Would You Guys Trade Your Fox For A Sn95?

  • Sponsors (?)


^ Lol. One cannot possibly bring themselves to own a Mustang II, no matter how hard one may try.

Haha, I would actually love to own a Mustang II. Nothing about the drivetrain, brakes or suspension would be stock if I owned one, but I love the look of the IIs. I mean, come on- they're actually kind of cool looking.

0604phr_01_z+1976_ford_mustang_ii+.jpg


mustang_cobra_daniel_051.jpg


1975-ford-mustang-ii-mach-1-front-view_c9a68.jpg
 
I guess I'm kinda the oddball here. If I could have another 94-95 but have it as light as my nothcback I'd trade. Of course I'd put all the drivetrain and suspension I'm putting on my notch. I personally like the styling of the SN95 body. I love the fact that I can put a set of 315s on the back without having to modify anything, upgrading to Cobra brakes is just a matter of changing caliper brakets, calipers, and rotors, it already has 4 wheel disc brakes and 5-lug wheels and it's little more comfortable ride. It's also more aerodynamic than the fox. Don't get me wrong, I love my foxbodies though. I've own 3 of them(91 GT, 86 GT, 88 notch).

That depends, the Drag Coefficient of a sn cobra is basicly the same as a hatchback LX http://ecomodder.com/wiki/index.php/Vehicle_Coefficient_of_Drag_List
http://www.stangnet.com/mustang-for...ient-of-any-year-mustang.685526/#post-6715507
Edit: Found some more--
1989 Mustang GT Convertible: 0.40
1989 Mustang GT: 0.38
2003 Mustang GT: 0.36
2003 Mustang Mach 1: 0.36
1994 Mustang GT: 0.34
1993 Mustang Cobra: 0.34
2003 Mustang V6: 0.33
2005 Chevrolet Corvette C6: 0.28

Anyway you cut it the Mustang has the DC of a freaking brick rolling down the road. Even the 88 Thunderbird had a lower DC (.35) than the mustang. 92-95 Taurus was .32.
 
I dont like the interior plastics of the SN95 cars. I bought my '95 with 62,000 original miles on it, and sold it with 90,000 on it. Needless to say I kept it in great shape, but the interior pieces rattled like no other. I spend as much time fixing rattling plastic then I did on anything else. Now as for the looks of them, dropping them down and putting 10.5" wheels in the back without them sticking out or rubbing on a stock body looks pretty killer to me. That pic of the red SN is a guy named Dan that used to frequent here. His car is so far from stock that you would have to spend a LOT of $$$ to come close to the quality of it, but yes I think they look friggin awesome with a few body mods, wheels, and a drop. I would keep with a '94-'95 personally cause they are just as cheap to mod as a fox being that they also have a pushrod 5.0 and t-5/AOD.
 
I dont like the interior plastics of the SN95 cars. I bought my '95 with 62,000 original miles on it, and sold it with 90,000 on it. Needless to say I kept it in great shape, but the interior pieces rattled like no other. I spend as much time fixing rattling plastic then I did on anything else. Now as for the looks of them, dropping them down and putting 10.5" wheels in the back without them sticking out or rubbing on a stock body looks pretty killer to me. That pic of the red SN is a guy named Dan that used to frequent here. His car is so far from stock that you would have to spend a LOT of $$$ to come close to the quality of it, but yes I think they look friggin awesome with a few body mods, wheels, and a drop. I would keep with a '94-'95 personally cause they are just as cheap to mod as a fox being that they also have a pushrod 5.0 and t-5/AOD.

The Fox has the SN beat on interior rattles and cheapness all day long.

Kurt
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
That depends, the Drag Coefficient of a sn cobra is basicly the same as a hatchback LX http://ecomodder.com/wiki/index.php/Vehicle_Coefficient_of_Drag_List
http://www.stangnet.com/mustang-for...ient-of-any-year-mustang.685526/#post-6715507


Anyway you cut it the Mustang has the DC of a freaking brick rolling down the road. Even the 88 Thunderbird had a lower DC (.35) than the mustang. 92-95 Taurus was .32.
Wow, really? What's weird to me is according to that list the 93 Cobra has a DC of .34 but an 89 GT has .38...they are the same car. I guess the very few parts of the ground effects on the Cobra that are smoothed compared to the GT make that difference. I also guess that comparing a .04 difference is splitting hairs:shrug:. Like you said a mustang just has a DC of a brick. :nonono:
 
Wow, really? What's weird to me is according to that list the 93 Cobra has a DC of .34 but an 89 GT has .38...they are the same car. I guess the very few parts of the ground effects on the Cobra that are smoothed compared to the GT make that difference. I also guess that comparing a .04 difference is splitting hairs:shrug:. Like you said a mustang just has a DC of a brick. :nonono:

I haven't seen that low of a number listed for the Cobra.

1993 ford mustang:
Coefficient of Drag
0.40 (sedan)
0.36 (hatchbacks)
0.36-.39 (GT)
0.42 (Convertibles)

*Source: Mustang 5.0 Technical Reference & Performance Handbook by Al Kirschenbaum

I don't know why the GT get's the .36-.39, except that I wonder if the Cobra is included and has a lower number because of the rear bumper. Purely conjecture on my part, however. It is common knowledge that the GT rear bumper is a poor design from an aero standpoint, though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Fox 4-Eye
1965 Shelby
1965 Fastback
S197 Verts
2012+ Shelby
2012+ GT
S197+ GT
03/04 Cobra
93 Cobra
93+ Fox GT
SN95 Cobra (all others)
SN95 GT

I didn't read this whole thread. I discovered it just now. :(

The thread title got me to thinking though. I'm sure that I've not included every variation of every year, and also sure that I've forgotten to mention some. Above is what I rate and in order that I rate them. Also keep in mind, that the order can change in regards to mood; and some of the fine examples of each breed shown on this very forum. :nice: