What is the differences between the 1994-95 5.0 and the 93 and older 5.0

Raw Power · 02-18-2002, 04:08 PM

I just wonder what the differences were, because I want to get a mustang but with a 5.0 in it. and the 94-95 years look better than the older years. Thanks

Mr 5 0 · 02-18-2002, 05:51 PM

Not much real mechanical difference in the 5.0 engines.

In 1993 hypereutectic pistons replaced the previous forged aluminum pistons. '94 - 95 HP was 215, torque 285. Pre-93 HP was 225, torque 300.

The SN-95 model Mustangs have better suspension and more comfortable cockpits with only a slight difference in performance due to being a bit heavier.

Later Mustang models cost more but usually have lower mileage.

Blue GT 5.0 · 02-18-2002, 05:56 PM

You will be much more happier with a fox body Mustang. They are much lighter and are much more snapier. In the looks department, I think they foxes are way more stylish too. My 90 GT 5.0 is such a rush to drive, and once u get behind the wheel of a fox, you'll have the same feeling. I've driven both, a 94-95 is just as fun too drive, but there's nothing like a fox-bodied Mustang.

Stang Runner · 02-18-2002, 06:40 PM

look here is has diff in the years and stuff http://www.mustanggt.org/gtchange.htm

95mustanggt · 02-19-2002, 11:09 AM

Well I'm going to "buck the trend" here and say go with the 94-95 GT.

Yes we are heavier.

But we handle better, have better drag properties, and have way nicer interiors.
But the best thing is that, so the SN95 5.0's are a little slower, big deal! Just through on some heads and intake, install a cam and you will be spanking Fox's all day. So a Fox can install the same parts and go faster. Big deal, install somthing else. Going faster is just a matter of money and at the end of the day if you like the looks of the SN95 better, you're ahead of the game! IMO. Go with what you like. The cars have the same powertrain and same aftermarket.

gtsr515 · 02-19-2002, 01:22 PM

The differences that matter are the 94-up chassis was a huge improvement over the Fox, it is 70% stiffer, suspension geometry is better, driveability was improved with things like a longer travel on the gas pedal, to help with extremely slow driving, say in a parking situation, etc. And interior improvements are obvious.

The motor is not the problem, it's the electronics, the computer for instance, retards timing 6 degrees between overruns on a power shift, ford was really having a problem warrantying T-5's, so they tried that amoung other things to improve durability, they are heavier too.

I've never had anything past a 93, but if i was to be in your situation, i would buy a 95 and get the electronics up to snuff and go from there. Why not take advantage of the huge chassis improvements and build smartly to make up for the shortcomings.

Raw Power · 02-23-2002, 10:05 PM

So how much heavier are the 94-95 mustangs compared to the fox body. Are the fox bodies bad in cornering since that guy said the 94-95 bodies are 70% stronger.

Unit 5302 · 02-23-2002, 11:38 PM

The SN95 will tip the scales at about 200lbs heavier than the Fox. Put some subframe connectors into the Fox chassis, it'll enhance the ridigity quite nicely. Since the Fox body cars are a lot lighter, it makes them a little more nimble. That helps when it comes to the corners, but the SN95 cars should still outhandle the Fox. The SN95 also has FAR superior brakes, and the ability to mount much wider tires than the Fox cars. If you're trying to make one really handle, the SN95 is the easier platform to work with.

Fox body cars can be made to handle like nobody's business, though, if you've got some time and money.

Stang Runner · 02-24-2002, 09:43 AM

Unit the Brakes Can be made Very good with a few stuff like new Pads and get rid of the rubber lines But any How the SN95 are a Much nicer car on the Inside. They Both have good Points and Low Points Its really comes down to What you Want. They Both Are Very good cars that can be Made faster with out To much work.

Unit 5302 · 02-24-2002, 01:46 PM

The brakes can be made "okay" with what you are suggesting on the fox (they are seriously seriously inadaquate from the factory), but they can easily be made very good on the SN95. Unless you want to put a few hundred bucks (at least) into the Fox body car in brakes, you're not going to have a car with what I would consider "good" brakes. Little rear drums aren't exactly high performance. The Fox also needs a caliper upgrade, badly. Those front rotors warp way to easy.

There isn't much of a question that the interior feels way nicer on an SN95 car. It's all quite a bit more modern looking, better fit together, with better seats, and far superior factory sound system.

Raw Power · 02-24-2002, 09:50 PM

If the 94-95 mustang so superior then why does every knock the car so much, is it because so many people have the fox bodies that they don't want to like the sn95 body. If that is it I can understand because I used to have a third generation Camaro and I think that the fourth generation camaro is so ulgy and that is why i'am looking for a mustang, so if I ask alot of stupid questions, I just want to know what is the best mustang to buy with a 5.0L.

DRASTiK · 02-24-2002, 10:10 PM

what do you plan to do with the Stang? Are you gonna drag race it? Are you gonna road race it (corners)? Is it going to be a daily driver or weekend warrior or race only car?

Knowing what the car is going to do will help us tell you what good and bad points you're looking for.

MidNiteBlu 5.0 · 02-24-2002, 10:12 PM

I would say that it all depends on what you want and what you like. And Unit i wouldnt compare the sound systems in the cars because all factory systems suck a** anyways.

Later

Unit 5302 · 02-25-2002, 01:35 AM

Before you bash it, you might want to listen to a Mach460 stereo system. No, it won't keep up with a $2000 aftermarket setup, but it does pretty damn good for a factory setup in my opinion.

Sony Head Unit, 3 amps, 8 speakers I believe.

Raw Power · 02-25-2002, 01:16 PM

I want a mustang that will be a good road racer, because I don't go to the track very often. I see that the performance parts for the fox body cars are much cheaper than the sn95. I'm leaning towards the fox body just because of the parts and the on board computers are better also. Here is a question, i've been reading muscle mustangs and 5.0 power and there was an article in there about surge problems during idle how many of you guys out there have had this problem.

Stang Runner · 02-25-2002, 05:24 PM

Most of the parts are very close to the same Price I would have to say And well it the insides are well ok at best in the FOX car the insides on the SN95 are much Nicer. The FoX body can be Made Faster ONLY becuse it has less wieght.
Unit you are right STOCK theare not good Brakes in my friends car 87 take it up to 90 and Slow down hard and do it 2 times in a row and the car all most will not stop!!!!!!
I have new better front disk and the lines and pad all around and I have donr the same test 4 times 90 to all most a stop to 90 and all most a stop and well on the Last of the 4 times it was about as bad as what his stock brakes did on the frist slow Down. I have not Try to test SN95 No one in there right mind would let me drive there Sports car ride in yes Drive it LOLOL

gtsr515 · 02-25-2002, 05:40 PM

This may be true, but I would consider this, the sn95 has improved quite a bit over the Fox chassis, including brakes too, If you want a road racer, get a sn, you will have such a better beginning "platform" on which you can improve on far greater than a Fox.

Blue Beast · 02-25-2002, 06:36 PM

I like my Fox bodied 89 GT, and as for the Mach 460 sound system...it is dooh dooh...It can't handle bass to save it's life....

The real key is to buy what you like...and nothing you buy will be perfect...not until you make it so. Weigh the pro's and cons, and go it from there.

You're not going to be happy with us making your decision.

vetteeatr · 02-26-2002, 11:04 AM

I have a 88 Gt and i hear almost all the engine parts are th same except somehitng with the intake you need an adapter for.

Ive wanted a 94 or 95 GT for a while but dont wanna sell this car tehn buy a stock one and spend loads of money on it.

Could i change over all my heads and headers and basically everything?

If I buy holley systemax 2 intake and want it on this 95 or 94 can i do that or do i need a specific type for these years?

What are the main diffrences regarding engine changes from fox body to 95?

Thanks Guys

Raw Power · 02-27-2002, 02:35 PM

Has anyone heard of the power surge problem with the 5.0?

