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.

foxbody VS. sn95

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 09-03-2005, 01:39 AM
  #1  
351foxstang
3rd Gear Member
Thread Starter
 
351foxstang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: ma
Posts: 770
Default foxbody VS. sn95

i heard the foxbody is faster cause of weight but is it realy that noticable?
351foxstang is offline  
Old 09-03-2005, 01:42 AM
  #2  
bfirkin
 
bfirkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 7
Default RE: foxbody VS. sn95

how much the sn 95 weigh? my striped somewhat 89 stang prob weighs just at 3000 and weight means alot 10s for this car is only 500rwhp
bfirkin is offline  
Old 09-03-2005, 02:40 AM
  #3  
DR8907
3rd Gear Member
 
DR8907's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Detroit MI
Posts: 878
Default RE: foxbody VS. sn95

Its not too noticeable, but a Fox is always going to be faster.
DR8907 is offline  
Old 09-03-2005, 03:30 AM
  #4  
hopalong_70
 
hopalong_70's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location:
Posts: 43
Default RE: foxbody VS. sn95

I've owned both and to me it's obvious. The fox is faster. Whether it's due to weight or some other factor, I don't know. I do know that my current fox is a hell of lot funner and faster feeling than my old similarly modded 95GT.
hopalong_70 is offline  
Old 09-03-2005, 03:58 AM
  #5  
w8less
6th Gear Member
 
w8less's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: KY
Posts: 13,396
Default RE: foxbody VS. sn95

there are a few differences besides weight the intakes are slightly smaller in the sn95s which adds up to about 10hp and the pistons are different i think but no for certain and feel free to correct me if wrong
w8less is offline  
Old 09-03-2005, 03:26 PM
  #6  
black89gt
4th Gear Member
 
black89gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location:
Posts: 1,198
Default RE: foxbody VS. sn95

if the smaller intake adds about 10hp then why do the 94 and 95 stangs have 215 hp? ~_^
black89gt is offline  
Old 09-03-2005, 03:39 PM
  #7  
cammedlx
5th Gear Member
 
cammedlx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: North Cacalaky
Posts: 2,055
Default RE: foxbody VS. sn95

I think he meant lost about 10hp due to the intake,but the 94-95 sn95's has all of the thing's that fox guy's are having to buy to upgrade,like 5lug,disc brakes all around,toruqe box reinforcements,chassis stiffeing,etc.. So they have alot of potenial..But they did have hyper pistons in them,they weigh more,and they deff. don't look as good as a fox"IMO"
cammedlx is offline  
Old 09-03-2005, 05:52 PM
  #8  
w8less
6th Gear Member
 
w8less's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: KY
Posts: 13,396
Default RE: foxbody VS. sn95

yea i did my bad yea it loses 10hp
w8less is offline  
Old 09-03-2005, 06:18 PM
  #9  
98gt0311
1st Gear Member
 
98gt0311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location:
Posts: 69
Default RE: foxbody VS. sn95

For what it's worth, I have a 98 that I'm going to sell next yr because the REAL mods for em are ridiculous compared to a 5.0.
I agree with stangpower on the upgraded body and so forth; which is why I decided to go for the SN v Fox.

On the other hand, it isn't hard to find some foxes w/ the upgrades for a very reasonable price. Looks wise its all a matter of personal taste IMO. I love all Mustangs so their all pretty to me.
98gt0311 is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
AMAlexLazarus
AmericanMuscle.com
0
10-01-2015 10:29 AM
MusicCity615
New Member Area
18
09-27-2015 12:53 AM
JT76
Street/Strip
6
09-20-2015 11:32 AM
uedlose
Archive - Parts For Sale
0
09-10-2015 03:30 PM



Quick Reply: foxbody VS. sn95



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:01 PM.