Sn95 vs Fox: Lets talk rust
- Thread starter Essn95
- Start date
-
Sponsors (?)
I wouldn't say the SN95 was slower than a Fox. Other than a 5-spd LX coupe or LX hatch, most foxes were struggling to get out of the mid 14's back in the day when they were all stock. An AOD fox was a 15 second car.
When I had my 2003 GT 5-spd, I clicked off a 14.1 bone stock. A few minor bolt on's and i was solidly in the mid 13's. I remember the big WOW back in the day was the advancement of the 4R70W and how an automatic GT was now a low 14 second car as well.
However, back in the day, a 14.1 was still slow compared to the LS1 cars dipping into the low 13's and 12's with ease. Here were were in the 2000's and running the same times as a 20 year old Mustang. It certainly hasn't advanced as it did from 2000 to 2020.
When I had my 2003 GT 5-spd, I clicked off a 14.1 bone stock. A few minor bolt on's and i was solidly in the mid 13's. I remember the big WOW back in the day was the advancement of the 4R70W and how an automatic GT was now a low 14 second car as well.
However, back in the day, a 14.1 was still slow compared to the LS1 cars dipping into the low 13's and 12's with ease. Here were were in the 2000's and running the same times as a 20 year old Mustang. It certainly hasn't advanced as it did from 2000 to 2020.
91TwighlightGT
Dirt-Old 20+Year Member
To be very clear, an 03 GT with the 260 HP 4.6L was a far cry from the 94-95 5.0L or the truly pathetic 96-98 4.6L.
I don't really consider the automatics in the conversation. It was a period of time where the Auto was a huge disadvantage over a 5-speed manual, no matter what body style of car.
Stock for stock, a 93 Mustang GT beats a 94 GT every time. Neither car was a fire breather, but the 93 gets a pass because it was the last year of a 7 year model run. People expected more from the 94 redesign.
Still, stock for stock the SN was slower than the Fox in a straight line, and in that era the Mustang was always considered a straight line car. Historically, we should all be happy that there was a '94 Mustang at all because as we all know Ford had it's head on the block and was sharpening the axe right up to the presidential pardon
Reading about the history of the SN95 project and how it came together on a bare bones budget is actually pretty interesting, and realistically it was the best thing that ever happened to Fox owners because so many of those newer suspension pieces can be backdated into our vehicles.
With all that said, I will maintain that the reason the SN95 remains unpopular is twofold. First, the relatively low performance of the car hurt it a lot. Whichever way you cut it, the 94-95 5.0L car was slower to 60 MPH and in the 1/4 Mile than the 93 5.0L. On top of that, it was going up against the 93 Camaro/Firebird which was already stomping the 93 GT, and the expectation was that Ford would offer more competition with the 94 redesign. It took buying the Cobra to be competitive with the Z28, the GT simply had no chance. To make matters worse, in '96 Ford rolled out the 4.6L V8. This engine had even lower performance and the already slow Mustang GT got even slower! Again, stepping up to the Cobra was a world of difference, but it was also quite a bit more expensive, and they only made a limited number.
I still contend that is generational. There may come a time when the SN cars are more popular than the foxbodies. I grew up in the 90s, I like the styling of the SN. It was they styling of the period; clean, smooth, no corners. Like Supras, and 300Zs. The New Edge has too many corners. I actually met the man who claims to have insisted on the New Edge re design, and it has nothing to do with styling. He was the lead engineer for John Force racing, and he went to Ford and told them "I need the back end of the car to be shaped like this in order to win races."
My SN was faster stock than my stock Foxbody. Sorry, it's just true. Not by much, but it was noticeable. On the track, I ran the exact same 14.2 quarter mile in both of them. When these magazines do test data, they do on a track in ideal conditions with good drivers. It is dissapointing that they made a Mustang that was slower than the previous model, but the reality of the situation was as you described; bare bones budget, barely even got the car out. On the street, with stock suspension, the Foxbody was just squirly. It struggled for traction even totally stock. The SN stayed straight and planted. But that opens the discussion to an even broader picture. Very few people buy a car and go the track with it. Very few people make a car buying decision based on tenths of second performance differences. The Mustang killed the Camaro in sales, always has. A bunch of my friends had those 4th gen door wedge Camaros. Yeah, they put out impressive numbers on the track. However, you sat in a hole, you couldn't see anything out of them, they rode poorly, the seats were cheap, the back seat was even more unusable than the Mustang, they fell apart, and the ignition key looked like it was for a pad lock.
