MADMAC

I don't think that it helped any!!!!!!! It slowed us down and put us at a dis-advantage

My intake, headers and gear made up for some of it. Next month Q/H will fix it!!!!!!

NoGo95GT

The quarter horse should. But, the real power lies in boost!!!!!!!!!!

MADMAC

You know,,,, the more I read on this Forum the harder I am leaning that direction. It was recently that someone said that they would have rather gone that way than do the build on a 347. I am thinking hard about a Procharger. I really have no complaints about my stang.. Someone had told me to park it and save it. I bought it to drive and enjoy it everyday. I like the Fox bodies also but I wouldn't trade for one.

Shelty

Ive heard of a few sn owners putting fox ECU into their cars to ease the install of engine mods...

is that true?

86 5.0L

lmao at this train wreck of misinformation...

anyway do a FULL tune-up, KOEO/KOER, check for worn clutch, etc

MADMAC

Under the assumption that he knows something about engines ("93 Bronco"???? There is alot of spare/simple ponies bottled up due to the Emissions requirements imposed at that era and warranty requirements to save money. Yes a simple tune up might be part of it too.

Stock for stock the Fox bodies put down more to the ground.

NoGo95GT

I don't know what you mean with misinformation. Everything I said is true. I have two 95 GT's. I have read countless articles from the 90's when these cars were actually new! I have researched tons of info on the 94-95's. Why do you think a Fox body continually beats a SN95? And it's not because of the extra 150-200lbs either.

OnyxCobra

The reduced timing at WOT thing is actually not true. It was originally thought that it would reduce timing between shifts but I've recently learned that it's only active under a certain RPM, to reduce the strain on the trans under high load conditions such as heavy acceleration on the highway in 5th gear.

Fox bodies are not that much faster than the SN95s in stock form, you just get people that know how to drive in fox bodies more often.

NoGo95GT

The truth is, the Fox's were normally quite a bit faster. Most Fox GT's were capable of high 14's to low 15's@93-94mph. Not fast, but quick for it's day. The problem is the 94-95 GT's weighed nearly the same, but ran low-mid 15's@89-92. Sure, driver error could be a factor.(I doubt I could run a low 15 out of my car due to my lack of manual skill). But the major problem lies with the 94-95 mustang GT's engine. It is the Thunderbird motor. If I am not mistaken the 5.0 Thunderbird was rated at 200hp and 265(or 75lb-ft trq)? Now Ford claimed that the main restriction was the single exhaust that it employed. Add, the dual exhaust and there's no way you've gained back 15hp(5 maybe). A high-flow exhaust does not even add 15hp on our cars. So now you're looking at 205 horsepower plus a low profile intake manifold that encourages you to shift before 5000rpm. Add a very conservative tune,more emissions friendly equipment, and an extra 200lbs and you're looking at a significantly slower Mustang. For those who have Fox's, jump into an Sn-95 and I guarantee you'll feel the difference(mY dad's friend had a 93 LX and it was quicker than my bolt-on GT). Now the fastest stock 94 GT I have "READ" was by Evan Smith back in the 94 issue of MM&FF. He ran a 14.45@94(Factory freak maybe?) But truth be told, these year GT's are slow and will barely get past a stock Honda Odyssey.

86 5.0L

jesus christ the 94-95 5.0 did not come out of a T-Bird, the Mustang was the flagship vehicle using the 5.0HO, then trickled down to other vehicles

the reason for the lower HP output was the way the engines were SAE tested in '93

but go ahead and keep bench racing...