what is faster?

HopingForAGT · 01-23-2002, 01:18 PM

a 91 mustang GT or a 95 Mustang GT? both are automatics and with 60k miles

NO SLO PK · 01-23-2002, 01:22 PM

Tough call, but I think I'd give it to the 95. The 91 weighs less, but the 95 has slightly better rear end gearing and trans gearing (I believe).

Stang Runner · 01-23-2002, 01:23 PM

91Gt will walk all over a 95GT about a good 200lbs less and the motor Make a few HP more too the 91 that is.

tireburner163 · 01-23-2002, 01:29 PM

Equal mods, and equal drivers. The 91 will stomp a hole in the 95 big enough to drive a Mack truck through. The 91 weights a LOT less. Even a Fox-body vert weights less than a SN-95

HopingForAGT · 01-23-2002, 02:21 PM

i kinda figured the 91 was faster...a buddy of mine has a 91 GT automatic with flowmasters, h pipe, timing bump, and headers and the 95 is bone stock i was just wonder which is faster because im looking for a GT but havent decided what year to get yet im probably just gonna get a fox body

Stang Runner · 01-23-2002, 02:32 PM

No Slo. what gears did the 95 have??? 3.27?? and is the tranny the same??? No that I know But a 91 could have 2.73 or a 3.08 and I dont feel gears ocer come the wieght diff in the 2 cars.I have never heard somone say a stock 95 could be the Fox bodys...

NO SLO PK · 01-23-2002, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Stang Runner
No Slo. what gears did the 95 have??? 3.27?? and is the tranny the same??? No that I know But a 91 could have 2.73 or a 3.08 and I dont feel gears ocer come the wieght diff in the 2 cars.I have never heard somone say a stock 95 could be the Fox bodys...

The '95's came with 3.27s. Compare that to a 2.73 gear, and that's about a 0.20 difference in the quarter. 0.20 is worth roughly 20 hp, which equates to about 200 lbs. That equalizes the weight penalty. I'm not making this stuff up, they're all rules of thumb.

Beyond that. I believe the 95 AOD had improved first and second gear ratios vs. the 91.

I'm also going off of my perceptions of driving a stock 93 AOD, and a stock 96 AOD. The 93 could barely spin the tires from a dead stop, while the 96 would roast'em at will. My honest perception was that the '96 came out of the hole a lot harder.

Does anyone have any data from magazines?

silver_pilate · 01-23-2002, 05:31 PM

Yeah, the gearing could make a large difference. 91 AOD's had codes for 2.73's or 3.27's. The 3.08's were only available in the 5 speed cars. For the 95, its AODE has some improvements over the AOD in the 91, however, as was mentioned before, the weight difference all but eliminates those gains.

If the rear end gearing is equal in the two cars, the 91 should win.

--nathan

jetuomi · 01-23-2002, 06:05 PM

yeah, but if you're going to mod the car, I think you should go for the 95... you can make both just as fast..

that's a personal bias, but some facts I like are that ride quality and the interior are much improved..

SN-95 also has disks all around, stiffer frame, etc, etc...

but either one is a STANG !!

Unit 5302 · 01-23-2002, 08:52 PM

The 91 is a couple hundred pounds lighter, and has 225hp,300tq (rated) vs 215hp,285tq (rated).

Gear ratio options between the two cars are the same.

2.73:1 standard, 3.27:1 optional.

It won't matter if the 95 has 3.27's. The 91 actually has a shot at running a 14 (albeit extremely high 14), the SN95 auto does not. The '91 will own the '95.

NO SLO PK · 01-23-2002, 11:38 PM

I have never, ever seen a stock 91 AOD GT run a high 14 on a California track. That's just me.

It was my bad earlier, equating a 95 to a 96. Two different motors. Excuse the confusion, I was having a senior moment.

Yeah, the 91 would win.

Jeb_Bush_2000 · 01-23-2002, 11:57 PM

As the story goes, the engines made the same power, but were just rated differently. 205-215 net, I believe, and 225 gross.

01-23-2002, 01:18 PM	#1
HopingForAGT Registered Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Barboursville, WV Posts: 39	what is faster? a 91 mustang GT or a 95 Mustang GT? both are automatics and with 60k miles __________________ 1988 Camaro 305 TBI Trans-gp shift kit Hooker headers flowmaster series 80 k&n open element KYB shocks/struts Eibach springs 16x8 TT IIs 1995 AODE Mustang GT K&N Filter

01-23-2002, 01:22 PM	#2
NO SLO PK Registered Member Join Date: Mar 1999 Location: Arcadia, CA, USA Posts: 731	Tough call, but I think I'd give it to the 95. The 91 weighs less, but the 95 has slightly better rear end gearing and trans gearing (I believe). __________________ Russ L '91 LX - 331 w/ Procharger '03 Cobra Convertible - Pullied '94 Lightning '65 Mustang Coupe

01-23-2002, 01:23 PM	#3
Stang Runner Registered Member Join Date: Jun 1999 Location: Walker, MI, USA Posts: 1,202	91Gt will walk all over a 95GT about a good 200lbs less and the motor Make a few HP more too the 91 that is. __________________ 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

