 | | 
04-12-06, 08:38 AM
|  | Founding Member | | Join Date: May 2002 Location: British Columbia
Posts: 1,963
| | bastards! someone scan it  |
04-12-06, 10:07 AM
|  | bubb rubb says:
"woo woooooo" | | Join Date: September 2002 Location: Syracuse, NY
Posts: 4,158
| | i thought it was pretty good and neat to read about our specific cars in there. only thing i noticed was Quote: |
'94-'95s featured a 70mm throttle body, an upgrade from the 60mm stock units on earlier 'Stangs.
| my stocker definatly wasnt 70MM  maybe they were talking about the MAF? |
04-12-06, 10:20 AM
|  | Official Member | | Join Date: September 2003 Location: Detroit, MI
Posts: 3,074
| | Well....stock the EEC might be picky but with a tune in my experience and from what i hear, it does not give you any problems. A proper tune completely changes that "downfall".
What i hate is there is more to this hobby than drag racing...sure modding a fox with the same parts will most likely make it faster due to its lighter weight. BUT, i'll lose at the drag strip, but i would bet that the 94-95 looks better, drives better, stops better, and feels better than any fox. Thats no diss to fox's...thats just how it is, IMO atleast. Im sure many would agree.
If any car was considered the "red head step child" i would think it was the 96-98 GT's |
04-12-06, 10:23 AM
| | bubb rubb says:
"woo woooooo" | | Join Date: September 2002 Location: Syracuse, NY
Posts: 4,158
| | we get thrown under the bus and compaird to the mustang II's  |
04-12-06, 12:57 PM
|  | Official Member | | Join Date: September 2004 Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 975
| | Quote: |
If any car was considered the "red head step child" i would think it was the 96-98 GT's
| YEAH! No **** man...I really can't figure out why the 94-95 has gotten this stigma recently.
Yesterday I pulled up to a light, between an Accord coupe with four fart pipes and ground effects and an LS1 T/A.
Two dues in the Accord. I overhead the following exchange:
"I'm a ****in' smoke both they asses!"
"Naw, but I think joo at least gonna smoke the Mustang!"
NO RESPECT FOR US!
LOL |
04-12-06, 02:21 PM
|  | Member | | Join Date: January 2006
Posts: 13
| | Quote: |
Originally Posted by urban96 we get thrown under the bus and compaird to the mustang II's | 
Bastards... I wouldn't drive a 4.6 or a fox.. unless it was a notch.. |
04-12-06, 03:17 PM
|  | Official Member | | Join Date: April 2003 Location: Pennsville, New Jersey
Posts: 334
| | wow...I just went to make this thread and it was already posted....just got mine. It was a good article...very funny all there talk about our computer. Oh and i also like my horizontal tail lights.  |
04-13-06, 08:44 AM
|  | Founding Member | | Join Date: May 2002 Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 2,203
| | Quote: |
Originally Posted by nmcgrawj What i hate is there is more to this hobby than drag racing...sure modding a fox with the same parts will most likely make it faster due to its lighter weight. BUT, i'll lose at the drag strip, but i would bet that the 94-95 looks better, drives better, stops better, and feels better than any fox. Thats no diss to fox's...thats just how it is, IMO atleast. Im sure many would agree.
: | Yeah I agree, if you look at the road racing series all those guys are running the SN95's because they're stiffer. Did they mention that in the article. I haven't gotten my copy yet, but I'm always a week or two behind you East and West coast guys. |
04-13-06, 11:13 AM
|  | Official Member | | Join Date: October 2004 Location: Sacramento
Posts: 399
| | The article should have talked about how our cars give you all the updated good qualities of the sn95's, but retain the loveable 5.0. If your gonna be modding the hell out of a fox or an sn-95, your gonna need a complete custom tune anyways, so I don't see the big deal with the computers.
Bastard child late model stang? How is that NOT the 96-98? |
04-13-06, 12:47 PM
| | Member | | Join Date: April 2006
Posts: 9
| | Odd thing is...when i first started looking for a car, i instantly wanted a 94 or 95 convertable. The way i see it, you get the best looks outside the 67, the best motor 302 H.O, and the best interior. What more could you want? I dont get the bitching about the computer either...everyone gets them custom tuned wich totaly elminates this prblem. I dont know about you guys, but when people find out that my car has a 5.0...the only comments I get are "sweet". Stupid, stupid, stupid if you ask me. Foxes may weigh a bit less wich gives it the edge on the strip, but the guy who wins in the fox is still a looser because...hes sitting in a fox! Not knocking the fox in anyway, but it is not even in the same league with the SN cars in terms of just being a nice car. |
04-14-06, 11:05 AM
|  | Founding Member | | Join Date: October 1998
Posts: 367
| | The article was NOT pro 94-95 as they want us to believe. 5.0 do some research, 70mm throttle body? Computers that are unforgiving, red headed step child?
