View Single Post
Old 04-09-2004, 07:45 PM   #5
Hethj7
Mizzou Tigers
 
Hethj7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: weston, MO United States
Posts: 1,455
Default

Stock for stock, the SN-95 5.0's will be slower. Remember, they were down 10 hp in 05-95 (rated at 215) because of the intake design to fit in the Sn-95. They are also heavier cars. And yours was an auto.

But, it also sounds like you didn't quite have a gem of a Mustang there. 153,000 miles will slow any engine down and you said you thought you had transmission problems.

Anyway, I love my Fox, but they are getting up there in age. They rattle more than the Sn-95's. As far as the Foxes being cheaper to modify, I wouldn't really say they are. They may be easier to make go faster, because of their weight advatage, but not really cheaper. If you are talking just about the 5.0 engine, the engine is the same, so parts are the same regardless of what chassis the engine is sitting in.
__________________
2006 Mustang GT

1990 LX
GT-40 motor 262 horsepower, 307ft-lbs (sold but forever loved)

1998 Contour SVT

Rice Haters Club Member #244
Hethj7 is offline   Reply With Quote