• Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-

'11 GT 5.0 badge

  • Thread starter Thread starter SublimeRT
  • Start date Start date May 9, 2010
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Next
First Prev 2 of 3 Next Last

99FiveOh

15 Year Member
May 20, 2006
2,051
20
99
J-Ville, FL
May 11, 2010
#21
  • May 11, 2010
  • #21
The problem is, as the 94/95 Tail lights age, they look hideous! They are very difficult to mask off before painting them and just generally a PITA! I do like a nice, clean set of 94/95 tails over 96-98's any day of the week. Ford just figured out how to make a nice, clear tail light in 96 and not in 94. About 90% of all 96-98 tail lights you find in the salvage yard still look like brand new. And with it's removable bezel, there's no masking to fiddle with and usually they are so clear you don't even have to buff them out!

The aftermarket could easily repop our tail lights but for some reason they won't. So we are doomed to either buy some NOS tails for insanely high prices or settle on the verticals, which is what I have done. I'm not offended in the least. People still know my car is a 5.0. The sound coming from the exhaust is all I need to identify my car, there is no 4.6 that can duplicate it. Comes close, but not the same.

I do think any 5.0 badge on an SN95 looks ghetto!
 

ProKiller

Founding Member
Apr 26, 2002
3,064
15
78
PA
May 11, 2010
#22
  • May 11, 2010
  • #22
i like them. I think it's a newer flowing font that goes with the lines of our body style better than the old fox 5.0 badges that are very square. do it.
 

nmcgrawj

Advanced Member
Sep 28, 2003
3,651
4
68
Indianapolis, IN
May 12, 2010
#23
  • May 12, 2010
  • #23
What are the 2011 5.0s weighing in at on the scales?
 

sixt9coug

Member
Sep 30, 2009
222
3
19
Norwalk SoCal
May 12, 2010
#24
  • May 12, 2010
  • #24
3533MT and 3575AT curb weight for the GT. Yeah its no LX Notch, but they are still around 300lbs less than the Camaro. Almost 500lbs less than the Challenger too. Ouch.
 

Nik_95Cobra

Founding Member
Feb 5, 2002
1,677
1
37
Tempe, Arizona
May 12, 2010
#25
  • May 12, 2010
  • #25
The_Mustang said:
Beg your pardon, but Mustangs wore vertical tail lights before Ford's mod motor was a twinkle in it's designing engineer's eyes!
Click to expand...

Horizontals on the concept car, Ford had it right to begin with

 

Black Stampede

Founding Member
Sep 3, 2002
1,811
2
39
Grand Rapids, MI
May 12, 2010
#26
  • May 12, 2010
  • #26
 

99FiveOh

15 Year Member
May 20, 2006
2,051
20
99
J-Ville, FL
May 12, 2010
#27
  • May 12, 2010
  • #27
Nik_95Cobra said:
Horizontals on the concept car, Ford had it right to begin with

Click to expand...

Well, if Ford "had it right" to begin with, why didn't they use that design?
 

nmcgrawj

Advanced Member
Sep 28, 2003
3,651
4
68
Indianapolis, IN
May 12, 2010
#28
  • May 12, 2010
  • #28
sixt9coug said:
3533MT and 3575AT curb weight for the GT. Yeah its no LX Notch, but they are still around 300lbs less than the Camaro. Almost 500lbs less than the Challenger too. Ouch.
Click to expand...

So guys have the audacity to attempt to say that the new mustang is some huge tank....when i know of some verts on our very own forum that weigh more.
 

alleymad95GT

Member
Jul 14, 2009
204
0
16
Okemos, Michigan
May 12, 2010
#29
  • May 12, 2010
  • #29
Well, since everyone else is sharing their opinions...

There is only one style of Mustang that I would not prefer over any other comparable car, and that was made between 1974 and 1978...what were they thinking????

Of course, within all of what I consider the "acceptable" Mustang designs, I have my personal favorite...but I like them all better than any Fireturd that ever rolled down the road...no matter how fast it may be...
 

99FiveOh

15 Year Member
May 20, 2006
2,051
20
99
J-Ville, FL
May 12, 2010
#30
  • May 12, 2010
  • #30
Agree 100% on the Pintostangs. However, they are so freakin' light that a big-inch windsor stroker would make them insane!
 

revhead347

Apparently my ex-husband made that mistake.
20+ Year Stangneter
Jun 14, 2004
9,301
1,643
214
Acworth, GA
May 12, 2010
#31
  • May 12, 2010
  • #31
The_Mustang said:
Agree 100% on the Pintostangs. However, they are so freakin' light that a big-inch windsor stroker would make them insane!
Click to expand...

I can put a big inch windsor on a gopher turd, doesn't mean I would drive it.

Kurt
 

revhead347

Apparently my ex-husband made that mistake.
20+ Year Stangneter
Jun 14, 2004
9,301
1,643
214
Acworth, GA
May 12, 2010
#32
  • May 12, 2010
  • #32
nmcgrawj said:
So guys have the audacity to attempt to say that the new mustang is some huge tank....when i know of some verts on our very own forum that weigh more.
Click to expand...

Curb weight is usually a little shy of the actual weight. I know my car weighed over 3400 when I got it. I think it has to do more with the appearance of the new Mustang more than anything. That hood is like looking down a landing strip.

