Thought some of you might find this interesting. From Blue Oval News, February 7, 2006 1994-1995 Mustang Retrospect: The Bastard Children http://www.blueovalnews.com/index.php?categoryid=12&p2_articleid=144&s=&
I disagree about the tranny and axles...My tranny has lasted probably 300 trips down the track ranging from high 11's to low 12's and it just recently went out. Thats leaving at 6500RPM on drag radials as well...oh yeah, that was on a completely stock rearend as well. When I pulled my axles to upgrade to bigger ones for slicks, there wasnt a hing of over use, damage, or stress on the axles. Maybe mine was super strong or something but I have launched well over 1000 times on drag radials at 5-6500RPM and never broke an axle, carier, clutch pack, tec. GOOD JOB FORD...now with the rest of the issues...true, true, and oh yea, true!
i wouldnt trade my 94 for a fox car,well maybe a 93 cobra,then i'd have to think about it.a 96 mystic cobra and my car would be gone in a second.long live the 5.0 sn95
I agree, I went 12's with 170,000 miles on the stock T5 and stock clutch. When I took my axles out they seemd fine. I think this guy is talking theoretically.
I too have gone mid 12's on the stock clutch/axles/tranny at over 114 mph. But still a pretty good arguement, I like this quote the best " In closing, the SN95 will always be a "special" car........"
that article was a waste of my time! i want my 20 minutes back! That guy had no clue what he was talking about. I don't know a single person that traded his sn95 for a fox. all he did was complain about their faults. i say we make an article about how much the fox sucked. ford's little bastard my arse
Anyone ever have a balancer failure? I never heard of this. 180,000 and I"m still running the stocker. He also fails to mention that the SN95 unibody is a stronger construction and more aerodynamic than the Fox. How many Pro 5.0 Fox cars do you see? None. One bad thing he forgot to mention was the electric fan wiring. That was a big TSB at the time.
Due to the modifications to widen the 8.8" axle housing, the axles themselves became physically weaker...... The SN95 Mustang was also plagued with the too-weak-for-stock Borg Warner T5 transmission..... If the 8.8 was carried over why would they widen it? I think we can all agree the T-5 can take some abuse. I probably have 250 passes on mine. I to want my time back from reading that article.
is this true? "Track tests by Muscle Mustangs and Fast Fords, 5.0 Mustang, and the now-defunct Super Ford reached this conclusion when it was discovered that the EEC function that retards the timing causes a loss of as much as four tenths in the 1/4."
I have all of those articles, I'll look them up and see if that reference is accurate. I highly doubt its that much.
It does take timing out during shifts but I doubt it calculates into 4 tenths. I'm no mathmatical genius though.
There are quite a few posts on the 94-95 board saying the balancer spun, or the rubber is coming loose from the back of the balancer, or just outright failed. Some failed at 60,000 miles or less. Of course, there are some that last 150,000 miles or more (like yours). It's just another wearable part. I don't know if the Fox platform has these issues, but the balancer definitely is a failure point. The article made it sound like the 94-95's are plagued with problems and aren't worth the trouble unless you're a die-hard mechanic. That's so full of garbage, it could only be written by someone who's never owned one. Of course, we're biased.
Technically, a longer axle in the same housing is weaker. But we're also talking about a tiny fraction, if it's even noticeable at all. Wasn't the T5 carried straight over from the Fox? The longer input shaft isn't where most of the failures are. The logic just doesn't make sense. It's like only seeing wrecked Mustangs and presuming they're all unsafe. My first guess is the rear end was widened so the rear wheels weren't quite so recessed into the wheel wells. the 96-98 Mustangs had the same axles, but the article implies they were only on the 94-95's. And the 99-04 Mustangs are another 3/4 inch wider on each axle. I agree, I want my time back.
Quite a few of the writers points have some truth to them. (And I too have read of numerous balancer failures on various Mustang tech forums. It seems to be pretty common). However, even if everything stated is true, SN95 enthusiasts have already found a cure for most all of the shortcomings. All things considered, I'll take my SN95. We get a car that out rides, handles and out brakes a Fox. It isn't even close. Those are hardly "little details". Start adding up what it costs to bring a Fox up to par on those issues, and the SN95 additional costs will look small. And did I mention there is no comparison in the appearance department? Exterior or interior.
