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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.;)

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

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