91 5.0 VS. 96 4.6

Discussion in 'Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech' started by Josethespic, Aug 15, 2004.

  1. I'm just thankful that Ford still sells the Mustang and the price is within most people's budget :)

    Poor Chevy... they kept seeing their vette getting beat by the Firebird/TA and Z28/SS Camaro's so they just stopped making them. People figured why pay more for a vette??

    Dodge only did well because of their truck sales. Dodge and Chevy both need a nice affordable rear-wheel drive V8 car.

    Dodge and Ford have the rice section covered with their Neon and Focus... what does Chevy?? Must be rough to be Chevy now and losing so much of the market right now!?!?

  2. Agreed :nice:
  3. I agree that the crossmembers are of poor design. However, Ford needs only to take peices of plate steel, stamp them, punch out holes, and spot-weld together to produce each stock k-member. Tubular crossmembers require pipe to be rolled and cut to length, along with bits of plate steel, and many welds. If the automaker who tried to delete an armrest for the sake of a few pounds could make tubular crossmembers with near the same efficiency... they would.
    Contradict myself? I wasn't talking about handling.

    I'm talking about the difference between tires rolling on pavement, and floating over rain and snow.

    Ditch banging in my too-light car... been there done that. I have to carry 200 pounds of tractor weights in my car all winter. I would think all that steel can be put to better use than to take up space in the trunk!

    Now, if you really want to argue about handling, go tell someone driving a 94-04 car that a lighter 87-93 car will outhandle theirs. The Vette has a more rigid frame and superior suspension; it is that and not lighter weight that keeps it on the curves. Granted a 5,000 pound car is not going to autocross like a racecar no matter what you do to it, but when we are talking about a 15% difference in weight, chassis and suspension design is going to have the final word.
  4. So are you saying that like a focus is in the same class as a mustang GT?

    Since when has any musclecar-esqe vehicle EVER handled great in the rain or snow? They arn't JUST a compact car, they are built for speed and lots of power. A mustang is not an all-terrain vehicle, it is a dry, sunny day cruiser at least and is by no means purposefully built for the intentions of bad weather. It is a car who's sole intent is to deliver driving satisfaction with a lot of rear-wheel horsepower on the side. If you want good snow traction, then you have the wrong vehicle, go for a 4x4 truck of some type or at least a 4 cylinder front wheel drive car instead.
  5. Ray...

    Ford could have done something with it a long time ago when the chassis first came out, but back when the Fox hit the street, nobody gave a crap how it handled. They wanted to wax the Camaro, which handled equally as bad. Handling wasn’t an issue. Cheap affordable power was what mattered. But with competition getting stiff in the early ‘90s, and the price hike since the last ’93 Mustang rolled off the assembly line, the Mustang became less affordable than it was and people wanted more for their money. Ford stretched the Fox platform out for as long as it could with the SN-95 and by that time there were so many aftermarket companies building aftermarket suspension components, it didn’t make sense for Ford to step into the ring. Ford parts have always been notoriously more expensive than the aftermarket. With all of their money and efforts going into design and production of the new Mustang Platform (as well as other vehicles) over the last several years, why would they bother stepping up to the plate on a dying chassis now?

    Ford could have addressed the handling issue with very little expense, but it had less to do with not being able to affordably do it, and more to do with cutting their losses and moving on. It would be bad strategy and marketing on Fords part to upgrade the old platform then when the new one is just around the corner? Even if the did upgrade the SN-95, but the new one still handled marginally better afterwards, why would they to satisfy a handful of unevolving faithful when in doing so could effectively take some of the spotlight from the newer model? They’d rather see and night and day difference between the two than a marginal difference. It would give them that much more justification to ask the price that they’re asking for the car.

    You wanna go through the snow, buy an Explorer. Since when was a Mustang a multi-purpose car to begin with? So, are you saying that since an '03 Cobra weighs more than an '87 Coupe that it's going to be any better in the snow? As far as handling, yeah a lighter ’87-’93 won’t handle as well as an SN-95, but that has little to do with their weight difference. You’d be surprised how not so well an SN-95 wouldn’t do without the factory 17’ wheels. Slap on a set of 15x7’s on them and you’ll see the gap close considerably. Regardless, weight is a major contributor to handling even with an inferior chassis like a fox. I’d put my money on a Fox Mustang with 17 inch wheels to get around a track a lot quicker than an SN-95, everything else being equal.
  6. I wouldn't...your comparing the 87-90's with 94/95's...the 91-93's have 16's...

