in case u ever wondered what the s/c cobras rwhp stock..

You guys are out of your minds praising the mustang interior while in the same sentence downplaying the vette interior. The reason the mags downplay the vette's interior is because they're comparing it to high end sports cars like Porsches, and the BMW M5, etc... Those magazine reviews never praised the old mustangs except in comparison to the Camaros and Firebirds. Sorry, but the C5 interior is way nicer than any Mustang I've owned to date. I haven't had an 05+ yet, so I won't speak to that.

Chris

Thankyou.

How is this

94%20Ford%20Mustang%20interior%20front.jpg



Better than this?

stock_interior.jpg
 
  • Sponsors (?)


one thing you guys need to remember is that car is s/c'd. Ours are n/a how many of us 5.0 guys are making better numbers then that on the same amount of boost or less. its all about volumetric efficiency which is why the 4.6's have higher h/p numbers then we do stock. the air they bring in in relation to the air they can bring in is higher then our 5.0's because of ****ty design on fords part which is why we go HCI boom we are better off then the 4.6 guys and strap a s/c on it and now ur in cobra romping territory and a TT kit and its over. lol
 
oh and as far as the c5 vette goes. I have been in both the mustang and vette for long ass trips and hands down the mustang is way more comfortable. *I am not talking about looks* And I like the interior of the termi better then the vetter just my .02
 
I agree. I've driven my share of Vette's and the Mustang is way more comfortable to sit in. A 5.0 with good heads makes better power than a 4.6 because it has a larger cylinder bore. I can't stress this enough.

Kurt
 
You guys are out of your minds praising the mustang interior while in the same sentence downplaying the vette interior. The reason the mags downplay the vette's interior is because they're comparing it to high end sports cars like Porsches, and the BMW M5, etc... Those magazine reviews never praised the old mustangs except in comparison to the Camaros and Firebirds. Sorry, but the C5 interior is way nicer than any Mustang I've owned to date. I haven't had an 05+ yet, so I won't speak to that.

Chris

+1 Im sorry you guys are nuts. Look if your in love with the 94-95 stang thats fine, but to insist that its got a better interior or is in anyway even remotely better than a C5 corvette is completely ridiculous.:bs: I like the 94-95, I've had three of them but Im not even going to try to pretend that its better than a corvette in anyway, give me a break. Better than the camaro or firebird interior, ok sure I've got an LS1 camaro I'll give you that.

I like the styling of the 94-95 but lets be real here for a minute. In order for this car to be a contender on the street you have to dump a whole lot of money into it. First off the 302 was a great motor for the fox, not so much for the sn95. Our cars are heavier and the computers bring a whole new problem to the table the fox did not. That in itself can get expensive. Pokageek, I could not agree with you more about going with the 351. This car needs cubes in a major way. But I got news for you if you think your sn95 is gonna out perform a c5 vette. Your either delusional or flat out in a state of denial. The 94-95 mustang is in no shape to take on a c5 Corvette. Hell its in no shape to take on an LS1 camaro or transam. My lightly modded Z28 has eated at least two 347 mustangs and an 05 without breaking a sweat. If I had half the money in this Z I got wrapped up in this stang it would be a 10 second car all day everyday and twice on sunday. Sure you can build a 800 hp motor if you want too. But guess what vettes can get modded too. And unlike this sn95 they bring 345hp to the table stock. Ligenfelter added a twin turbo kit to an LS1 corvette and made 1100hp. You will get out handled, out manuvered and flat out embarrassed. A 94-95 stang that looks better than a vette? Don't tell anybody else that I about hurt myself laughing at that.
 
:stupid:

I had a 00 C5 and it was a nice car, the ride is rougher than a Mustang persay but there is no body lean at all. Gotta give a little to take a little ya know. I loved the way the car sat though as far as my comfort, leg room for days and arm rest/center consol position put your arms just where a nice living room recliner would.

I still love my newly aquired fox body though.
 
