: Yeah, I got the idea for the plate from a "friend" right here on CC.

One day when the kids are all grown and I have time for a dedicated track car I can transfer the plate to the track car so he'll know whose passing him.

Red: I like Megan Fox. Good choice.

Kate Beckisale would be my choice on the other but if she weren't available Kim would do just fine.

[John McMahon]

Originally Posted by REAL 1

Chaplin: Yeah, I got the idea for the plate from a "friend" right here on CC.

One day when the kids are all grown and I have time for a dedicated track car I can transfer the plate to the track car so he'll know whose passing him.

Red: I like Megan Fox. Good choice.

Evan,

You have the perfect car now...why not challenge the man now? Lots of Ford GTs do track time.

Here is a challenge...I will PAY for you entry in a local road racing venue and also put $100 on the barrel that you CANNOT beat your 'friend'.

Anyone else interested in seeing this? A 2005 Ford GT versus a clapped out Contemporary Cobra driven by a man in his mid 60s???

I say the old Cranky fart will not only win but beat Evan by a considerable distance.....

ANY TAKERS???????

I am very serious. I send in the registration fee right now.

[DMXF]

Originally Posted by Cobra #3170

Short cars have a tendency to be unstable, especially high horsepower cars, why do you think dragsters have such long wheel bases?

[/quote]

Yes, but as with everything else comparative assessments are paramount. Doesn't the ratio of wheelbase to track come into play? I found the following pertinent info online:

"The ratio between the wheelbase and the track (taken as an average between the front an the rear track) seems to be an important parameter that is relevant to handling characteristics of cars. It is quite interesting to see in, that the average wheelbase-track ratio for seven GP racing cars (Brabham, BRM, Coventry, Eagle, Ferrari, Lotus and Murasama) is, 1.617, which is quite close to the Golden Mean, (1+sqrt(5))/2) = 1.618, which is also called, the Golden Section. While the data given in the site above was used as an input for a race car simulator, they nevertheless seem to give real life values. I wouldn`t automatically dismiss the curious coincidence above as meaningless. After all, an optimal handling of cars designed for best handling (rather than, say, optimal fuel consumption) should reflect a compromise between two extremes described (see the site above) as, Long, slim cars ==> "improved stability at high speeds." Short, wider cars ==> more "responsive on a tight course." In other words, the optimal wheelbase-track ratio and the Golden Mean ratio (which, for example, represents the "ideal" length to width ratio of picture frames) may have something in common after all".

Yes, the Cobra is relatively narrow, but when you look at the wheelbase to track ratio, the Audi TT is 1.594 and the Viper SRT10 is 1.62, compared to 1.607 that I calculate for the 427 Cobra.....so it doesn't sound all that out of whack.

I'm all for enjoying the cars for what they are. A Cobra provides quite an experience on the street, which includes making you feel faster than anything else on the road. The new technology thing is just vastly overblown. If you really look at and analyze most new cars, you find that aside from computer appendages, most technologies employed are many, many decades old. New high end Porsches come with rinky-dink McPherson strut suspensions. I bet those camber curves are not ideal. The superior feel is from everything being tight and coming from the factory more optimized/tuned, as opposed to Shelby American back in the day expecting the buyer to do the final configuration and setup.

On the track challenge, my car won't be ready, but it's interesting that a similar modern supercar vs Cobra track comparison scenario was brought up in our original Cobra owner's group not too long ago. We had potential interest from a "best of breed" track tuned original Cobra and one of the guys in our group writes for a major automotive magazine, so the thought was to do it as the subject of an article. Comparing to something like a Z06 or ACR Viper seemed like the most interesting, naturally competitive comparison, but the advantage in lap time the Cobra looked to have would probably not be palatable by the editors, since they receive alot of funding in one way or another from the car companies and if the indications are true that some of the new supercars would look bad, it may have repercussions.

