Go Back   MustangForums.com > Ford Mustang Tech > 5.0L (1979-1995) Mustang
Sign in using an external account
Register Forgot Password?
Search


5.0L (1979-1995) Mustang Technical discussions on 5.0 Liter Mustangs within. This does not include the 5.0 from the 2011 Mustang GT. That information is in the 2005-1011 section.

Sponsored by Weld Racing


Welcome to Mustang Forums!
Welcome to Mustang Forums.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!


Reply
 
 
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-26-2006, 04:30 PM   #1
LCBlackDep183
3rd Gear Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Vehicle: 1995, Ford, Mustang
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 958
JCroteau87
Send a message via AIM to LCBlackDep183
Default Sn-95 Rant :*(

Let me start with saying I love fox's and plan on eventually owning one myself but seriously stop slamming on people for their choice, I bought a sn for the looks and all of the blelow, if i wanted a 5.0 for straight acceleration i would have bought a fox, acually i would own a 4-eye(i love em) .

Sn 95s are not PIGS... Im getting really tired of hearing people talk trash about them... The weight of a sn95 is in the same weight class as any modern mustang, and so what if the fox is 4-500lbs lighter slap a extra 30hp on a sn and they're the same. PLUS with a sn-95 you get a better suspension, 4-wheel disk breaks, a MUCH more modernised and efficent engine, a sound proof interior, bucket seats, AREODYNAMICS, and alot of updated electronics ranging from the window motors through the ecu, and more...

seriously,
95 Mustang GT = 3350lbs

Domestics...
GTO = 3725lbs
Camero = 3390lbs
Corvette = 3229lbs
Firebird = 3373lbs

Imports...
350z = 3217lbs
SRT4 = 2900lbs
Integra gs-r = 2667lbs
Supra = 3415lbs
Talon TSI = 3120lbs
Civic ex(couldnt find si deatils) = 2553lbs
audi tt = 2655lbs

Sorry had to say it, not looking to start a argument just want to make a point...
This ad is not displayed to registered or logged-in members.
Register your free account today and become a member on Mustang Forums!
__________________
Procharger 3-core IC p600b kit @ 9lbs, SCT Custom Tune: Woodbine Motorsports
LCBlackDep183 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2006, 04:34 PM   #2
88blackgt
4th Gear Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location:
Posts: 1,826
Default RE: Sn-95 Rant :*(

here il post it again for you

ya about that ecu... lol its known as one of the worst parts of sn-95 5.0s. as far as much more modernised, what are you talking about? what are you talking about, from a performance standpoint its very hard to validate a 94-95 5.0 over an 89-92. 94-95 had hyper pistons too. have fun w/ that elbow too. also the suspension is nearly the same. bucket seats? what fox do you know of that has a BENCH seat? o and 30hp isnt going to come anywhere CLOSE to making up 400 or 500 lbs. im not sure if it could even overcome 100 lbs.

its ok to say you like them better for certain reasons, but dont say things that arent true
88blackgt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2006, 04:41 PM   #3
Ninety5five0
5th Gear Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Vehicle: 1995, Ford, Mustang GT
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 3,311
Send a message via AIM to Ninety5five0 Send a message via Yahoo to Ninety5five0
Default RE: Sn-95 Rant :*(

I like mine. But i have to agree about these damned computers, they dont like mods. Hers a pretty interesting article about the Sn's. ( if i can find it )

I'll post it in a few minutes when i find it.

found it, but HOLY HELL its long. But i still wouldnt get rid of mine. Sure i would love a fox, and plan on getting one when my $$ situation is right. But I still wont get rid on my 95
__________________

^^^
TOTALED
Got another 95 GT droptop about a year ago. Pic soon. Currently swapping motor.
Ninety5five0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2006, 04:43 PM   #4
Ninety5five0
5th Gear Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Vehicle: 1995, Ford, Mustang GT
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 3,311
Send a message via AIM to Ninety5five0 Send a message via Yahoo to Ninety5five0
Default RE: Sn-95 Rant :*(

1994-1995 Mustang Retrospect: The Bastard Children
By Wingard, Michelle
Published: February 7, 2006

(DEARBORN, MI) StangsUnleashed.com - With sales numbers close to 310,000 units, there's no question that the 1994-95 Mustang won the hearts of the buying public. When the dramatically restyled SN95 Mustang made its debut, the design was a far departure from the previous Fox-bodied brethren. The new Mustang featured retro three bar taillights, C-scoops derived from the original, and a roofline reminiscent of the '60s ancestors. If that wasn't enough, the car had available 17" wheels, "cockpit style" interior, and a refined suspension. Blend all that with large brakes, ABS and two very intimidating headlights that looked like they were staring at the competition angrily, and you have the total package. The car was very well received, and continues to be popular today, some twelve years later. So where does the problem lie, you ask? If you're a devoted, fanatical, 5.0 SN95 owner, the following information will come as no surprise to you. Otherwise, you may find this article to be a real eye opener.