+1 Im sorry you guys are nuts. Look if your in love with the 94-95 stang thats fine, but to insist that its got a better interior or is in anyway even remotely better than a C5 corvette is completely ridiculous.:bs:

Totally agree. These cars are not in the same class. What you have in this thread are people that love mustangs, that haven't actually driven a Corvette, or only drove one around the block. Take a Corvette onto the highway, around some twisties, or in a straigt line, and it out performs a mustang in every sense.

Sorry fellas but I have to throw up the :bs: on this one. I know that everyone that has weighed in here has owned Mustangs, Vettes, Camaros, Firebirds, Porsches, Ferraris, Lambos, Bentleys, Bugattis, Lotus', etc etc etc etc etc but still likes their 14 year old mustang the best.......

Adam
 
A few things:


1.) I dont think Chevy was trying to think of a way to make a vette a good long distance traveling car....so im not at all surprised that my mustang (which is built closer to being a comfort highway/family car) is more comfortable.

2.) The vette's interior might not compete with bmw's or porsches....but a mustang pre 05(i dont have much seat time in 05+) is a very bare bones no frills boring looking interior. It fits a mustang but by no means is it "nice". Neither one is anything to write home about so stop braggin that the mustang interior is so superior.

3.) If you are going to compare the mustang interior, atleast give it the black on black interior that looks the best:rolleyes:

4.) If you rented a cadillac from a rental car place, it was probably a bare bones, no special options, caddy. Now tomorrow go to the dealer, ask them for a fully loaded Caddy with all the options....and come back and tell me that interior sucks. Caddy's offer probably the most technology in their cars out of american companies....if theirs suck, all american car interiors suck IMO. :shrug:

5.) You cant put a 347 in a stang up against a camaro, trans am AND a vette. The vette isnt in the same league. ESPECIALLY a Z01. They are as light, if not lighter, than fox's.

6.) Are we comparing 94-95's or fox's to these cars? Cause outside of MAYBE weight, fox's offer nothing IMHO. If a vette's interior sucks, how is the interior of a fox? :rlaugh:


7.) A vette is outdated.....but our 94-95's are not? Come on give me a break. ALL vettes look similar styling wise since the 80's. Now look at all the transformations the mustang has gone through since the 80s....and you are trying to tell me that a body style from 98, is MORE up to date than a 02 vette?! Give me a break. I love my mustang, i really do, but you can not be that blinded by the fact that this is "our" car. Lets be honest about all of this. You may personally like a mustang better, but you cant throw a general blanket statement that society looks at it as being out of date. A mustang is not nearly as sexy as a vette.....but it can look meaner or more unique.

And last but not most.....

8.) Since when did we just go to a dealer, drop $21,000 on a 03/04cobra/z01 and walk away and call it a day? we've talked about a car note but no one has brought up the HUGE increase in your insurance premium. 5.0's are dirt cheap because the insurance people think its slow(well it is stock lol). Go get a car that they know is fast and see how much more you are paying. Add that to your little comparison of mod for mod if we are going to be penny pinchers.



There will always be someone bigger, faster, with more money than you. So just drive what you love, if thats a brand new shelby gt500 or a 94-95 cobra. Have fun and lets remember to keep an OPEN MIND about other cars and not to be stuck up pricks thinking our cars are immortal gods of the streets :nonono:
 
...
we've talked about a car note but no one has brought up the HUGE increase in your insurance premium. 5.0's are dirt cheap because the insurance people think its slow(well it is stock lol). Go get a car that they know is fast and see how much more you are paying. Add that to your little comparison of mod for mod if we are going to be penny pinchers.
good point here ... i bet an 03 cobra has a much higher insurance premium than a 95 gt

that said, i have heard that corvettes have lower premiums than mustangs. probably because vettes are typically owned/driven by older people (mid life crisis) who generally drive more conservatively :shrug:
 
My goal is to get a low mileage, original owner, stock or MILDLY modded 03-04 Cobra. I had a mint 2004 yellow one lined up with under 10,000 miles, he was asking $27,500. I sold one notch and I tried selling the other but couldn't....the guy no longer has the car advertised, but he might still have it. I would rather spend more on more that was clean, than say $19-$22K on something with 30,000-50,000 miles.
 
