1994-1995 mustangs slugs ???
10-14-2009, 04:21 PM
#21
4th Gear Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,788
Listen man, I am not trying to argue or anything, but, the 94-95's are slower than the Fox's. Yes, I understand that the 5.0 came out of the Mustang and was introduced in the early 80's in the Mustang(I believe) and that the 5.0 was used in various cars as well; Ie, F-150, explorer, Thunderbird, etc. But, the 5.0 can use different parts on it. Compare the Thunderbird 5.0 to the Fox 5.0 and tell me the intake manifold is different. Then look at a 94-95 Gt engine and tell me it looks just like the Thunderbird's. While all three employ the E7 heads, their intake's vary.
Thunderbird: http://www.cardomain.com/ride/2258665 94-95 GT: http://images.search.yahoo.com/searc...8&fr=yfp-t-701 ! Hmm...... both engines look vaguely familiar. Now look at your Fox Mustang's intake manifold. I know you are probably thinking why I am talking about intake manifold's so much. Well, because the Thunderbird's intake flows worse than the Fox's. The Fox can at least make some power till 5000rpm, but the 94-95GT's barely make it past 4500rpm. And like I said, add an extra 200lbs + a poor flowing intake, a conservative tune, etc and you have a slower car. I honestly do not know why you are ******* about misinformation when it's true. I have two of these cars and have been in a Fox. I can tell the difference clearly. Here's a few article I found too. http://www.stangbangers.com/94_GT_Article3.htm / http://www.stangbangers.com/94_GT_Article1.htm /
Thunderbird: http://www.cardomain.com/ride/2258665 94-95 GT: http://images.search.yahoo.com/searc...8&fr=yfp-t-701 ! Hmm...... both engines look vaguely familiar. Now look at your Fox Mustang's intake manifold. I know you are probably thinking why I am talking about intake manifold's so much. Well, because the Thunderbird's intake flows worse than the Fox's. The Fox can at least make some power till 5000rpm, but the 94-95GT's barely make it past 4500rpm. And like I said, add an extra 200lbs + a poor flowing intake, a conservative tune, etc and you have a slower car. I honestly do not know why you are ******* about misinformation when it's true. I have two of these cars and have been in a Fox. I can tell the difference clearly. Here's a few article I found too. http://www.stangbangers.com/94_GT_Article3.htm / http://www.stangbangers.com/94_GT_Article1.htm /
10-14-2009, 05:39 PM
#23
1st Gear Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: ny
Posts: 132
my 94 gt has 4 cats. put a bbk off road h pipe on and made up for a little power and a way better sound. im really not impressed by the get up of the car though and def. am lookin to make it faster.
10-14-2009, 05:47 PM
#24
4th Gear Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,788
94-95's run a 4 cat H-Pipe while the 96-98 runs a 6 cat set-up(4 pre-cats, 2 cats). Now the major problem with the 94-95's is their poor tune. Ford reduced the timing and fuel curves in order to meet more stringent emissions and provide the owner with a more smoother and refined feel vs a "punched in the mouth" feel. What's worse is adding simple mods can cause the computer to whack out. The car will start, then die after it warms up. Happened with both of my cars. The 94-95 Mustang's develop something called the idle/die syndrome. A tuning device can cure this, but you can also use the previous A9L computer used from the Fox Body's to remedy this.
10-14-2009, 05:48 PM
#25
4th Gear Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,788
10-14-2009, 08:35 PM
#27
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 6,882
94-95's run a 4 cat H-Pipe while the 96-98 runs a 6 cat set-up(4 pre-cats, 2 cats). Now the major problem with the 94-95's is their poor tune. Ford reduced the timing and fuel curves in order to meet more stringent emissions and provide the owner with a more smoother and refined feel vs a "punched in the mouth" feel. What's worse is adding simple mods can cause the computer to whack out. The car will start, then die after it warms up. Happened with both of my cars. The 94-95 Mustang's develop something called the idle/die syndrome. A tuning device can cure this, but you can also use the previous A9L computer used from the Fox Body's to remedy this.
10-14-2009, 10:18 PM
#28
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Lil' Rhody
Posts: 22,376
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.
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.
94-95's run a 4 cat H-Pipe while the 96-98 runs a 6 cat set-up(4 pre-cats, 2 cats). Now the major problem with the 94-95's is their poor tune. Ford reduced the timing and fuel curves in order to meet more stringent emissions and provide the owner with a more smoother and refined feel vs a "punched in the mouth" feel. What's worse is adding simple mods can cause the computer to whack out. The car will start, then die after it warms up. Happened with both of my cars. The 94-95 Mustang's develop something called the idle/die syndrome. A tuning device can cure this, but you can also use the previous A9L computer used from the Fox Body's to remedy this.
Also, ford didnt reduce the timing curves... they actually increased the timing in certain places of the T4M0 spark tables to reduce emissions..
You guys always wonder why i get bent about people pissing out bad information...
THIS IS WHY!
10-14-2009, 10:42 PM
#29
4th Gear Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,788
So far, my info seems to be pretty accurate, other than the possible reduced timing under powershifts. Funny thing is, I should check out the stock fuel curves on the Tweecer. I'd like to compare it with a Cobra as well......
10-14-2009, 10:55 PM
#30
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Lil' Rhody
Posts: 22,376
heres the tip in retard control tables from both the T4M0 AND J4J1
Last edited by AdderMk2; 10-14-2009 at 10:59 PM.