[Cobra #3170]

Your car is never ready but your skewed concepts are, you just don't get it do you? Wheel base / track comparisons may give you an ideal ratio but it won't give you the optimum width or length for a given car. I will put my Cobra up against anything you or any of your buddies in the "Original Cobra owners group" have in any contest you would like autox, road course, drag race 0-100-0 or top speed. That said, I still say the Cobra is inferior to new vehicles. I believe my work experience with Ford Motor may give me a little more insight than somebody quoting magazine statistics. So let’s stop the BS and put up or shut up. Your car experience seems to be based largely on research and not much on driving. I have been around Road America in 2:12 in an old Atlantic car, have you even driven there? How many modern cars have you driven at speed, and what were your lap times at any current race tracks? I think you are a book boy and not knowledgeable in real world terms or you would realize your claims are not based on sound engineering principals but on wishful thinking. So, enough of the BS, lets talk about a car test or discontinue the discussion.



Yes, but as with everything else comparative assessments are paramount. Doesn't the ratio of wheelbase to track come into play? I found the following pertinent info online:

"The ratio between the wheelbase and the track (taken as an average between the front an the rear track) seems to be an important parameter that is relevant to handling characteristics of cars. It is quite interesting to see in, that the average wheelbase-track ratio for seven GP racing cars (Brabham, BRM, Coventry, Eagle, Ferrari, Lotus and Murasama) is, 1.617, which is quite close to the Golden Mean, (1+sqrt(5))/2) = 1.618, which is also called, the Golden Section. While the data given in the site above was used as an input for a race car simulator, they nevertheless seem to give real life values. I wouldn`t automatically dismiss the curious coincidence above as meaningless. After all, an optimal handling of cars designed for best handling (rather than, say, optimal fuel consumption) should reflect a compromise between two extremes described (see the site above) as, Long, slim cars ==> "improved stability at high speeds." Short, wider cars ==> more "responsive on a tight course." In other words, the optimal wheelbase-track ratio and the Golden Mean ratio (which, for example, represents the "ideal" length to width ratio of picture frames) may have something in common after all".

Yes, the Cobra is relatively narrow, but when you look at the wheelbase to track ratio, the Audi TT is 1.594 and the Viper SRT10 is 1.62, compared to 1.607 that I calculate for the 427 Cobra.....so it doesn't sound all that out of whack.

I'm all for enjoying the cars for what they are. A Cobra provides quite an experience on the street, which includes making you feel faster than anything else on the road. The new technology thing is just vastly overblown. If you really look at and analyze most new cars, you find that aside from computer appendages, most technologies employed are many, many decades old. New high end Porsches come with rinky-dink McPherson strut suspensions. I bet those camber curves are not ideal. The superior feel is from everything being tight and coming from the factory more optimized/tuned, as opposed to Shelby American back in the day expecting the buyer to do the final configuration and setup.

On the track challenge, my car won't be ready, but it's interesting that a similar modern supercar vs Cobra track comparison scenario was brought up in our original Cobra owner's group not too long ago. We had potential interest from a "best of breed" track tuned original Cobra and one of the guys in our group writes for a major automotive magazine, so the thought was to do it as the subject of an article. Comparing to something like a Z06 or ACR Viper seemed like the most interesting, naturally competitive comparison, but the advantage in lap time the Cobra looked to have would probably not be palatable by the editors, since they receive alot of funding in one way or another from the car companies and if the indications are true that some of the new supercars would look bad, it may have repercussions.[/quote]

[DMXF]

Originally Posted by Cobra #3170

I believe my work experience with Ford Motor may give me a little more insight than somebody quoting magazine statistics. So let’s stop the BS and put up or shut up.

[/quote]

I'm sorry Bruce, you're the expert......Cobras are a piece of junk, new production car technology rivals that in aerospace and F1 and the bottom line lap times I've mentioned were fabricated as I now know the Holocaust was. I will refrain from basing assessments on facts, I mean hallucinations, in the future.