What exactly is the debate here? You aren't debating whether a Vette is better than a mustang or whether a Vette would be a better buy than a heavily modded stang. I don't even think anyone is even debating which has a better interior. I think this is officially a heated thread about nothing. I say get an FFR MK3 and beat all of the above in every regard muhahaha!
 
There seems to be this huge misconception that a Fox body is light as a feather and an SN-95 is a blithering tank. Option for option the SN-95 weighs 150lbs more than a 93' Mustang GT. The only real differences are, the SN-95 has 4 wheel disk brakes, generally come with ABS, has a little more structural integrity, and has an extra air bag. Other than that the cars are basically the same. You don't need a 351 in an SN-95 anymore than you need it in an old Fox body. And the computer, come on. Anytime you do any serious mods to a car, you are going to change the program to where you need it anyway.

Kurt
 
There seems to be this huge misconception that a Fox body is light as a feather and an SN-95 is a blithering tank. Option for option the SN-95 weighs 150lbs more than a 93' Mustang GT. The only real differences are, the SN-95 has 4 wheel disk brakes, generally come with ABS, has a little more structural integrity, and has an extra air bag. Other than that the cars are basically the same. You don't need a 351 in an SN-95 anymore than you need it in an old Fox body. And the computer, come on. Anytime you do any serious mods to a car, you are going to change the program to where you need it anyway.

Kurt

When people compare weights...they typically do so against the notchback, as they offer the best platform (lightest & most rigid chassis). The typical notchback weighs in at < 3050lbs with the no-optioned models getting down in the 3000lb range. Compared to vehicles today...and even the sn-95, that is light as a feather.
 
Oh, and I'll agree with you on the Corvette, that is an awesome car. But the Cadillac is the worst car made in America today hands down. The suspension is so poor in it, I get sea sick everytime I ride in it. They are hidiously ugly right now. I rented a CTS about a year ago, the windshield design is so bad it's practically impossible to drive it in the rain. The water just sits on the windshield and doesn't go anywhere. The seat quality is so bad that if you have to sit in it for more than 15 minutes your butt goes absolutely numb. I swear they got the Climate Control system from the same people who built it for the jet I fly at work. It's either blowing ice chunks at you, or melting your face. I have to sit and deal with that at work, last thing I want to do is ride home with the same experience. I might get flashbacks on my commute. The stearing wheel in the Cadillac is like turning a radio knob, there is absolutely no feedback whatsoever. The car has more blindspots driving down the road than my F-150. It's simply an awful car. There is absolutely no engineering involved in it at all. I would rather drive an Aveo or a Cobalt, and that is not an exaguration. The only positive thing Cadillac has done in recent years, they finally got rid of that Northstar abomination. I remember working on that thing when I worked in a garage. Even on the biggest Cadillacs with enourmous engine compartments you couldn't get to a single thing on that engine. You burn your hands trying to get the oil filter off. And how about this for thinking things through. In order to change the starter motor, you had to pull a cylinder head. That's smarts for ya.

Kurt
 
When people compare weights...they typically do so against the notchback, as they offer the best platform (lightest & most rigid chassis). The typical notchback weighs in at < 3050lbs with the no-optioned models getting down in the 3000lb range. Compared to vehicles today...and even the sn-95, that is light as a feather.

Ok, but that's not a fair comparison. My car weighs 3360. If I take out the power windows, take out the right airbag, remove the ABS, remove the power rack from my left driver seat (oh my god that set up is heavy), removed the Mach 460 and put in a basic stereo, etc. I'm not going to be too much heavier than that. I had a 93' GT before I had this car and it weighed in at 3320 lbs. Granted that car had iron heads and a metal hood, but it wasn't much lighter than my SN-95.

