MustangWorks.com - The Ford Mustang Power Source!

Go Back   The Mustang Message Board > Mustang & Ford Tech > Windsor Power
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 02-18-2002, 04:08 PM   #1 (permalink)
Raw Power
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7
Default 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
Raw Power is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2002, 05:51 PM   #2 (permalink)
Mr 5 0
Conservative Individualist
 
Mr 5 0's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Wherever I need to be
Posts: 7,486
Lightbulb 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.
Mr 5 0 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2002, 05:56 PM   #3 (permalink)
Blue GT 5.0
Registered Member
 
Blue GT 5.0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: McSherrystown PA (near Gettysburg)
Posts: 26
Default 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.
Blue GT 5.0 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2002, 06:40 PM   #4 (permalink)
Stang Runner
Registered Member
 
Stang Runner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Walker, MI, USA
Posts: 1,202
Default

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
Stang Runner is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2002, 11:09 AM   #5 (permalink)
95mustanggt
Mustang is Parked :(
 
95mustanggt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Kamloops, BC
Posts: 2,874
Default

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

2005 F150 FX4 Super Crew

RiceHatersClub.com
95mustanggt is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2002, 01:22 PM   #6 (permalink)
gtsr515
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Sunny, Hot, Sebring, Florida
Posts: 725
Default

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!
gtsr515 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2002, 10:05 PM   #7 (permalink)
Raw Power
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7
Default

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.
Raw Power is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2002, 11:38 PM   #8 (permalink)
Unit 5302
Registered Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 5,237
Default

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.
Unit 5302 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2002, 09:43 AM   #9 (permalink)
Stang Runner
Registered Member
 
Stang Runner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Walker, MI, USA
Posts: 1,202
Default

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
Stang Runner is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2002, 01:46 PM   #10 (permalink)
Unit 5302
Registered Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 5,237
Default

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.
Unit 5302 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2002, 09:50 PM   #11 (permalink)
Raw Power
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7
Default

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.
Raw Power is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2002, 10:10 PM   #12 (permalink)
DRASTiK
Registered Member
 
DRASTiK's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Yuma, AZ
Posts: 536
Default

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.
DRASTiK is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2002, 10:12 PM   #13 (permalink)
MidNiteBlu 5.0
I got something to say
 
MidNiteBlu 5.0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 1,555
Default

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
MidNiteBlu 5.0 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2002, 01:35 AM   #14 (permalink)
Unit 5302
Registered Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 5,237
Default

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.
Unit 5302 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2002, 01:16 PM   #15 (permalink)
Raw Power
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7
Default

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.
Raw Power is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:33 AM.


SEARCH