Talk:Ford Mustang SVT Cobra

The Mystic page has an entry for Mystic Cobra that points here, but this page only mentions paint style. Maybe a sentence or two on the Mystic Cobra might be useful? All I know about the topic I have read here, so if a more knowledgable person could do so, I'd appreciate it. (John User:Jwy talk) 02:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC).Reply

This page has some problems with bias. I have beat many a Cobra on National TV with my LS1, near stock cars. Not the point though. I don't care if you think Ford or GM is better. Keep it unbiased on a page that is supposed to be HISTORIAL. Not your life opinions. Seriously, get a life people. Thank you. ~ Anom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.17.208 (talk) 05:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

This page has a serious edit war problem and needs to be addressed by an adim. Can someone please help. This page needed to be non-biased. It is not the play toy of a child.

Thank you.

70.178.17.208 05:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Anom.Reply

Agreed. FWIW there is some horribly inaccurate information on this page that should be addressed for the sake of presenting facts and not bias fanboy information. 216.24.112.2 21:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Anom.Reply

This is a discussion page, not an opinion page. If you think there is "fanboy" info then point it out and others will do their best to supply sources. The issue of the 03/04 Cobra overrating is the same type of information discussed concerning LS1 SS Camaro engine's output vs LS1 corvette engines. Ford wanted to put the cobra under the 400hp mark of the corvette making insurance rates less of a deterrent; yet they still state they didn't hold back on the engine. And if a car consistently puts down power in the 350-365rwhp range on a dynojet - it's just plain not putting out 390 at the crank. This has been discussed in the main Ford Mustang article before it was forked. I agree "It was later determined" should not be there. It was never formally admitted or determined. It's rather popular consensus. If other don't protest I'll eventually change this or support changing it.

Agreed that there is edit wars going on. Just do you part in reviewing alterations - Wiki isn't going to parent this article. - MustangAficionado66.27.116.56 (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think the mention of the 2002 Cobra has been edited out of this article a few times. Although they were only made for export, they were produced by Ford and should be included in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.248.68.40 (talk) 07:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

http://www.autoweek.com/article/20091103/SEMA/911029982

someone should update the template. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.213.51 (talk) 13:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

OK, now I need to add some stuff, too. I upgraded a lot of the info on the Article page about the 99-01 Cobras. The green one in some of the pics is the one I used to own, and I think I know quite a bit about these cars. If any of the information in that section of the main page is wrong, please let me know. I also added some of the Cobra R pics and more info on the missing Mysticrome and 10th anniversary Cobras. Unfortunately I only drove the 2000R, and have only one pic of the 93R, and none of the 95. So we will have to live without those. Sunstarfire (talk) 12:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I removed some article citations like "WOAH THE COBRA R IS SO FAST" from the article. That was clearly too biased. If that's not OK with somebody, let me know. Sunstarfire (talk) 12:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Guys, for some reason someone (maybe even me) messed up the tables big time, no idea why. It had to do with the align=right thingie.... anyway, just in case it was someone, please keep an eye on those and have them tidy :) If it was me.... baaaad SS :)
Sunstarfire (talk) 11:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

It looks like there is another edit war going on between people. I have been researching a bit and it looks to me like the 03/04 Cobras had 0-60 times of 4.4 or 4.5 seconds and 1/4mile at high 12s (like 12.9). The latest edit was in that direction, but before that someone wrote 0-60 was like 5.5, wnich seems to be wrong, at leaast according to everything I found. So maybe the next person to change this could add some references, so this discussion can be put to an end. Sunstarfire (talk) 08:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I added this section. I thought it's interesting, but maybe it's not. I have been driving a real R a couple times, so I know what to look for. I know people who fell for fakes. If any of you think this is b/s, throw it out again :) Sunstarfire (talk) 08:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I just added some more stuff, and it's really hard for me to tell whether it fits in here, and whether the tone is OK. I have been into Cobras for a long time, and thus may not be the right person to create new stuff. Please everyone take a look at this section, and again, if you feel it's wrong, throw it out, by all means! Sunstarfire (talk) 18:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

OK seems like someone threw the Fake R's out, I am good with that, a little note should be here, though.

I removed the old title pic and replaced it with another one. The reason was that the main pic on the top right was NOT of a stock Cobra. It looked like it was "Saleen-ized", having Cobra-R rims and a tonneau cover, which were not in the original Cobra. I took the one of the 1998 Cobra, because that seems to be stock, although it might be lowered a little... Sunstarfire (talk) 10:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Where is the source for independent dyno test showing Cobra R made 385hp to the wheel without correction or dyno cheating I would love to see them, otherwise drop it XXXVaporXXX (talk) 05:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I too would like to see this. I've heard claims about the cars being underrated, but never any proof. Carguy1701 (talk) 12:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

This article feels insanely long. Should it be split into separate articles for each generation with a navigation tool in the infobox and footer? --SVTCobra (talk) 03:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

That might not be a bad idea, but if I'm being honest, parts of this article feel like they were yanked wholesale from a book (not just the quotes, but some of the sentences). A complete rework probably isn't a bad idea either. Carguy1701 (talk) 12:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)Reply