    A lot quicker?...hmm....

    Thats like saying I'd bet a sn95 with bolt-ons and gears will get down the drag strip a lot quicker than a fox...everything else being equal...

    It isn't stock...
  7. Yep, each decade is notorious yet famous for something and the fox plateform is no different. It was created in an era for a different purpose than what we are comparing it to todays standards. You have to remember that the 80's was a decade comeing off of another (1970's) where all people wanted was go-fast rear-wheel drive muscle cars with the biggest loping cam yet they were gas-guzzling monstrosities and they both looked like and handled like a boat. The 80's was a decade where the japs taught us a lesson so we shot for lighter-weight and more fuel-efficient cars after just comeing off of a gas crisis. The 90's was more of a beginning of the more bang-for-your-buck evolution and when people actually cared greatly about saftey and driveability (ABS, air bags, various auto-seatbelt restraint systems, crash ratings standards, 4-wheel disc brakes, and so on).

    Each decade's cars are unique to that era in its own way. The fox was unique and a favorable platform for its time as well and was well-loved and received back then. Today we know better and think how awefully unstable a chassis design it was. Different decade, different time and back then the fox was thought of as a well-designed car and it served its purpose well back then. That was then and this is now and just as time passes on we have different expectations today as buyers than we did back then. So it isn't really fair to slam it considering we are somewhat "spoiled" by what we have with today's technology and all.
  8. Alright, maybe not a lot quicker, but I'd bet it would be quicker just the same.

    And I think my comparison is pretty fair. We're comparing chassis here. Horsepower is a whole new ball game. What I'm getting at is the few improvements made to the SN-95 chassis wouldn't be so dramaitic if it were not for the upgrade from 15 to 17 inch wheels and tires. Even the upgrade from 225/55/16 to 245/45/17 is huge, nevermind a 225/60/15 to a 245/45/17.

    Nope, I'd still put my money on a factory stripped '87-93 Coupe compared to a factory stripped SN-95.

    We could argue this all day long, but unless one of us has got skidpad results to compare, I guess we're just gonna have to agree to disagree. :shrug:
  9. The 94/95 body style has a redesigned floor-plan, revised front crossmember, X-brace stiffening structure placed underneath the oil pan...even though the front suspension is still the MacPherson strut style unit the geometry and mounting bolts were revised also...along with the different spindles. The front crossmember was moved up slightly and the control arms are a bit longer and larger boxed sections were made into roof rails and rocker panels to help any kind of flexing problem...and with all this and some other slight changes the body is 56% stronger in the bending aspect and 44% stiffer in the torsion area than the foxbodied platform...

    The wheelbase is almost an inch longer and is about 2 inches wider and you could get the optional ABS in the mustangs those years...and the Gt has 10.8in disc brakes in front and 10.5 in the back...a far cry from those "baby" disc in the fox and those musical instruments in the back (drums)...

    Yeah just a "few changes" :D

    The point with the horsepower vs. chassis was to point out...there is no need to compare "aftermarket" (bigger wheels) to what the stock wheels are on the sn95 (94/95)...They actually came with 16in wheels...so compare the 94/95 with the 91-93...the Sn-95 will outhandle it...

    Personal experience: My 2000 GT (stock suspension) vs. my 93 lx with FRPP lowering springs, Steeda strut tower, ADJ caster camber plates, and full length MM subframes...still won't touch the 2000 in feel,response, or handling...

    I'm cool with agreeing to disagree...
  10. Yep.
    I do have a 4-cylinder car. It's called a Mustang.

    These are not sports cars. They are basic cars with an optional V8 engine, built and sold by Ford with the original purpose of having a pleasant cruise down to the store. I do like them for their looks and simplicity, and certainly they can be built to be sports cars or drag cars or whatever. But from the factory, they are just spot-welded sheetmetal with interior fit and finish to rival a go-kart. A car "whose sole intent is to deliver driving satisfaction" would be an $80,000 Corvette.
  11. Are YOU going to finance my purchase of a truck just for winter driving? Considering that I have neither the money nor space for an extra vehicle, and can get around quite well in snow when aforementioned weight is added and the proper tires are used.

    Since when was a Mustang not a multi-purpose car?

    You want to put your money on a Fox out-handling the newer cars with a wheel upgrade, I can certainly afford to play that game. :lol:
  12. Just gonna throw my 2 cents up in here.

    Why has noone mentioned dyno numbers if you're so concerned about power output? Stock 5 speed 5.0's put about 190rwhp down, correct? What does a stock 96-98 GT 5 speed put down? Dont 96+ have 3.27 gears standard, compared to 3.08's for the 5.0's?

    5speed 96-98 GT = 14.9 @ 94mph

    What would a comparable Fox Gt 5 speed run in similarly good condition?

    You guys are making this thread way more complicated than it has to be.

    It isnt too difficult to determine which car is faster. HP:weight, gearing, and driver skill is about all that needs to be discussed.
  13. Your average pre-99 4.6L will consistently dyno about 5-7rwhp less than most 5.0L's Your average 5.0L 5-speed will run about 14.6 with your everyday Joe at the wheel. With a good driver and ideal track conditions some get them down to low, low 14's and a couple have touched high 13's in a factory stripped LX Coupe, but it's not the norm.

    Id say you're pretty accurate with 14.9 being average for a '96-'98 4.6L 5-speed. A couple have gone a little quicker, but some have gone slower as well. All depend.

    The Mod motor cars didn't get 3.27 gears standard until '99. Before that it was stuck with the plain old crappy 2.73's that most of them had. The 5.0L got 3.08's as an option with 2.73's being standard in a 5-speed and a 3.27 could be had in an Auto as an option. The options were about the same for the 4.6L

    Contrary to what some believe, the '96-98's don't have any power advantage over the old 5.0. Whether it be holeshot, half track or top end. The 5.0 gets it down low and consistently keeps pulling until the race is over.
  14. Finally 5spdGT shut up.
  15. I did?...what am I doing differently than anybody else...is it hard to accept the fact that a smaller engine or 100 more lbs can make it almost a drivers race?
  16. If anyone wants the tech info are some good info on the cars or motors spec's use www.google.com ;)

    I posted the curb weights for the foxes in another thread and a LX Coupe is can be a good 500lbs or more less in weight. 94''+ cars just got a little heavier and 99''+ make more power.

    And then after 7 days they rested and it was all good :p
  17. I recall saying front-wheel drive as well. Yes I stick by what I say about
    "A car whose sole intent is to deliver driving satisfaction" . These cars started out as 2+2 cruisers and it is and always has been a "fun" car. With that in mind, there aren't a whole lot of cars on the road that were created with that thought as the basis of its foundation. Ford never created it with the intent of it being a great all-season vehicle that could go through rain, snow, mud, gravel and so on with ease. A mustang is a car which no explanation is needed. Speak of the car's name and people know exactly what you are talking about and no, sorry, it will not be rememberd for having a great 4 or 6 cylinder - people tend to think of it as a go-fast all-thrills car with a roaring V8 with excitement under the command of your right foot and NOT a grocery go-getting fuel-efficient 4 banger.

    A vette on the other hand was created with one thing in mind - speed. It is a purpose-built car which makes it different from a mustang which as I said, was created to deliver driving satifaction to its customers.
  18. Don’t assume that you know me.

    My stock hatch weighed 2966lbs without the spare tire, without the dogbone, and with 1/8 tank of gas.

    Where did I make anything up? I know what you were referring to and you’re still an idiot. Just because you can find 4.6 parts in a junkyard doesn’t make it easier to make that kind of power with a 4.6. You must think that there are no 5L parts in junkyards…

    First, I think you’re leaving a couple of things out (like gas and spares etc…). Second, even still your GT weighed in more than 300 lbs heavier than the lightest foxes.

    So let me get this straight… If you pulled up to a car that I no longer have in a car that you no longer have, then you would not worry about me?

    Great argument there, bud! I’m sure you win all of your internet races. I’m sorry, I only race at the track.

    I’ve beaten a lot of drivers in my time, and a lot have beat me, but I know the difference between out driving a guy and out powering him. On a straight highway where all you have to do in put the pedal down and keep in right gear, there isn’t much driving to it. If I can outrun a 99 GT 5 speed from a 55mph roll through 3rd gear (~115mph) by3-4 car lengths, it wasn’t my driving that won the race.

    Your problem is that you’ve driven the cars and so you think it makes you an expert on the subject. I don’t believe in butt-dyno power figures. Take the cars to the track and see how they run when you stack them up next to each other.

    I know damned good and well that the average 99+ GT will beat the average 5 liter fox-body, but I also know that the fastest fox-bodies are quicker than you are giving them credit for.
    fully loaded, eh?

    See, I love this ****! You claim to know everything that there is to know about GT speeds and abilities, but claims like this just destroy your credibility. You claim that 99+ GTs trap 101 mph, but that there’s no way in hell they’ll trap 98mph on a good run. If you went out to the track consistently, you’d know that just the seasonal difference in temperature can cause a 3 mph difference in trap speeds. Elevation can cause an even more significant difference. You obviously don’t go out to the track enough to know about this phenomenon, and they must not talk about it in the magazines that you read.

    That said, even under good track and weather conditions, 99+ GTs do not all trap your claimed 101 mph. In fact, the majority do not. Most of what I see trap in the 99-101 mph range. I’ve also seen a couple trap over 102, FWIW.

    Of course I will! Now you should GO BACK TO YOUR MAGAZINE.

    What is this crap? You can’t win an argument by putting words in my mouth.

    Allow me to expound upon the reason that I want you to read more accurately. Remember saying this:

    But wait! I never said the fastest stock 5.0 to ever run was a 13.8, because the fastest stock 5.0 was the 93 Cobra, which certainly could do better than a 13.8. The factory stripped coupes were certainly capable of 13.8s, though.

    More importantly I never said that the average 5spd 96-98GT could run mid 14s – they don’t. I said the average 5.0 fox-body GT ran mid 14s.

    I was never inconsistent – prove me wrong. Also, define troll, because I don’t see how I could possibly fit into that category considering I’ve owned and worked on mustangs all my life, and I’ve been part of this message board community longer than you have been.

    Yeah, I got it. This is still completely beside the point – a ridiculous argument.

    Again, I’m sure you’re the fastest internet racer on your block.

    You’re not the only person whose owned and driven both. Stop assuming that you know me. My statistics didn’t come from the internet, or from a butt-dyno. They came from my experiences with them at the track.

    In my world, the 5.0 isn’t god, but it’s still a hell of a lot more bang for the buck than any 4.6, especially the SOHC.

    I think it’s pretty clear to even you that 96-98 GTs were not “very close (stock for stock)” with “...maybe a bit of an edge to the 5.0...”

    Have a nice day!

  19. Is that the best you got man :rlaugh: ...if anybody would look back at your own post they would see what I'm talking about...

    I never assumed that I know you...I was talking about driving cars...not knowing you... :rlaugh:

    I said "show me a stock lx that weighs 2900lbs or less...you still haven't shown me...yours isn't stock with the spare taking out :rlaugh: ...

    Look back at old post for that one (referring to the 250rwhp post)...I don't feel like explaining myself ON THAT ONE...

    :rlaugh: ...Nope not leaving anything out...that was full weight...(without me)...AGAIN your not comparing equally...you just put I'm 300lbs more than the lightest lx...so AGAIN you taking an AVERAGE weight compared to the lightest fox... :rlaugh:

    Yep your correct...if I pulled up to you in my 2000 GT (I no longer have) and you were running your 14.2 at 98mph...I wouldn't worry about you... :nice:

    Yes if you beat a 99+ Gt from a 55mph roll to 115 it was based on the 99+ Gt couldnt' drive...go start posting in the 4.6 section and see how they laugh you out of there and call :bs:

    Nope you don't have to drive the car to be an expert...its called common sense...I guarantee you I spend more time at the track you do...trust me... :nice:

    If fullyloaded is 5spd, power windows, power locks (a few pounds a piece)...and an airbag... :shrug: :rlaugh:

    You better love it...because 98mph isn't a good run...again go back to the track or the 4.6 forums and they will laugh you out of the forum...101mph would be a good run...

    Go back to the track...

    Yep I'm an internet racer :rlaugh:

    You never said the fastest 5.0 ran a 13.8... :rlaugh: ...everybody go back to his first couple posts...and read what it says... :rlaugh:

    Start comparing cars equally... :nonono: :rlaugh:

    Your a clown and need to back to your ricer forum :shrug:

    You have lied up and down in this forum...if I only had the time or wanted to make time to quote and pick apart your little quotes...I would...but you know what if somebody is that worried about it...they can look it up their selves...

    And quit bringing up an old thread to get :owned: everytime....

  20. You're right. That was an exaggeration, and I can’t show you one that weighs exactly 2900 lbs. I don’t have a stripper notchback available for weight tests at this time – I’ll be sure to send one out as soon as it becomes available.

    Seriously though, a little bit of logic will confirm what I’m telling you. No, they didn’t weigh 2900 lbs – it was actually in the high 2900s, which can be confirmed by adding common sense to an article I’m going to send you in lieu of my unavailable stripper notchbacks. The stripper hatchback in the article weighed 3060 lbs straight from the factory. I don’t recall exactly what mine weighed because it has been a long time, but it was pretty close to this. Drop 70 lbs for the approximate weight difference of the hatchback body vs. the notchback, and that takes you to 2990. Now, I don’t know why you race at full weight, but I don’t. When I weigh my cars, I weighed them at my race weight. I also weighed the components that I took off of the car. The stock spare tire was 30lbs. The jack was 6 lbs. The dog-bone was 11 lbs. The gas tank holds 15.5 gallons. ¼ of a tank would be ~4 gallons. 15.5 gallons - 11.5 gallons drops 72 lbs. Therefore, the race weight minus the driver would be 2871.

    Before you say it, I know that you don’t consider this the stock weight. I understand and grant that I exaggerated saying that stock stripper notch was 2900 lbs. This is what the car would weigh the first time I took it to the track, if it were my car.

    You don’t feel like explaining yourself, because you know that it is in no way easier and especially not cheaper to get 250 rwhp from a 4.6.

    Cool. I thought they weighed more. You’re still 300 lbs heavy. What did the lightest GTs weigh?

    I’m correct that you’re an internet racer? BTW, that 14.2 was the one and only night that I took my car out. I feel that I would have gotten easy 13s and a couple more mph from it as I had not removed the stock air silencer or bumped the timing.

    You weren’t there. I was. I know what outdriving someone looks and sounds like. When a car gets on the throttle and is reeled back in it isn’t the driving. That car was outpowered. Laugh if you like…. I was there.

    Quit making an ass out of yourself. Honestly, how could you know that you spend more time at the track than me?

    Yup, pretty much. Did it have A/C cause guess what…. That was a factory option in the early LX 5.0s. Ask me how I know, please.

    You got it. I’ve seen it too many damned times for it to be a fluke. Will report the results.

    Sure thing. I’m there every weekend.

    Sure sounds like it to me. Hey mind posting a slip of your fastest time in that 2000 GT, or you could send it to me via email.

    No….everybody please don’t go back and look, I’ll post what I said exactly: “The best running bone stock 5.0 LXs ran 13.8s right off of the factory floor.”

    Reading accuracy: note the “LXs” right after “5.0.” This delineates a certain type of 5.0, which was not the fastest 5.0 produced. Sorry bud, try again.

    Show me the car that equals the stripper notch from both 1996-1998 models and 99+ models and I’ll be happy to.

    Which one LS1.com, or corral.net, because those are the only two other forums that I’ve been an active member on for the past 4 years. I know, maybe one of my cars made you think that I was a ricer. Which one was it, the 1989 5.0 LX that stayed pretty close to stock, the 1999 Corvette coupe, the 1992 5.0 H/C/I LX that ran low 12s, or my current 1991 Twin-Turbo 5.0 LX? Oh, my bad.... you must've seen me in my hooptie - a 1990 Honda Accord. That's what confused you. Relax, bro, that's not the hot rod it just gets me to work and back when I'm dirty.

    Accusing me of lying is going way too far, and you damned sure owe it to me to show me where I lied before you accuse me of it.

    Sorry brother, I’m an officer in the U.S. Army, and I don’t have much free time to come here. The last thing I did before I left to go to the field last Monday was to check this thread, and it was the first thing I checked when I got back, today.