mustangers say its a fact?
07-14-2006, 05:00 AM
#23
1st Gear Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location:
Posts: 50
RE: mustangers say its a fact?
ORIGINAL: lookinforastang
oh come on.. he wasnt asking about ur guys opinions on the fox vs sn-95 hes askin about the 5.0 mustang that includes us both.
to put it in simpler words.. the 5.0 owns
oh come on.. he wasnt asking about ur guys opinions on the fox vs sn-95 hes askin about the 5.0 mustang that includes us both.
to put it in simpler words.. the 5.0 owns
07-14-2006, 05:16 AM
#24
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: So-Cal
Posts: 2,645
RE: mustangers say its a fact?
ORIGINAL: fears
true true
ORIGINAL: lookinforastang
oh come on.. he wasnt asking about ur guys opinions on the fox vs sn-95 hes askin about the 5.0 mustang that includes us both.
to put it in simpler words.. the 5.0 owns
oh come on.. he wasnt asking about ur guys opinions on the fox vs sn-95 hes askin about the 5.0 mustang that includes us both.
to put it in simpler words.. the 5.0 owns
Other than that, the 94-95 sucks because of the intake
07-14-2006, 10:32 AM
#26
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Maryland
Posts: 452
RE: mustangers say its a fact?
ORIGINAL: Twister
I have and willl....see what I mean?
ORIGINAL: FivePointGo
I didn't think you could use the words "Mustang" and "waste" in the same sentence? oops...
I didn't think you could use the words "Mustang" and "waste" in the same sentence? oops...
thanks alot I just threw up in my mouth a little.[:@]
07-14-2006, 10:42 AM
#27
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,986
RE: mustangers say its a fact?
^^^^^LOL!
The weight difference is negligible, if you get some light weight rims, remove some of that sound deadening, a fiberglass hood (which youll need anyway to clear your new intake ), I bet you could shave enough weight to be the same as the foxs, with the exception of 79-82. And a 302 is a 302, theyre all basically the same, they take to mods VERY well. First mod you should do to it is a nice set of heads, if you can get a 302 to breathe, watch out! She'll be fast.
As for the body styles, I like all the stangs with the exception of the mustang II and the 71-73's, theyre just too damn big to be a stang. I didnt like the sn-95's at first but they grew on me and I like em now, especially with a saleen body kit on em
.
-P.
The weight difference is negligible, if you get some light weight rims, remove some of that sound deadening, a fiberglass hood (which youll need anyway to clear your new intake
), I bet you could shave enough weight to be the same as the foxs, with the exception of 79-82. And a 302 is a 302, theyre all basically the same, they take to mods VERY well. First mod you should do to it is a nice set of heads, if you can get a 302 to breathe, watch out! She'll be fast. As for the body styles, I like all the stangs with the exception of the mustang II and the 71-73's, theyre just too damn big to be a stang. I didnt like the sn-95's at first but they grew on me and I like em now, especially with a saleen body kit on em
.-P.
07-14-2006, 02:24 PM
#28
RE: mustangers say its a fact?
OK, I'm way too lazy to read all of those post. But it's the 96-98s that have the slow issue. The 94-95s are faster than their immidiate 4.6L counterpart, and they're way easier and cheaper to mod. Hell, with a stock manual capable of doing 0-60 in 6.1s and the 1/4 in the high 14s, that's not to shabby for such an old car, and hell, it's not that difficult to make them run with the new 3V 4.6L sn197 GTs. So tell your buddies they're full of doggie poop and that your 5.0L is going to own their ***.[8D]
07-15-2006, 12:47 AM
#29
1st Gear Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location:
Posts: 50
RE: mustangers say its a fact?
ORIGINAL: jthorn9
OK, I'm way too lazy to read all of those post. But it's the 96-98s that have the slow issue. The 94-95s are faster than their immidiate 4.6L counterpart, and they're way easier and cheaper to mod. Hell, with a stock manual capable of doing 0-60 in 6.1s and the 1/4 in the high 14s, that's not to shabby for such an old car, and hell, it's not that difficult to make them run with the new 3V 4.6L sn197 GTs. So tell your buddies they're full of doggie poop and that your 5.0L is going to own their ***.[8D]
OK, I'm way too lazy to read all of those post. But it's the 96-98s that have the slow issue. The 94-95s are faster than their immidiate 4.6L counterpart, and they're way easier and cheaper to mod. Hell, with a stock manual capable of doing 0-60 in 6.1s and the 1/4 in the high 14s, that's not to shabby for such an old car, and hell, it's not that difficult to make them run with the new 3V 4.6L sn197 GTs. So tell your buddies they're full of doggie poop and that your 5.0L is going to own their ***.[8D]
LOL you own
07-15-2006, 01:01 AM
#30
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location:
Posts: 577
RE: mustangers say its a fact?
Yea we all have our opinions............Goosepoopey.............I will always agree with you because I own an SN 95 (which I will be postings pics soon)since it back from the trans shop)
I loked at Foxes and thought they were really cool but fell in love with the 94-95s....just because?
If I had a fox I am sure I would defend it but I followed my heart. Heavier, but ride much nicer than the foxes. But I agree Mustangs are Mustangs.......My dream is a 70 fastback Mach 1!
I loked at Foxes and thought they were really cool but fell in love with the 94-95s....just because?
If I had a fox I am sure I would defend it but I followed my heart. Heavier, but ride much nicer than the foxes. But I agree Mustangs are Mustangs.......My dream is a 70 fastback Mach 1!