02-18-2002, 04:08 PM	#1
Raw Power Registered Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 7	What is the differences between the 1994-95 5.0 and the 93 and older 5.0 I just wonder what the differences were, because I want to get a mustang but with a 5.0 in it. and the 94-95 years look better than the older years. Thanks

02-18-2002, 05:51 PM	#2
Mr 5 0 Conservative Individualist Join Date: May 1997 Location: Wherever I need to be Posts: 7,487	SN-95 5.0 changes Not much real mechanical difference in the 5.0 engines. In 1993 hypereutectic pistons replaced the previous forged aluminum pistons. '94 - 95 HP was 215, torque 285. Pre-93 HP was 225, torque 300. The SN-95 model Mustangs have better suspension and more comfortable cockpits with only a slight difference in performance due to being a bit heavier. Later Mustang models cost more but usually have lower mileage.

02-18-2002, 05:56 PM	#3
Blue GT 5.0 Registered Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: McSherrystown PA (near Gettysburg) Posts: 26	Fox= Better You will be much more happier with a fox body Mustang. They are much lighter and are much more snapier. In the looks department, I think they foxes are way more stylish too. My 90 GT 5.0 is such a rush to drive, and once u get behind the wheel of a fox, you'll have the same feeling. I've driven both, a 94-95 is just as fun too drive, but there's nothing like a fox-bodied Mustang.

02-18-2002, 06:40 PM	#4
Stang Runner Registered Member Join Date: Jun 1999 Location: Walker, MI, USA Posts: 1,202	look here is has diff in the years and stuff http://www.mustanggt.org/gtchange.htm __________________ Engine: steel mounts, Under drive pulleys, K&N, GT-40 Intake ported Lower, No power steering, No A/C, Mac cold intake, 65MM TB, 255 Fuel pump, 24's, AFR 165 58cc, Rocker Arms 1.7with the stock Cam, 1 5/8 short headers, offRoad X-pipe Drive Train: 3.55, T-5 with a Pro 5.0 shifter 12.656@107.71MPH See It at www.T-racing.com/mustang.htm

02-19-2002, 11:09 AM	#5
95mustanggt Registered Member Join Date: May 2000 Location: Kamloops, BC Posts: 2,875	Well I'm going to "buck the trend" here and say go with the 94-95 GT. Yes we are heavier. But we handle better, have better drag properties, and have way nicer interiors. But the best thing is that, so the SN95 5.0's are a little slower, big deal! Just through on some heads and intake, install a cam and you will be spanking Fox's all day. So a Fox can install the same parts and go faster. Big deal, install somthing else. Going faster is just a matter of money and at the end of the day if you like the looks of the SN95 better, you're ahead of the game! IMO. Go with what you like. The cars have the same powertrain and same aftermarket. __________________ 1995 Mustang GT 20016 F150 Lariat Super Crew

02-19-2002, 01:22 PM	#6
gtsr515 Registered Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Sunny, Hot, Sebring, Florida Posts: 725	The differences that matter are the 94-up chassis was a huge improvement over the Fox, it is 70% stiffer, suspension geometry is better, driveability was improved with things like a longer travel on the gas pedal, to help with extremely slow driving, say in a parking situation, etc. And interior improvements are obvious. The motor is not the problem, it's the electronics, the computer for instance, retards timing 6 degrees between overruns on a power shift, ford was really having a problem warrantying T-5's, so they tried that amoung other things to improve durability, they are heavier too. I've never had anything past a 93, but if i was to be in your situation, i would buy a 95 and get the electronics up to snuff and go from there. Why not take advantage of the huge chassis improvements and build smartly to make up for the shortcomings. __________________ Remember...2nd place is 1st place for losers!

02-23-2002, 10:05 PM	#7
Raw Power Registered Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 7	So how much heavier are the 94-95 mustangs compared to the fox body. Are the fox bodies bad in cornering since that guy said the 94-95 bodies are 70% stronger.

