irvgotti said:
Proof on what?
That a Stock Fox with stock disks/drums can brake equally as well as a 99+ GT with dual piston front calipers, rear disk and ABS???
Have you even ever driven a 99+ Mustang?
5.0 vs 4.6
- Thread starter bvav22
- Start date
- Status
Proof on what?
That a Stock Fox with stock disks/drums can brake equally as well as a 99+ GT with dual piston front calipers, rear disk and ABS???
Have you even ever driven a 99+ Mustang?
-
Sponsors (?)
Do a quick search in the 4.6 Tech/Talk...many are reporting 25-26mpg. A few of them, by glancing, was with a supercharger.
Car and Driver for 2002 GT: "Mustang's cornering attitudes were the least nautical, its steering was both quick and tactile, and its braking performance (187 feet from 70 mph, with limited fade)"
I'm sorry but you are not going to brake like a 99+...plus there is no way your feet can attempt to get anywhere close the on/off rapid grabbing that abs does...sorry, your too slow
Good luck...
You think a 3rd generation (92 and down) fbody handles like a 99+...lol.
Car and Driver for 2002 GT: "Mustang's cornering attitudes were the least nautical, its steering was both quick and tactile, and its braking performance (187 feet from 70 mph, with limited fade)"
I'm sorry but you are not going to brake like a 99+...plus there is no way your feet can attempt to get anywhere close the on/off rapid grabbing that abs does...sorry, your too slow
Good luck...You think a 3rd generation (92 and down) fbody handles like a 99+...lol.
Mustang5L5 said:Proof on what?
That a Stock Fox with stock disks/drums can brake equally as well as a 99+ GT with dual piston front calipers, rear disk and ABS???
Have you even ever driven a 99+ Mustang?
Also the 225/55/16's or worse tires on the foxes attribute as well...
I've gotten 26MPG on the highway in my GT.
Best i've ever gotten (before the 3.73's) on the highway with my Fox was 22MPG.
In the city they got about the same 15-18MPG.
Every time i get gas i calculate out my fuel milage.
Best i've ever gotten (before the 3.73's) on the highway with my Fox was 22MPG.
In the city they got about the same 15-18MPG.
Every time i get gas i calculate out my fuel milage.
5spd GT said:
Not to mention of Fox brakes were so great why does everyone convert to SN95 disks?
Even my own Fox is now wearing 245/45/17 tires and 4-wheel Cobra disk brakes. Next goal is to swap in a 94-98 ABS system as well.
The front disk brake on the Fox is a remant of the 60's. The integrated rotor/hub design is very poor and prone to fade since it doesn't disappate heat that great.
And i've never even gotten the ABS to cycle during hard braking in dry conditions. Only time it cycles is if i brake hard in rain, on sand or when i drive the car in the snow. I view the ABS as a safety feature and not a performance feature.
But then again the reasons i love Fox's are because they are light and cheap to mod and make fast, plus you see things like this
Slalom Results from Motortrend:
72.5 - 1990 Mustang LX 5.0 (Bone stock engine, Maximum Motorsports Road & Track Box)
71.6 - 1999 Saleen S281
71.0 - 1997 BMW M3 Lightweight
66.6 - 2005 BMW M3 (Comp Package)
67.1 - 2004 Lamborghini Gallardo
71.8 - 2005 Ford GT
70.4 - 2003 Dodge SRT-10
71.0 - 2003 Ferrari Enzo
73.2 - 2005 Lotus Elise
73.2 - 2005 Porsche Boxster S
67.4 - 1999 Ford Mustang GT
75.1 - 1999 Hennessey Venum 650R
Slalom Results from Motortrend:
72.5 - 1990 Mustang LX 5.0 (Bone stock engine, Maximum Motorsports Road & Track Box)
71.6 - 1999 Saleen S281
71.0 - 1997 BMW M3 Lightweight
66.6 - 2005 BMW M3 (Comp Package)
67.1 - 2004 Lamborghini Gallardo
71.8 - 2005 Ford GT
70.4 - 2003 Dodge SRT-10
71.0 - 2003 Ferrari Enzo
73.2 - 2005 Lotus Elise
73.2 - 2005 Porsche Boxster S
67.4 - 1999 Ford Mustang GT
75.1 - 1999 Hennessey Venum 650R
5spd GT said:You also see...in bold
I want a full maximum motorsports package on my car...