1994 was rumored to mark the introduction of the 4.6L modular engine in the redesigned Mustang chassis. To the delight of the old school Mustanger, the 5.0L OHV engine was carried over to the new platform. Due to the pronounced sloped hood, the intake manifold was redesigned with runners that added the benefit of more upper RPM power. To be precise, the intake was a borrowed piece from the MN-12 five liter parts bin. The cars were equipped with electric fans, a high output alternator, and an accessory drive system that kept everything mounted closer to the engine block. The axles were lengthened by 3/4", and the SN95 was now equipped with 5 lug disc brakes. This enabled the use of a wide spectrum of aftermarket wheels, and the stopping power was unparalleled as compared to any Mustang before the 1994. Also new for this platform was the automatic overdrive electronic transmission, also known as the AOD-E. The T5 five-speed transmission was a virtual carry over, save for a longer input shaft. Although the "new" Mustang boasted over 1300 unique parts, many of the components were taken from the earlier Fox Mustang parts bin. With all this good news, where's the bad news?

The majority of the following issues wouldn't make much of a difference to your average driver. The owner who uses their Mustang for daily, dependable duty should not have to worry about these concerns. These are things that are relevant to those who took (or plan to take) things a step beyond what the factory doled out. Yes folks, I'm speaking of the Mustanger who strives to improve on things like appearance, performance, and uniqueness. Sure, there are people out there who flog their Mustangs for years, slack in maintenance, and are among the first to complain when things go wrong. However, this is directed at the proud enthusiasts. The devoted who change their oil in a regular basis, take extreme pride in their ride, and merely seek to personalize the car without any unexpected ill effects.

Let us begin with the stock ride height of the SN95. At first glance, the cars had a blatantly obvious four wheel drive kind of stance. Rather than look low to the ground and menacing, they looked as though they were equipped with a small lift kit. The reasoning for this was explained in a 1994 issue of the magazine "Muscle Mustangs and Fast Fords". The "all new Mustang was given a substantial amount of fenderwell area. This was to ensure that those living in climates with inclement weather could utilize snow chains if needed". Indeed, you read that statement correctly. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it safe to say that your average Mustang owner does not use chains for added traction in snowy conditions? Many of these cars are stored winters. Those that are not do just fine on snow tires. Far be it from me to believe that an angry herd of Fox body owners actually complained to Ford regarding this particular concern. This is your typical case of trying to improve on something that was fine as it was.



Due to the modifications to widen the 8.8" axle housing, the axles themselves became physically weaker. Again, something we're not going to obsess about if you're driving your Mustang in stock form as an "A-to-B" vehicle. However, if you're planning on testing out that new pair of drag radials at your local quarter mile track, you might want to use extra care. There have been cases where axles have snapped on bone stock vehicles, damaging not only the axle itself, but also the center section as the splines get lodged inside. If you plan on trying this, do so with this risk in mind, or upgrade your stock axles to something beefier.

The SN95 Mustang was also plagued with the too-weak-for-stock Borg Warner T5 transmission. Due to the increase in the length of the input shaft, these transmissions are more apt to fail, and usually with substantial damage.With the input shaft being physically weaker, the point of failure usually begins here. Cracked cases and smashed gears have resulted, as well as tailhousings that become completely separated. This concern is also one that would most likely occur under a severe duty situation, yet it's an issue to be aware of nonetheless.

This brings us to torque boxes. This is one of the very first things you should inspect prior to buying any Mustang 1979 to 2004. The torque box itself is basically a lower control arm chassis mounting point. From the factory, these "boxes" are spot-welded. Under any kind of stress whatsoever, they can separate, and in some cases, allow the rear end housing to move around back and forth. While the SN95 torque box was reportedly "strengthened", they were still prone to rips and cracks. It's always a good idea to weld the seams for the extra support.

Next on the menu is the common "SN95 5.0 balancer failure". The harmonic balancer on these cars features an inertia ring. This ring, constructed of rubber, is the weak point of the balancer. When the ring "slips", the balancer itself advances, resulting in inaccurate timing readings, and the possibility of an internal unbalance. This problem has plagued the SN95, and has been known to occur as early as 30,000 miles. Because this was another "new for 1994" part, the earlier Fox body cars did not suffer this failure.



Now we will address the EEC issue. Electronic Engine Control is basically the "brain" of your fuel injected Mustang. Prior to 1994, Mustangs had several excellent "modification friendly" processors. These are commonly known as the A9L, A9P, and A3M (these digits can be found on the processors themselves). The new processors, known as T4M0, J4J1, and W4H0 introduced a new innovation that would retard the engine timing at wide open throttle. This was reportedly implemented in a vain effort to keep warranty repairs down on the lowly T5 transmission. In addition to eliminating timing, these new processors had such a touchy calibration that even a larger mass air meter could throw everything out of whack. Those who desired an aftermarket camshaft were also in for a rude awakening. Where the earlier Fox body Mustangs took to these modifications like they were second nature, the SN95 suffered poor idle quality, as well as stalling and surging with even the smallest of the off the shelf camshafts. While a computer dynotune can usually rectify this concern, many owners are not too keene on shelling out hundreds of dollars to obtain driveability. So why not just swap in the older Fox processor? Wouldn't that be the no-hassle way to correct this error? Ford made that decision for the SN95 owners, by changing the pin location so that the processors are NOT interchangeable without the use of an expensive aftermarket harness. In addition, if you go that route, your electric fan becomes inoperable as well as five out of six
__________________

^^^
TOTALED
Got another 95 GT droptop about a year ago. Pic soon. Currently swapping motor.
Ninety5five0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2006, 04:47 PM   #5
88BlueGT
6th Gear Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Hamilton, NJ
Posts: 15,042
Default RE: Sn-95 Rant :*(

I didnt bother reading that but anyway...