01-23-2002, 01:29 PM	#4
tireburner163 It's a lot like a race car Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Meridian, MS Posts: 4,130	Equal mods, and equal drivers. The 91 will stomp a hole in the 95 big enough to drive a Mack truck through. The 91 weights a LOT less. Even a Fox-body vert weights less than a SN-95 __________________ 1987 Buick T-type 1998 HD Electra Elide

01-23-2002, 02:21 PM	#5
HopingForAGT Registered Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Barboursville, WV Posts: 39	i kinda figured the 91 was faster...a buddy of mine has a 91 GT automatic with flowmasters, h pipe, timing bump, and headers and the 95 is bone stock i was just wonder which is faster because im looking for a GT but havent decided what year to get yet im probably just gonna get a fox body __________________ 1988 Camaro 305 TBI Trans-gp shift kit Hooker headers flowmaster series 80 k&n open element KYB shocks/struts Eibach springs 16x8 TT IIs 1995 AODE Mustang GT K&N Filter

01-23-2002, 02:32 PM	#6
Stang Runner Registered Member Join Date: Jun 1999 Location: Walker, MI, USA Posts: 1,202	No Slo. what gears did the 95 have??? 3.27?? and is the tranny the same??? No that I know But a 91 could have 2.73 or a 3.08 and I dont feel gears ocer come the wieght diff in the 2 cars.I have never heard somone say a stock 95 could be the Fox bodys... __________________ 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

01-23-2002, 05:31 PM	#8
silver_pilate DURKA DURKA!! Join Date: Sep 1997 Location: Lubbock, TX...(TX panhandle) Posts: 1,418	Yeah, the gearing could make a large difference. 91 AOD's had codes for 2.73's or 3.27's. The 3.08's were only available in the 5 speed cars. For the 95, its AODE has some improvements over the AOD in the 91, however, as was mentioned before, the weight difference all but eliminates those gains. If the rear end gearing is equal in the two cars, the 91 should win. --nathan __________________ '91 GT, Coast 347, 9.5:1 compression, full intake, Wolverine 1087 cam, exhaust, Keith Craft ported Windsor Jr. Irons (235 cfm intake, 195 cfm exhaust), AOD, PI 3500 converter, Lentech valve body, 3.73's (4.10's in the works), and Yokohama ES100's out back. Daily Car: '04 Infiniti G35 Sedan 6MT

01-23-2002, 06:05 PM	#9
jetuomi Registered Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Waterloo, ON, Canada Posts: 214	yeah, but if you're going to mod the car, I think you should go for the 95... you can make both just as fast.. that's a personal bias, but some facts I like are that ride quality and the interior are much improved.. SN-95 also has disks all around, stiffer frame, etc, etc... but either one is a STANG !! __________________ 1994 GT (black on black) A few mods, click below to check out the car... My CAR

01-23-2002, 08:52 PM	#10
Unit 5302 Registered Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 5,246	The 91 is a couple hundred pounds lighter, and has 225hp,300tq (rated) vs 215hp,285tq (rated). Gear ratio options between the two cars are the same. 2.73:1 standard, 3.27:1 optional. It won't matter if the 95 has 3.27's. The 91 actually has a shot at running a 14 (albeit extremely high 14), the SN95 auto does not. The '91 will own the '95.

01-23-2002, 11:38 PM	#11
NO SLO PK Registered Member Join Date: Mar 1999 Location: Arcadia, CA, USA Posts: 731	I have never, ever seen a stock 91 AOD GT run a high 14 on a California track. That's just me. It was my bad earlier, equating a 95 to a 96. Two different motors. Excuse the confusion, I was having a senior moment. Yeah, the 91 would win. __________________ Russ L '91 LX - 331 w/ Procharger '03 Cobra Convertible - Pullied '94 Lightning '65 Mustang Coupe Last edited by NO SLO PK; 01-24-2002 at 01:42 AM..

01-23-2002, 11:57 PM	#12
Jeb_Bush_2000 Registered Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Taxachusetts Posts: 374	As the story goes, the engines made the same power, but were just rated differently. 205-215 net, I believe, and 225 gross. __________________ Stripped-down '93 LX Coupe -- "Danielle" R.I.P. 05/30/02 "I've seen some crazy stuff in my life, but that...was...AWESOME!!! Oh, sorry about your car, man."

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
which is faster?	foxbodied	Stang Stories	9	07-29-2002 12:53 AM
How can I go faster while looking/sounding stock?	90LxDroptop	Windsor Power	21	07-27-2002 01:09 AM
Trying to get the car to be faster on the motor!	NOSstang08690	Modular Madness	6	03-24-2002 04:01 PM
What will make my 98 gt faster than 98 cobra	Eminent18	Modular Madness	3	05-27-2000 03:24 AM
Are '98 GTs any faster than '96-'97s?	Daniel MItchell	Modular Madness	6	03-29-2000 03:20 PM