Kurt
 
Ok, but that's not a fair comparison. My car weighs 3360. If I take out the power windows, take out the right airbag, remove the ABS, remove the power rack from my left driver seat (oh my god that set up is heavy), removed the Mach 460 and put in a basic stereo, etc. I'm not going to be too much heavier than that. I had a 93' GT before I had this car and it weighed in at 3320 lbs. Granted that car had iron heads and a metal hood, but it wasn't much lighter than my SN-95.

Kurt

Of course it's a fair comparison. My fully optioned (power windows/locks/premium sound etc.) notch weighed 3018lbs with ¼ tank of fuel stock. If you get to remove all of that junk…then so do I…and the difference will be damn close to the same that we started off with.

The fact stands that cars over the years have gotten extremely pig heavy...and the mustang is no exception. It's for that very reason that foxbody hp > sn95 hp > etc.
 
The SN-95 is heavier, but not a whole lot. My point was that I could remove a ton of options and still have the same creature comforts of an old Fox Body. I'm telling you, the base difference in the cars is 150lbs, add another 100 lbs if you are comparing a notch instead of a GT. 250lbs still isn't a world of difference.

Kurt
 
The SN-95 is heavier, but not a whole lot. My point was that I could remove a ton of options and still have the same creature comforts of an old Fox Body. I'm telling you, the base difference in the cars is 150lbs, add another 100 lbs if you are comparing a notch instead of a GT. 250lbs still isn't a world of difference.

Kurt

So tell me….exactly what would you have to remove in order to get down to my stock weight of 3018lbs? I’d venture to say you would be removing a lot more than you think.

250lbs may not seem like a lot….but it’s going to take nearly 25rwhp to make up for it. That weight add’s up quick! It’s for that very reason that getting a stock notch to run high 13’s wasn’t all that difficult.

By the way, what exactly does you're typical sn95 5.0 weigh in at?
 
Oh, and I'll agree with you on the Corvette, that is an awesome car. But the Cadillac is the worst car made in America today hands down. The suspension is so poor in it, I get sea sick everytime I ride in it. They are hidiously ugly right now. I rented a CTS about a year ago, the windshield design is so bad it's practically impossible to drive it in the rain. The water just sits on the windshield and doesn't go anywhere. The seat quality is so bad that if you have to sit in it for more than 15 minutes your butt goes absolutely numb. I swear they got the Climate Control system from the same people who built it for the jet I fly at work. It's either blowing ice chunks at you, or melting your face. I have to sit and deal with that at work, last thing I want to do is ride home with the same experience. I might get flashbacks on my commute. The stearing wheel in the Cadillac is like turning a radio knob, there is absolutely no feedback whatsoever. The car has more blindspots driving down the road than my F-150. It's simply an awful car. There is absolutely no engineering involved in it at all. I would rather drive an Aveo or a Cobalt, and that is not an exaguration. The only positive thing Cadillac has done in recent years, they finally got rid of that Northstar abomination. I remember working on that thing when I worked in a garage. Even on the biggest Cadillacs with enourmous engine compartments you couldn't get to a single thing on that engine. You burn your hands trying to get the oil filter off. And how about this for thinking things through. In order to change the starter motor, you had to pull a cylinder head. That's smarts for ya.

Kurt

They still have the northstar and it infact out performs the Mustang powerplants today when speaking in terms of hp and tq vs displacement. 470hp and 440hp from a 4.4 liter supercharged northstar is not to shabby. And I dont care about your personal feelings, Cadillac has a totally revamped line and is doing volumes for the American car image over seas. They are finely getting put up there with Benze, BMW, and others as far as luxory and actually outperforming them on performance in many cases. Stand behind you American companies my freind because they need all the help they can get by way of public opinion, pride, and recongnition for the acheivements they are making.