02-23-2002, 11:38 PM	#8
Unit 5302 Registered Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 5,246	The SN95 will tip the scales at about 200lbs heavier than the Fox. Put some subframe connectors into the Fox chassis, it'll enhance the ridigity quite nicely. Since the Fox body cars are a lot lighter, it makes them a little more nimble. That helps when it comes to the corners, but the SN95 cars should still outhandle the Fox. The SN95 also has FAR superior brakes, and the ability to mount much wider tires than the Fox cars. If you're trying to make one really handle, the SN95 is the easier platform to work with. Fox body cars can be made to handle like nobody's business, though, if you've got some time and money.

02-24-2002, 09:43 AM	#9
Stang Runner Registered Member Join Date: Jun 1999 Location: Walker, MI, USA Posts: 1,202	Unit the Brakes Can be made Very good with a few stuff like new Pads and get rid of the rubber lines But any How the SN95 are a Much nicer car on the Inside. They Both have good Points and Low Points Its really comes down to What you Want. They Both Are Very good cars that can be Made faster with out To much work. __________________ Engine: steel mounts, Under drive pulleys, K&N, GT-40 Intake ported Lower, No power steering, No A/C, Mac cold intake, 65MM TB, 255 Fuel pump, 24's, AFR 165 58cc, Rocker Arms 1.7with the stock Cam, 1 5/8 short headers, offRoad X-pipe Drive Train: 3.55, T-5 with a Pro 5.0 shifter 12.656@107.71MPH See It at www.T-racing.com/mustang.htm

02-24-2002, 01:46 PM	#10
Unit 5302 Registered Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 5,246	The brakes can be made "okay" with what you are suggesting on the fox (they are seriously seriously inadaquate from the factory), but they can easily be made very good on the SN95. Unless you want to put a few hundred bucks (at least) into the Fox body car in brakes, you're not going to have a car with what I would consider "good" brakes. Little rear drums aren't exactly high performance. The Fox also needs a caliper upgrade, badly. Those front rotors warp way to easy. There isn't much of a question that the interior feels way nicer on an SN95 car. It's all quite a bit more modern looking, better fit together, with better seats, and far superior factory sound system.

02-24-2002, 09:50 PM	#11
Raw Power Registered Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 7	If the 94-95 mustang so superior then why does every knock the car so much, is it because so many people have the fox bodies that they don't want to like the sn95 body. If that is it I can understand because I used to have a third generation Camaro and I think that the fourth generation camaro is so ulgy and that is why i'am looking for a mustang, so if I ask alot of stupid questions, I just want to know what is the best mustang to buy with a 5.0L.

02-24-2002, 10:10 PM	#12
DRASTiK Registered Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Yuma, AZ Posts: 536	what do you plan to do with the Stang? Are you gonna drag race it? Are you gonna road race it (corners)? Is it going to be a daily driver or weekend warrior or race only car? Knowing what the car is going to do will help us tell you what good and bad points you're looking for.

02-24-2002, 10:12 PM	#13
MidNiteBlu 5.0 I got something to say Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 1,557	I would say that it all depends on what you want and what you like. And Unit i wouldnt compare the sound systems in the cars because all factory systems suck a** anyways. Later __________________ 91 LX Hatch 5.0 - made for the twisties 89 LX Hatchback 5.0 5spd. stolen/stripped 4/7/05 http://www.mustangworks.com/cgi-bin/...splay.cgi?3494 1987 Toyota Pickup Ricer Haters Club Member #33 Want a custom gauge cluster for your Vintage Mustang? www.jmeenterprises.com

02-25-2002, 01:35 AM	#14
Unit 5302 Registered Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 5,246	Before you bash it, you might want to listen to a Mach460 stereo system. No, it won't keep up with a $2000 aftermarket setup, but it does pretty damn good for a factory setup in my opinion. Sony Head Unit, 3 amps, 8 speakers I believe.