I still contend that the SN was the best Mustang ever sold. Yes, it's slow, I know that. Enthusiasts buying old Mustangs generally intend to correct that. But the looks are just so spot on, and pop once the car is lowered. That Ferrari curve that runs down the side from wheel arch to wheel arch, the lack of hard angles anywhere, etc. The dual pod interior that is an iconic throwback to the Stingray, the arm pockets in the doors that wrap up ever so slightly over your arms. I've driven every generation of Mustang except the II. The SN is the only car that makes you feel like you are part of the car, and not just sitting in it. My Toyota MR2 was the same way. The durability of an SN is beyond question which is what this thread was originally about. These cars hold up really well. There is no way the S550s are going to look this good in a quarter of a century. I've taken the interior out of my Mustang so many times, I can't count. I have a few worn pieces, I had to replace the shifter bezel. It still looks almost new. The seats are still comfortable, have no tears, no loose stitching, no fading. I see SNs in the same condition all the time. You don't see many door wedge Camaros in that condition anymore do you?
Kurt
I know I am kind of rambling on here, but it's what I do best. Don't get me wrong here, I really have a thing for Foxbodies. I would love to go back and make a duplicate of the Electric Current Red Mustang I had in high school. There is another distinct difference in the transition from the Foxbody to the SN. This is my opinion here. The Foxbody was the last Muscle Car ever made. It was a 2 door Ford coupe with a powerful drive train. No bells and whistles; a pure muscle car. When the SN came out, it transitioned the market to what it is today. All of a sudden almost every car sold had leather seats, a 460 watt stereo, power windows and door locks, cruise control; you know premium options for the time. You had to find the purposefully stripped down GTS model just to get back to the normal Foxbody trim level. In 1993, a Ford Mustang GT with decent options was priced in line with a similiarly equipped Ford Taurus. Now a Mustang GT is nearly double what a Fusion costs.
It's also amazing to me how what we consider collectible and nostalgic is not reflected in a linear passage of time. The most sought after muscle car is the 1969 Chevy Camaro. When the last foxbody was produced, that car was 24 years old. The most recent car model on this talk page is now 25 years old. The passage of time neglects our perception of it.
Kurt
It's also amazing to me how what we consider collectible and nostalgic is not reflected in a linear passage of time. The most sought after muscle car is the 1969 Chevy Camaro. When the last foxbody was produced, that car was 24 years old. The most recent car model on this talk page is now 25 years old. The passage of time neglects our perception of it.
Kurt
There’s going to come a day where SN are appreciated. Foxbodies are going to be way out of reach and people are going to realize the sn is an improved fox with more sexy lines. It’s a truly special driving experience, I have to agree with revhead. Out of all the older cars I’ve driven of the era, you really feel like you’re sitting in the car and it drives damn good for a mid nineties vehicle.
The 2V in the 96-98 won’t get as much appreciation. Mustang is largely associated with 5.0 in people’s head. The fox platform and 94-95 draw the most similarities. Same motor, same trans, but better suspension and interior
91TwighlightGT
Dirt-Old 20+Year Member
I've never heard this, and I have a really hard time believing that Ford designed their Mustang around niche drag racing. "New Edge" is referred to in Mustang circles to describe the 99-04 Mustangs and differentiate them from the "SN-95" 94-98 body style. Technically SN-95 spans all 94-04 models, much like the Fox is 79-93, but we differentiate them between four-eye and Aero Nose.
New Edge wasn't just Ford terminology for the Mustang, though, it was used as a design philosophy across the car line in that time period. You see it in the Focus release, the Taurus redesign, Explorer's and other SUV's all becoming less round and more squared off.
Actually that big saving happened back around '88/'89 as the new Probe came out in '89. The outcry changed Ford's mind.
The redesigned Probe was '93 so the SN was the needed update of the Fox with the latest design studio "bubble" rendering, remember Taurus went bubble in '96 ( I had a '97 V8 SHO, blast of a car), as did the Tempo/Topaz replacement in the Contour/Mystique.
I am not sure what changed between the '93 and '94 to plant the rear or make it go straighter. I think all the rear components are the same (maybe even interchangeable). Wider rear should not make it hook better and the disc brakes don't do a thing for traction. As far as I remember the major changes were chassis stiffening related and some revised front suspension components. Now the chassis changes would limit some of the flex in the chassis that could make the car "squirrelly". The suspension stuff again shouldn't make it launch straighter either.
So if the improved driving experience just boils down to chassis improvements, then that's what us Fox guys need to focus on and we should be all set.
91TwighlightGT
Dirt-Old 20+Year Member
John Coletti: What I'd Do Differently
At Ford in the Nineties, engineer John Coletti saved the Mustang. Now he wants to save the world.
www.caranddriver.com
It's an old article, I still have the physical magazine somewhere, but it's a good read.