OK, MM&FF, here is your chance to do a better article and show up tour competition. I was "given" my 95 GT. I paid a grand for it from a friend who could not start it. He wanted a dodge truck anyway. I was not too excited at first. AODE, heavy, felt down on power compared to my foxes I used to own. But then I thought how good it was to have leather seats, (a first for me), 4 disc brakes, 5 lugs, nicer interior, strut tower brace, 60mm t.b., 70mm maf, etc.
My first mod was 4.10 gears. I always wanted them in an auto. mustang. Kind of like the old Drag Paks. Then a Transgo kit, and some other stuff. It isnt so bad, I like the car. Ive been tried by ricers, the last being a wrx, and with my stock wheels (for now) I guess they think Im going to roll over. That rear gear gets em off the line and stays on em. Dont meant to ramble, but I guess thats why they have a 94-95 specific post for us. So we can talk about OUR cars.  |
04-14-06, 12:00 PM
|  | Founding Member | | Join Date: April 2002 Location: PA
Posts: 2,011
| | We should write them a letter. Write our own article and give it to them. They couldn't even put good pictures in. They used previous cars, and the one wasn't even a 94-95 car. it was space filler article with no merit |
04-14-06, 12:02 PM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: September 2003 Location: Detroit, MI
Posts: 3,074
| | Quote: |
Originally Posted by ProKiller We should write them a letter. Write our own article and give it to them. They couldn't even put good pictures in. They used previous cars, and the one wasn't even a 94-95 car. it was space filler article with no merit |
They didnt respect us then and u think they would care about a letter we write? If we put together a article for any magazine, it should be to another magazine...explaining our disgust with that article and wanting a fair representation of our cars. |
04-14-06, 12:09 PM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: September 2004 Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 975
| | I read the article. Total BS. Since when do our computers not let you add bolt-ons? My car is running the STOCK TUNE and I've gone 13.3 last year and should do mid-high 12s this year...got a bunch of bolt-on parts (including exhaust, intake manifold, CAI, throttle body, and 1.7s), a converter, and a nitrous kit. My computer has been FINE- 100% FINE.
Utter crap- they make it sound as if you CAN'T add bolt-on parts without getting a tune everytime. Absurd. |
04-14-06, 12:38 PM
|  | Official Member | | Join Date: August 2004 Location: North Carolina State University
Posts: 596
| | yea, ive done a lot of bolt-ons and ****, no eec problems, this isint the 05! |
04-14-06, 02:54 PM
|  | I didn't read this. | | Join Date: October 2002 Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 2,531
| | without any comp tuning my cobra went the times in the sig. although when i put it on the dyno, the a/f is 11.5:1, i pulled out a couple psi but i dont think anything has changed. |
04-14-06, 05:50 PM
|  | Official Member | | Join Date: August 2003 Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 303
| | Just got mine in the mail today. I was looking forward to it, but i gues whoever wrote the article has no idea of what the good points of the 94-95 are. Also they made it sound like swapping to an earlier EEC was better, but from what i have been told by all the knowledgable people with tuning ours is better in just about everyway, which is why it is more sensitive to changes. I was looking forward to the article but after reading it dont think it was a good informing article for people who have never dealt with these cars. |
04-14-06, 07:05 PM
|  | Founding Member | | Join Date: September 2000 Location: Woodinville, WA
Posts: 1,323
| | I haven't read it, but wow, sounds pretty bad. I just don't understand how they could label us as the bastard child of mustangs. The only thing I can think of is maybe since you can do the PI conversion on the early 4.6's, so they lost respect for our cars? While I know a lot of people have problems with the eec, besides some small idle problems, I really haven't had to many issues. Once the vortech is finished though, I might run into problems. If the article is that bad, hopefully another mag might do something similar except highlighting the good points. |
04-14-06, 07:35 PM
|  | Official Member | | Join Date: December 2005 Location: Long Island, New York
Posts: 637
| | Quote: |
Originally Posted by Swarzkopf YEAH! No **** man...I really can't figure out why the 94-95 has gotten this stigma recently.
Yesterday I pulled up to a light, between an Accord coupe with four fart pipes and ground effects and an LS1 T/A.
Two dues in the Accord. I overhead the following exchange:
"I'm a ****in' smoke both they asses!"
"Naw, but I think joo at least gonna smoke the Mustang!"
NO RESPECT FOR US!
LOL | so, what happened when the light turned green? u cant leave us hanging like that. |
04-14-06, 07:38 PM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: September 2004 Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 975
| | LOL!
No street racing is allowed to be posted here...if you're curious, there is a thread in my forum (linked from pic in sig) called "My Street Racing Dominance Begins: T/A and Accord See Mustang Tails" with lots of details.  | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | Rate This Thread |  Linear Mode | | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
| | | |
| |