02-25-2002, 01:16 PM	#15
Raw Power Registered Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 7	I want a mustang that will be a good road racer, because I don't go to the track very often. I see that the performance parts for the fox body cars are much cheaper than the sn95. I'm leaning towards the fox body just because of the parts and the on board computers are better also. Here is a question, i've been reading muscle mustangs and 5.0 power and there was an article in there about surge problems during idle how many of you guys out there have had this problem.

02-25-2002, 05:24 PM	#16
Stang Runner Registered Member Join Date: Jun 1999 Location: Walker, MI, USA Posts: 1,202	Most of the parts are very close to the same Price I would have to say And well it the insides are well ok at best in the FOX car the insides on the SN95 are much Nicer. The FoX body can be Made Faster ONLY becuse it has less wieght. Unit you are right STOCK theare not good Brakes in my friends car 87 take it up to 90 and Slow down hard and do it 2 times in a row and the car all most will not stop!!!!!! I have new better front disk and the lines and pad all around and I have donr the same test 4 times 90 to all most a stop to 90 and all most a stop and well on the Last of the 4 times it was about as bad as what his stock brakes did on the frist slow Down. I have not Try to test SN95 No one in there right mind would let me drive there Sports car ride in yes Drive it LOLOL __________________ Engine: steel mounts, Under drive pulleys, K&N, GT-40 Intake ported Lower, No power steering, No A/C, Mac cold intake, 65MM TB, 255 Fuel pump, 24's, AFR 165 58cc, Rocker Arms 1.7with the stock Cam, 1 5/8 short headers, offRoad X-pipe Drive Train: 3.55, T-5 with a Pro 5.0 shifter 12.656@107.71MPH See It at www.T-racing.com/mustang.htm

02-25-2002, 05:40 PM	#17
gtsr515 Registered Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Sunny, Hot, Sebring, Florida Posts: 725	This may be true, but I would consider this, the sn95 has improved quite a bit over the Fox chassis, including brakes too, If you want a road racer, get a sn, you will have such a better beginning "platform" on which you can improve on far greater than a Fox. __________________ Remember...2nd place is 1st place for losers!

02-25-2002, 06:36 PM	#18
Blue Beast Registered Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: New Jersey Posts: 47	I like my Fox bodied 89 GT, and as for the Mach 460 sound system...it is dooh dooh...It can't handle bass to save it's life.... The real key is to buy what you like...and nothing you buy will be perfect...not until you make it so. Weigh the pro's and cons, and go it from there. You're not going to be happy with us making your decision. __________________ Midnight Blue 89 GT... 306... ported and polished aluminum GT40's, MAC Long tubes, MAC power pipe, Flowmaster 2 1/2 cat back, GT40 intake with ported upper and lower, B-Cam, 24lb injectors, 77mm Mass Air, 65mm TB. World Class T5, 3.73's, Centerforce Dual Friction, FRP aluminum radiator, Victor Jr water pump, Pro 5.0 shifter, Crane adjustable FPR, 255lph fuel pump

02-26-2002, 11:04 AM	#19
vetteeatr Registered Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Olney, Illinois, USA Posts: 212	I have a 88 Gt and i hear almost all the engine parts are th same except somehitng with the intake you need an adapter for. Ive wanted a 94 or 95 GT for a while but dont wanna sell this car tehn buy a stock one and spend loads of money on it. Could i change over all my heads and headers and basically everything? If I buy holley systemax 2 intake and want it on this 95 or 94 can i do that or do i need a specific type for these years? What are the main diffrences regarding engine changes from fox body to 95? Thanks Guys __________________ !988 GT World Windsor Sr.'s, Harland sharpe rockers, 3.73 gears, pulleys, no ac, hurst shifter, 10:1 pistons, BBK full length headers and H-pipe with flows. Under extensive work for porting and fly cutting to accept my new cam and to match my soon to have systemax intake DROOL Best E.T. 13.20 with edelbrock RPM intake and 70mm TB

02-27-2002, 02:35 PM	#20
Raw Power Registered Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 7	Has anyone heard of the power surge problem with the 5.0?