Me too. Ideally i'd like to shave a ton of weight off the nose of the car with AL heads, k-member, delete P/S and a fiberglass hood and then through a MM coil over kit and complete suspension on and then go hit a couple local road courses and really have some fun!
irvgotti
New Member
5spd GT said:
Hellz yea dont even think about going there those thing can upgrade to do major justice i advise u to get off of that subject really fast...Stop talkin about things u have no knowledge of
and drop those mag ur just killing your brain...cause theres no way imma believe anyone of us can do that....and if u gonna go by those specs thats supports my argument that the fox bodies are better..ppl should really go by real world witnessing and not sugar coated articles
irvgotti said:
LOL.
Stock for stock here bud...I still think even a modded (suspension) would hang or beat a 3rd gen. What is going to be pushing it...a TPI 305
Ivan Drago from Rocky IV: "You will lose..."
Lets just end this thread it's getting nowhere. He compares Fox and 99+ GT braking numbers by looking at mag numbers but then says stop reading mags and start living in the real world. Didn't you once start a thread calling the GT500 a disappointment? Safe to say we then have different standards on what a Mustang should be.
I still stick with my real world expeirence that stock fox brake BLOW compared to 99+ brakes, but what do i know right? I only own both cars.
I still stick with my real world expeirence that stock fox brake BLOW compared to 99+ brakes, but what do i know right? I only own both cars.
irvgotti
New Member
my only argument is how small differences is between the two..and for 10 plus years technolodgy it isent much ...the fact of the matter is the fox potentually do as well as the newer stangs and those cars are older ...ive been a ford fan for many years but i expect alot more from ford....and for the record i got 135 ft 60-0 from gTech..................................(dont get me started on the GT500 lol j/p il leave that alone )
25thmustang
Mustang Master
Oh boy a Gtech racer... If you dont want to believe magazines (there are things I dont believe them on), and tell everyone to go out and look for themselves, than we could claim ANYTHING and say we saw it.
The only category the fox is close in is straight line acceleration. The 99+ cars have it all over them in every other category. And the fact it is a $24,000 car when new, I think they did a good job. The only reason you probably expect mroe is because the Fbody came out and brought a lot more to the table... but the Fbody did not sell well and isnt in production anymore. As much as you plan to put Ford down here they did the perfect thing, sold a ton of cars, and kept the tradition going (cheap, fast, fun car).
The only category the fox is close in is straight line acceleration. The 99+ cars have it all over them in every other category. And the fact it is a $24,000 car when new, I think they did a good job. The only reason you probably expect mroe is because the Fbody came out and brought a lot more to the table... but the Fbody did not sell well and isnt in production anymore. As much as you plan to put Ford down here they did the perfect thing, sold a ton of cars, and kept the tradition going (cheap, fast, fun car).
irvgotti
New Member
You have a point there but sales dosent mean anything...when i think of mustangs i think of performance...and when they dont perform then its a disapointment..sales dont reflect on performance cause i see alot more v,6's out there
The Gtech is more proof and accurate then your exaggerated stories
what experience u have with a g-tech do you even own one
The Gtech is more proof and accurate then your exaggerated stories
what experience u have with a g-tech do you even own one
Go do the 60-0 test four or five times in a row and watch that number grow as those brakes faaaaaadeee away
irvgotti said:
There were just as many 4-banger Mustangs made each year. 88HP of fury. I used to own one too
irvgotti
New Member
whats your point..your makin no sence right now..im talkin about performance and sales shouldent be invloved in this..and u went back to the sales argument...there you go again supporting my argument
- Status