How do you figure your motor is more "modernized" than mine in my 93 ????

And, they chassis is stiffer than a fox, but throw a set of $70 dollar subframes on a Fox and you have the same thing but still 500lbs less. Im not hating on Sn-95's because I really do like them but the only reason I would buy one would be for looks... and to be totally honest I think foxes look better anyway.... so would I ever buy one? most likely no. I only like their interior lol
__________________
88BlueGT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2006, 04:49 PM   #6
LCBlackDep183
3rd Gear Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Vehicle: 1995, Ford, Mustang
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 958
JCroteau87
Send a message via AIM to LCBlackDep183
Default RE: Sn-95 Rant :*(

The ecu is more modern and it can be overcome by some simple tuning... the elbow.. its a peice of aluminum, and hyper pisons are lighter than the forged so unless your boosting they can be better... And i wansnt trying to validate, i was trying to make it seen that the sns have alot more pros that MAY(depending on the owner) overcome the performance loss...

and fyi

1988 mustang
GT hatch = 3193lbs...
LX hatch(non 5.0) = 2751lbs...

1993
GT Hatch = 3144lbs
LX hatch = 3096
Cobra = 3255lbs


__________________
Procharger 3-core IC p600b kit @ 9lbs, SCT Custom Tune: Woodbine Motorsports
LCBlackDep183 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2006, 04:49 PM   #7
Ninety5five0
5th Gear Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Vehicle: 1995, Ford, Mustang GT
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 3,311
Send a message via AIM to Ninety5five0 Send a message via Yahoo to Ninety5five0
Default RE: Sn-95 Rant :*(

Foxs do look sick as hell, when theyre done up right. I WANT ONE !
__________________

^^^
TOTALED
Got another 95 GT droptop about a year ago. Pic soon. Currently swapping motor.
Ninety5five0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2006, 04:54 PM   #8
88blackgt
4th Gear Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location:
Posts: 1,826
Default RE: Sn-95 Rant :*(

simple tuning? why would you want to pay to fix something you would have for free if you bought a fox? retarding timing and at WOT and during shifts is one of the most retarded things you could possible do to a "performance oriented" car. i guess several hundred dollars to fix ford's mistakes is several hundred dollars too much for me.
88blackgt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2006, 04:56 PM   #9
Ninety5five0
5th Gear Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Vehicle: 1995, Ford, Mustang GT
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 3,311
Send a message via AIM to Ninety5five0 Send a message via Yahoo to Ninety5five0
Default RE: Sn-95 Rant :*(

Yea, tuning is expensive. I'm kindof mad i have to go pay 600 $$ just to make my car run right after this HCI is done. But i guess i got myself into that, noones fault but myone. Then again i didnt read that little article untill after i bought the car. HAHA
__________________

^^^
TOTALED
Got another 95 GT droptop about a year ago. Pic soon. Currently swapping motor.
Ninety5five0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2006, 04:59 PM   #10
88BlueGT
6th Gear Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Hamilton, NJ
Posts: 15,042
Default RE: Sn-95 Rant :*(


Quote:
ORIGINAL: LCBlackDep183

The ecu is more modern and it can be overcome by some simple tuning... the elbow.. its a peice of aluminum, and hyper pisons are lighter than the forged so unless your boosting they can be better... And i wansnt trying to validate, i was trying to make it seen that the sns have alot more pros that MAY(depending on the owner) overcome the performance loss...

and fyi

1988 mustang
GT hatch = 3193lbs...
LX hatch(non 5.0) = 2751lbs...

1993
GT Hatch = 3144lbs
LX hatch = 3096
Cobra = 3255lbs



Im guessing that was referring to me ??? I dont get the point you are trying to make though?
__________________
88BlueGT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2006, 04:59 PM
MustangForums
Ford Mustang




Paid Advertisement

 
 
 
Reply

Tags
19941995, 95, audi, automatic, eec, ford, height, mustang, ride, seats, sn, sn95, stock, surging, transmission, w4h0

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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

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

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Looking to buy 5.0stang123 5.0L General Discussion 23 09-28-2007 01:46 AM
Rant on slow sixxer eaglecatcher V6 General Discussion 115 06-11-2007 10:06 PM
im sad...... sn95... travisl1213 4.6L (1996-2004 Modular) Mustang 61 10-13-2006 11:27 AM
Need help with looking at 95 5.0 NavyBlue General Tech 39 01-20-2006 07:54 PM

Advertising

Featured Sponsors
Vendor Directory
New Sponsors
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:02 PM.

© Internet Brands, Inc.


This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. Ford® is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company
Emails Backup