C/D: Enough about the new, touchy-feely John Coletti. Let’s talk about your performance history at Ford. Tell us how you saved the Mustang.
JC: I was born in Newark, New Jersey, but I was raised in Detroit from age three. I got the car bug in 1964, when the Mustang was introduced, so it was special to me. And the Mustang as we knew it was due to be killed in 1993 or 1994. I was in the design center, and I saw this [mock-up of a] car and said, “What the hell is that?” As usual, I was sticking my foot in my mouth. They said it was the next Mustang GT. I said, “That is not a Mustang.” Later, of course, it went into production as the Probe.
C/D: And what about the Mustang?
JC: The real Mustang needed to have airbags on both sides, and Ford was not going to retool the car. So they said, “What do you think you can do to save it?” I said, “I don’t know if I can do anything, but I’d sure aslike to give it a try.” So we put nine guys together in the skunkworks. We came up with something they liked, and they let us build it.
C/D: But it was a challenge, some of the stuff you got through the beancounters.
JC: With the supercharged Mustang Cobra, I wanted to get rid of the of the old I-beam rods and go with Manley connecting rods. Those were $55 apiece, compared with $1.60 for the production rods. To the accountants, the rods looked and felt the same. They said, “Are you nuts?” I said, “Well, if you want the engine to stay together . . .” Everybody knew I was crazy, so usually they let me do what I wanted to do.
Interesting article. Made me dig into my achieve of books from back in the day. I came across a soft covered book put out by Consumer Guide covering the Mustang from '64-90 (that's when book was published). I have included scanned image of cover, index (to show copyright date) and pages 104 and 105.
Page 104 shows image of '89 Probe GT, page 105 in last sentence of the picture caption indicates the Probe was to be the new Mustang in '89 but "strong demand kept the Mustang alive".
The timing of changing the Mustang in '89 follows with the update cycle of the time, 83/84 were the same, changes to 85/86, changes to 87/88. The next change was to be the Probe. That's why 89-93 kept the 87/88 style because Ford then changed gears, almost starting from scratch and updated the Fox chassis.
Page 104 shows image of '89 Probe GT, page 105 in last sentence of the picture caption indicates the Probe was to be the new Mustang in '89 but "strong demand kept the Mustang alive".
The timing of changing the Mustang in '89 follows with the update cycle of the time, 83/84 were the same, changes to 85/86, changes to 87/88. The next change was to be the Probe. That's why 89-93 kept the 87/88 style because Ford then changed gears, almost starting from scratch and updated the Fox chassis.
Last edited:
awing
Member
This was an 01 Bullitt with 170K, Massachusetts car but I don't know the total history. Saldy I had to part this out because I didn't think it'd worth saving. The driver's side floor was rusted out and the trunk had holes under the spare tire.
I can only repeat what he told me. Might be true, might not be. He said that the template they had to go by in funny car for the rear end of the SN Mustang was not what he needed it to be. His name is Johnny Stamper if you want to google it. I take him at his word, because his character is beyond question. He works full time as a C130J engineer for Lockheed Martin here in North Georgia, and being the lead engineer for John Force was his side gig. He also designed the Nautica Home Gym way back when. I got the opportunity to meet this guy a few times through my acquaintances at Lockheed. This guy can blow your mind with what he knows about drag racing. I have just sat there and listened to him talk for hours. Yes, Ford would definitely design their cars around racing. What wins on Sunday, sells on Monday.
Kurt
I am not sure what changed between the '93 and '94 to plant the rear or make it go straighter. I think all the rear components are the same (maybe even interchangeable). Wider rear should not make it hook better and the disc brakes don't do a thing for traction. As far as I remember the major changes were chassis stiffening related and some revised front suspension components. Now the chassis changes would limit some of the flex in the chassis that could make the car "squirrelly". The suspension stuff again shouldn't make it launch straighter either.
So if the improved driving experience just boils down to chassis improvements, then that's what us Fox guys need to focus on and we should be all set.
I had subframe connectors and full Steeda suspension on my Fox, and it was still squirly. No idea what Ford did to the SN, but it is a much more planted car. It could be the chassis, it could be the axle width; I honestly don't know. The SN inspires a lot more confidence. Confidence is what makes a car go fast.
Kurt
I remember a picture when they launched the 94. It was a bare chassis where the Fox parts were white or grey and the updated parts were red. The intention was to show what was different, what was the same.
Found the image in the book Mustang Chronicle. Scan of the page below.
Found the image in the book Mustang Chronicle. Scan of the page below.
