WTB 94/95 cobra intake

[scott5]

Just what the title says. If anyone knows anyone that has one please let me know.

[Viper_ed]

I'd go with the 93 one personally. All of the 94-95 intakes were shrunk down to accomodate the strut tower brace.

[Killercanary]

The '93 cobra upper will not work on the 94-95 as it has the EGR built in and causes a clearance issue. All other intakes do not intergrate the EGR and thus can be used with the "inlet elbow" when using it on a '94-95.

[scott5]

i was going to do the swap, but decided not too and i got the TFS stage one cam so i need alil better intake than the stock 94/95 so i am looking for the cobra

[J-rod]

check ebay...i just saw tons on there for a good price. under advertised list price.

[Killercanary]

Are you set on the cobra intake? Its OK, but there are better ones out there. I always recommend the edelbrock performer for stock/mildly modified cars as it is a proven winner with stock heads, and as you can see by my sig. it does well when matched to a nice heads and cam combo. The upper can also be swapped out for a RPM/typhoon if you want to step it up even more with the same lower intake.

[scott5]

yea because i dont want to spend more than i need to and dont want to bother with having to get the adapter and match stuff up. I really need this back on the road until i get another car.

[coralcoupe1993]

The '93 cobra upper will not work on the 94-95 as it has the EGR built in and causes a clearance issue. All other intakes do not intergrate the EGR and thus can be used with the "inlet elbow" when using it on a '94-95.

Tom(thelast50ho) used my Cobra intake(93) on his 94-95????

[scott5]

i thought you had to get teh 93 cobra lower also..

[coralcoupe1993]

i thought you had to get teh 93 cobra lower also..


You do. Upper and lower. Lower will work with Cobra and GT40

[scott5]

i could use my lower for a 94/95 cobra upper?

[Pure Stock]

i could use my lower for a 94/95 cobra upper?

A *stock* lower from a 95 GT will not work with a Cobra/GT-40 staggered port upper intake.

[scott5]

thats wat i thought

[thelast50ho]

The '93 cobra upper will not work on the 94-95 as it has the EGR built in and causes a clearance issue. All other intakes do not intergrate the EGR and thus can be used with the "inlet elbow" when using it on a '94-95.

I would have to disagree paul im runnin a 93 cobra intake with a trickflow adaptor and it works fine. I just had to make a block off plate for the egr on it.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v237/thelast50ho/Picture293.jpg

[coralcoupe1993]

i could use my lower for a 94/95 cobra upper?


No. :woot1:

[Killercanary]

I would have to disagree paul im runnin a 93 cobra intake with a trickflow adaptor and it works fine. I just had to make a block off plate for the egr on it.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v237/thelast50ho/Picture293.jpg

Interesting. I've seen others try and fail to use the 93 because with the elbow the TB was hitting the strut tower. Thanks for clearing that up for me.


Also, with a '94-'95 you can use ANY GT40 style lower intake. The 93-older had a runner tapped for the ACT sensor. On the 94-95 cars this sensor is located right behind the MAF and therefore all you need to do to run a 93-older lower is plug the hole in the runner.

[gmkillr]

Interesting. I've seen others try and fail to use the 93 because with the elbow the TB was hitting the strut tower. Thanks for clearing that up for me.


Also, with a '94-'95 you can use ANY GT40 style lower intake. The 93-older had a runner tapped for the ACT sensor. On the 94-95 cars this sensor is located right behind the MAF and therefore all you need to do to run a 93-older lower is plug the hole in the runner.



Or just go ahead and move your IAT sensor over to the #5 runner by using a lightning IAT sensor & wiring harness to get a more sensative & true tune such as ive just done. This is what Don LaSota advised me to do on my blown application to get a better reading on the incoming air temps. Time will tell on how good this works, I may loose a few ponies but my tune will be spot on!!

[Killercanary]

Or just go ahead and move your IAT sensor over to the #5 runner by using a lightning IAT sensor & wiring harness to get a more sensative & true tune such as ive just done. This is what Don LaSota advised me to do on my blown application to get a better reading on the incoming air temps. Time will tell on how good this works, I may loose a few ponies but my tune will be spot on!!

On a blown application, you are absolutely right Rob since the incoming air charge is hotter than ambient and the plumbing between the blower head unit and the TB doesn't allow room for the air charge temp sensor. Leaving it in the stock location doesn't allow the EEC to see that this incoming air is any higher than than ambient since it measures it before it gets pressurized and heats up. By moving it to the lower intake the EEC will now see the true temperature of the incoming air and can adjust the timing more accordingly, its allows it to act as a safety devise. I've seen Don recommend the lightening sensor before, I'm not sure what the benefit of it is over a stock one unless it gives a truer reading with higher temperatures since it too was designed for a forced induction application. On an NA car, I would NOT move it to the lower in a 94-95 car because in doing so the EEC will not add as much timing as it normally would if it sees that the air charge is hotter than it really is at the location that it thinks it is measuring from. These cars already pull a ton of timing when they are hot, this situation would be made worse if its reading air temps inside of a heat soaked runner instead of the tube between the MAF and TB as it was designed for.


Way back in the mid-late '90's, people used to move the sensor on the foxes out to where ours is, or they would take the sensor out between runs and stick it in ice to chill it way down. The thinking was that during a 1/4 pass the sensor would send tell the EEC that the air was really colder than it was thereby tricking it into thinking the air was denser and it'd add more fuel and timing. I remember a magazine doing a test of this on a NA fox car to see if it added any power and it did not. However, I fell pretty confident that in a 94-95 car that it WILL cost power, but it'll definitely make for a safer tune on a supercharged car.

[gmkillr]

On a blown application, you are absolutely right Rob since the incoming air charge is hotter than ambient and the plumbing between the blower head unit and the TB doesn't allow room for the air charge temp sensor. Leaving it in the stock location doesn't allow the EEC to see that this incoming air is any higher than than ambient since it measures it before it gets pressurized and heats up. By moving it to the lower intake the EEC will now see the true temperature of the incoming air and can adjust the timing more accordingly, its allows it to act as a safety devise. I've seen Don recommend the lightening sensor before, I'm not sure what the benefit of it is over a stock one unless it gives a truer reading with higher temperatures since it too was designed for a forced induction application. On an NA car, I would NOT move it to the lower in a 94-95 car because in doing so the EEC will not add as much timing as it normally would if it sees that the air charge is hotter than it really is at the location that it thinks it is measuring from. These cars already pull a ton of timing when they are hot, this situation would be made worse if its reading air temps inside of a heat soaked runner instead of the tube between the MAF and TB as it was designed for.


Way back in the mid-late '90's, people used to move the sensor on the foxes out to where ours is, or they would take the sensor out between runs and stick it in ice to chill it way down. The thinking was that during a 1/4 pass the sensor would send tell the EEC that the air was really colder than it was thereby tricking it into thinking the air was denser and it'd add more fuel and timing. I remember a magazine doing a test of this on a NA fox car to see if it added any power and it did not. However, I fell pretty confident that in a 94-95 car that it WILL cost power, but it'll definitely make for a safer tune on a supercharged car.



I absolutely agree w/ you there, id only do this on a blown application. And yes, the lightning sensor is meant to read higher intake temps & is meant specifically for blown applications, plus its also made from brass unlike the plastic ones they use on the 94-95's. You can buy bothe the sensor & harness plug from the Ford garage, if anybody needs the part #'s on either of them let me know and i'll post them.

[coralcoupe1993]

Great info guys! :goodidea: