I want to get into a fox but I seem to find better deals on 94-95 gt's. What would be the pros and cons of each? I know the opinions are one sided in the sn95 forums but interested to hear. It would be a street car looking for sub 12 second car
Fox 5.0 Vs Sn95 5.0
- Thread starter tjmaxx
- Start date
-
Sponsors (?)
jozsefsz
15 Year Member
The SN95 has a much stiffer chassis and they worked on many of the weak spots the Fox platform had - like the torque boxes. In my opinion the interior and exterior design was far more sophisticated than the 80's econo-box styling of the Fox - the interior remained largely unchanged for quite a few years. Airbags, ABS, 4-wheel discs were standard so arguably much safer than many years of the Fox platform. 99% of mechanical parts interchange with Fox 5.0's which is nice. Performance is down 10hp factory from the best Fox 5.0's due to the intake, but to reach sub-12 you're probably talking forced induction anyways so that won't be an issue.
People gripe about the computers having issues adjusting to minor mods, but they're actually significantly faster, more powerful computers and are just as easy to tune. As you mention, you can pick up an excellent condition SN95 for far less $ than the Foxes which are a fad at the moment. Most examples I've seen are also almost corrosion-proof thanks to the factory dipping they received, whereas many Foxes are a corroded strut tower away from being junk. I've had a '66, '76, '78, '84, '95 and the most reliable, fastest, most solid one I've had by far is my '95. I haven't needed another one since I picked that one up.
People gripe about the computers having issues adjusting to minor mods, but they're actually significantly faster, more powerful computers and are just as easy to tune. As you mention, you can pick up an excellent condition SN95 for far less $ than the Foxes which are a fad at the moment. Most examples I've seen are also almost corrosion-proof thanks to the factory dipping they received, whereas many Foxes are a corroded strut tower away from being junk. I've had a '66, '76, '78, '84, '95 and the most reliable, fastest, most solid one I've had by far is my '95. I haven't needed another one since I picked that one up.
That's pretty much all the reasons I bought my 95. $3500 for a solid car that already had nice mod's done........ can't complain about that. I did however end up with a broken trans not long after I got it..... the bellville broke which allowed the output shaft to move forward and bled out like a stuck pig! I rebuilt it and upgraded it while I was at it. Now she runs great and has been a lot of fun. Since your looking to push it pretty hard, I'd say without a doubt it's the better platform to go with.
Dan_Soprano
Mod Dude
I personally like the light weight of the 87-93 Notches, but you can't beat the upgrade in brakes or chassis of the SN.
Except for the fact that they are (arguably) the worst looking mustang. Maybe besides the II.... this is JMO however.
It doesn't take much to upgrade the fox.
It doesn't take much to upgrade the fox.
Dan_Soprano
Mod Dude
Naa man, I love the SN-95. Look waaaaay better then the current Stang which looks like an americanized infinity... IMO.
I like the new edge much better, before they went to the s197. To me the 03-04 were the most aggressive looking cars on the road.
Dan_Soprano
Mod Dude
That I 100% agree with. The Termi was just nasty looking. 10 years later and I'm still kicking myself in the ass for selling my 04. Biggest mistake of my life.
jozsefsz
15 Year Member
I still don't know how reasonable people can say that this glorified econobox with pasted-on black rubber trim is better looking than any generation of Mustang (II included which I happen to love). The "cool" ones had the cheese-grater tail-lights, Taurus headlights, and plastic for miles. The ugliest ones were indistinguishable from the Escort. To each their own, but "looks" is not an argument you'll win outside of the Fox forum.
Says the sn95 owner. My car does not look anything like those nor do any well done foxes.
Way better than this thing.
look at all that plastic and half the thing is held on with double sided tape... and all the lame body kits people put on them don't help
To each there own I suppose.
Way better than this thing.
To each there own I suppose.
TheNudeLion
Member
Lol, you dudes are being harsh you both had to post some pretty gnarly pics of those body types.
jozsefsz
15 Year Member
A well-done anything is going to look better than stock I'm sure we agree on that (see the II below). This IS the 94-95 Tech Section so you'll expect to find some SN95 owners here who appreciate their cars. I don't typically hop into the Fox section to tell you y'all's cars suck, this was a question posed to SN95 owners. Lowering and / or some nice wheels will take almost any generation Mustang and make it better. The purple one you post is actually pretty near stock, with some nice wheels it'd be pretty sweet - though it is the v6 which is going to be weak in any generation. There's actually very little plastic there, just the rocker cover and bumpers.
The title reads Fox vs SN95 so I figured he wanted opinions from both sides.
Meh... plastic is lighter look at new oem..
Looking from a pure performance standpoint both platforms have good qualities. The fox is light most of us are going to upgrade suspension parts from stock so things like U/L control arms, coil overs, shocks and the like are a given on both cars. The fox desperately needs subframe connectors, the sn95 got a lot more bracing than the fox.
The fox platform came with 4 lug wheels and smallish front rotors, to remedy this most do a 5lug upgrade to the car. Both platforms will need upgraded brakes but the fox will need spindles rear axles and a brake booster. The upgrade isn't difficult for most wrench turners. Other options include a rotor and pad swap for the fox which do work well and haul my convertible down from 100mph on an 1/8th mile dragstrip easily enough to take the first turn off.
The sn95 does have a lot more driver assist features, these are important if you can't/don't know how to drive. Or get caught in the rain on a terrible road.
Meh... plastic is lighter look at new oem..
Looking from a pure performance standpoint both platforms have good qualities. The fox is light most of us are going to upgrade suspension parts from stock so things like U/L control arms, coil overs, shocks and the like are a given on both cars. The fox desperately needs subframe connectors, the sn95 got a lot more bracing than the fox.
The fox platform came with 4 lug wheels and smallish front rotors, to remedy this most do a 5lug upgrade to the car. Both platforms will need upgraded brakes but the fox will need spindles rear axles and a brake booster. The upgrade isn't difficult for most wrench turners. Other options include a rotor and pad swap for the fox which do work well and haul my convertible down from 100mph on an 1/8th mile dragstrip easily enough to take the first turn off.
The sn95 does have a lot more driver assist features, these are important if you can't/don't know how to drive. Or get caught in the rain on a terrible road.
Attachments
Also what would be best... find a complete car or start with a roller and sav a few bucks up front? One car I'm looking at is a roller without interior, motor, trans or computer. It's cleaner than the complete car but I've never tackled a project like that before...
Similar threads
