NavyBlue

Hey guys, I am new to the site and have been looking at some stangs. I found a (5-speed) 1995 5.0 with 17k original miles, and test drove it. I test drove it, and to me it felt like it was lagging, maybe thats just me I am not a car expert. My friend has a 96 gt 4.6l with 4.10 gear ratio (rest is stock), I know the gears make a difference, but when I drove in his car before the gears I felt like I was slamming back against my seat, compared to the 5.0. I hear the 5.0's are heavier, and want to know if I will feel the same power if I was to buy this car and throw 4.10s on it. Also what was the stock, gear ratio on the 95's?
Any Advice would be appreciated, and maybe critquing of my info if I am wrong

sprostang

95`s werent very fast to begin with. 96`s werent much better. 4.10`s will make a huge difference. I believe the 95 came with a 2.73.

NavyBlue

Thanks for the quick response, wow that is a smaller gear ratio, no wonder I felt the difference. Thank you, thats what I needed to find out!

alexr

stay away from anything between 94-98 if you want performance. the 5.0's in the 87-93 were the same engine as the 94-95's but its pulling a significantly lighter car in the fox years. i personally love the 5.0 engines, so if you dont mind the style of the fox bodies, you should look into one of em. they sound magnificient with a set of flows. get an 87-93 notchback 5.0, you cant go wrong

Neo

Its true, the Fox body was very light, about 3000lbs and I have heard of people taking them down to 2800 and still being streetable. With the gears, 2.73 was a common gear and so was 3.08. It was for fuel economy and thats about it. The 96' will be slightly lighter than the 95' because of the heads and the mod block. Both years had 215hp but the 96' gets better fuel economy as well. With the PI head swap on the 96-98 GT you can get 260hp. If you happen to buy a 96' you should have the intake manifold looked at closly, there was a recall for it cracking, there were also several other recalls includding the hood seperation recall.

Personally I would stick with the SN-95 because I think the body style is alot better looking and its more comfertable inside than a fox though the subframe is practicly identical. Its hard to be original in the Mustang world too unless you one a limited production model, there are more Foxes out running around than SN-95's. The great thing about choosing your years from 79-2004 is that all suspension components are interchangable, even a Cobra IRS with some finagling. There are also alot of other interchangable items.

Now if you decide to get the 95' then you should do a head swap to boost that horsepower. I wouldnt mess around with GT40 heads or 351W heads. You should go right to the NASCAR meat and get a set of aluminum 351 Cleveland heads and make a Clevor out of that 302. Put a massive cam under it to move that air in and change out that bottom end for a higher CR and stronger pistons, rods and crank. With 17k Miles that is a vergin block and you might only want to do the head swap with perhaps a Spyder MPFI intake manifold or even go carburated. With such few miles you might be able to get away with just changing the rods,pistons,rings and bearings and not have to spend the extra $1500 for the crank. 350hp wont be a far off number to see with those 351C aluminum heads (I can get you info on a couple brands if you like) a great cam and a custome tune.

If you make that 302 a 347 stroker with those heads, a 10.5:1 CR, Forged bottom end, ARP connecting and main bolts, and all sorts of goodies than you could easily see much much higher numbers. I dont have any specs off the top of my head right now because I have been building a 5.4L Mod motor for the last few months but its worth the time and money.

I would go ahead and buy the 95', if thats what your looking for, to make good power for not a whole lot of cash then that 95' will be a good bet. BTW those heads will run $1300 bare, the Spyder MPFI Intake is somewhere around $900ish but I havnt seen one for a long long time.

Good Luck

-Neo-

Neo

I'm not a newbie either, I HAD 500+ posts but I havnt been on for a while.

alexr

nothing is more comfortable in a mustang than the fox body seats. and when youre looking for performance over looks- espically interior, then looks shouldnt matter. plus the foxes look WAYYY better espically on the outside. none of that rounded off ****. mustangs arent supposed to be round!

um no.

mustangman02232

87-92, in 93 the internals werent forged

*Blk_96_Stang_GT*

I see a lot more foxes in my area then SN-95s and my friend had a 90LX and i didnt think it was that comfortable, and looks is all personal preference you cant say a fox looks WAY better then a SN-95, you may think it does but a lot of people think SN-95's look a lot better then a Fox, and im one of them.

ben5.0

if the car only has 17k original miles, what can be wrong with it.. nothing serious thats for sure