Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JJ95GTID The article was okay. A little too short and not technical enough to really get its point across. The article made it seem like modding a 94-95 just wasn't worth the headache because of the EEC-IV in our cars. Well, we all know you can mod a 94-95 if you use the right parts. There is no shortage of exhaust choices for our cars. And, there are OTS cams designed to work with the vacuum needs of the 94-95 ECU. There is more but I don't want to ramble too much here because you already know what I am getting at with this.
I will admit that mod for mod a Fox will be quicker than a 94-95 
I would still rather own and drive my 95 over a Fox anyday 
I too am a fan of the horizontal tail lights. Just seems like one of the only ways to tell if a Mustang is a 94-95 from a quick glance. And, I believe our cars are unique in a good way.  
No offense to 5.0 Mustang & SF or its authors. I have had a subscription since I bought my Mustang in April 2002 and enjoy the magazine throughly.  |
My thoughts exactly. i was pissed when i read the first paragraph. And for the sake of all fellow 94-95 stangneters who haven't gotten it, here is that first paragraph:
"When it comes to positioning in the Mustang family's food chain, the '94-95 'Stang, without question, can today be considered the red-headed stepchild. While they don't absolutely suck, they're still considered teh Mustang IIs of the their time by some 'Stangologists we know."
Am I the only one who thinks this is complete and utter crap!?
they go on to complain about the weight, the computer, the taillights, and other little things. Maybe i'm just mis construing things, but i didn't think this article was that good. IMO, it really down played our cars as a fad by loosers that go to star trek conventions to see that guy that got killed in episode 492a38.
don't get me wrong, i've had a subscription to 5.0 since '01, and love the magazine, but this article was just crap...