Kurt
 

nmcgrawj

Advanced Member
Sep 28, 2003
3,651
4
68
Indianapolis, IN
May 12, 2010
#33
  • May 12, 2010
  • #33
revhead347 said:
Curb weight is usually a little shy of the actual weight. I know my car weighed over 3400 when I got it. I think it has to do more with the appearance of the new Mustang more than anything. That hood is like looking down a landing strip.

Kurt
Click to expand...

I've got no issues with that.
 

Guero

Active Member
Oct 11, 2005
2,148
0
47
May 12, 2010
#34
  • May 12, 2010
  • #34
The new Mustangs are bad ass! Dont matter how much they weigh. They would still hand most of us our asses with more weight! So whats the point?
 

Black Stampede

Founding Member
Sep 3, 2002
1,811
2
39
Grand Rapids, MI
May 12, 2010
#35
  • May 12, 2010
  • #35
revhead347 said:
I can put a big inch windsor on a gopher turd, doesn't mean I would drive it.

Kurt
Click to expand...

 

EPIK

Member
Jul 3, 2004
796
1
16
LEFT COAST
May 13, 2010
#36
  • May 13, 2010
  • #36
I will be the 1st 1 to say, I love the new 5.0 motor, & the car is nice too, but I think the 5.0 badge looks cheesy on the fender imo.

The 5.0 badge looks like it belongs on a fox, but on the new cars, it just looks out of place. They don't look right on SN95's either IMO.
 

nmcgrawj

Advanced Member
Sep 28, 2003
3,651
4
68
Indianapolis, IN
May 13, 2010
#37
  • May 13, 2010
  • #37
EPIK said:
I will be the 1st 1 to say, I love the new 5.0 motor, & the car is nice too, but I think the 5.0 badge looks cheesy on the fender imo.

The 5.0 badge looks like it belongs on a fox, but on the new cars, it just looks out of place. They don't look right on SN95's either IMO.
Click to expand...

Thats probably cause when you think "5.0" you think of a fox. I own a 95 5.0....yet and still...the fox body is what pops into my head .


Now wait 5-10 years for the current generation to attach the 5.0 to the s197. They will say its "odd" to think of the fox body and 94-95's as 5.0s.


Regardless.....EVERY car....from EVERY year....looks best with shaved badges. Nice and clean.
 

EPIK

Member
Jul 3, 2004
796
1
16
LEFT COAST
May 13, 2010
#38
  • May 13, 2010
  • #38
nmcgrawj said:
Thats probably cause when you think "5.0" you think of a fox. I own a 95 5.0....yet and still...the fox body is what pops into my head .


Now wait 5-10 years for the current generation to attach the 5.0 to the s197. They will say its "odd" to think of the fox body and 94-95's as 5.0s.


Regardless.....EVERY car....from EVERY year....looks best with shaved badges. Nice and clean.
Click to expand...

I agree, badgless looks cleaner. I have owned a 95 GT at 1 time too, & personally the only badges that look right on them IMO are the "GT MUSTANG" badge, or the running pony emblem.
 

99FiveOh

15 Year Member
May 20, 2006
2,051
20
99
J-Ville, FL
May 13, 2010
#39
  • May 13, 2010
  • #39
I disagree, Fox Mustangs don't look right without their 5.0 badges. I remember when I got my first Fox 5.0 I was so proud to have that badge on there and it actually mean something. My step brother was the type to go out and buy a 4 banger and throw some 5.0 badges on there, what a poser he was (I used to tell him so too).

I don't mind the 5.0 emblem on the newer Mustangs at all. I'll admit, the redesign IMO looks pretty nice, but 05-09's are ass-ugly, bloated looking cars.
 

revhead347

Apparently my ex-husband made that mistake.
20+ Year Stangneter
Jun 14, 2004
9,301
1,643
214
Acworth, GA
May 13, 2010
#40
  • May 13, 2010
  • #40
Guero said:
The new Mustangs are bad ass! Dont matter how much they weigh. They would still hand most of us our asses with more weight! So whats the point?
Click to expand...

Not my ass. Not by a long shot. But that's not the point. Weight is self perpetuating. I'm already unhappy with how heavy my car is. Granted, everything is a compromise, but I'm not compromising up to a heavier car, that looks like a Sherman.

Kurt
 
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Next
First Prev 2 of 3 Next Last
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
C4 trans help needed
  • CPH89LX
  • Apr 26, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
6
Views
210
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Apr 28, 2026
CPH89LX
C
Old guy new to Forum.
  • 08shelby GT500
  • Jun 15, 2026
  • The Welcome Wagon
Replies
3
Views
143
The Welcome Wagon Jun 15, 2026
LILCBRA
Project Fox Revival (please send help)
  • sleep-e
  • Jan 21, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
3
Views
247
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Jan 22, 2026
KRUISR
B
No spark. 1990 foxbody 5.0 gt
  • Boogi
  • Nov 16, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
0
Views
187
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Nov 16, 2025
Boogi
B
P
Air Fuel ratio bung location.
  • Praetorious
  • Feb 7, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 2
Replies
39
Views
943
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Feb 11, 2026
Noobz347
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Forums
  • What's new
  • Media
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Sponsor
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?