92 vs 94/5

[Macksta]

Here is my delima, I have a chevy beretta (i hear the laughs), i cannot wait to get into my future ford and dump this chevy. However i want the rest of you to tell me which year to buy. it all comes down to a 90-93 fox body, or an sn95. I have driven the crap out of my friends stock sn95 and i fell in love. i love the looks, the power, and the stability of the suspension. and thats stock. Now i have never been behind the wheel of the fox body, i dont know how comfortable it is vs the sn95, the drivability or power, but i do like the looks of them when beefed up, plus i know its a lighter vehicle. My goal for whichever year i get is to get as close to 350-400whp as i can give or take. this will also be my daily driver.

So coud i have a few opinions as to which of the 2 are the better buy all around. and faster also.

i know the fox's have forged internals, I know the sn95's have better computers, i am going to stay EFI

And also, is the answer pretty much whatever body style i like, since they both have the same motor/tranny in them? or is one significantly better than the other.

Thanks

 

[wytstang]

First off the sn95 computers suck our cars hate large cams. As far as which is better the foxes are lighter and made slightly more power (they have a more aggressive computer tune) but the sn95 have better handling, better brakes, disk all around and 5 lug where as foxes only have 4. Foxes have a slightly cheaper aftermarket the also came with forged pistons 92 and older 93-95 have hyper's.

 

[wytstang]

Oh yeah before I forget A BERETTA View attachment 521996 sorry I couldn't pass it up Welcome to the boards

 

[HISSIN50]

it sounds like you already know. you know what an SN is like but not a fox; perhaps you should have posted on the other side (foxes primarily) for thoughts on what they are like.

for a DD, i think it would be hard to beat an SN (and im a fox guy). just a nice all around package.

also note - foxes had forged internals until late 92.

i would go find a fox to drive - that will tell you what you like the best.

good luck.

 

[Stump1000]

Actually, Sn95 computers are better than the old Fox computers. A lot of guys are swapping the fox computers for sn95 computers. The SN95 computers have their faults but they are easily fixed with a tuner/tweecer of some kind. They say they are more tuneable than the A9L's are.

 

[Al J]

I've had both---convertibles. Fox converts are really poorly built. Wind noise, door rattles, poor seals/leaks, and tops that wrinkle & tear easily.
My 95 has none of those. Just better all around build quality. Much better car all around.
But Foxes are faster.

 

[mackey]

Foxes really aren't faster. Same HP. Just a 100 -300 lb weight difference. Nothing some aluminum heads, no a/c, and a few other weight reductions can't equal out the field. IMO, the SN95 is a TON better for a d/d just because the interiors are still in decent condition usually, and alot more comfortable. You will also have better braking with all wheel discs.

 

[wytstang]

Foxes really aren't faster. Same HP. Just a 100 -300 lb weight difference. Nothing some aluminum heads, no a/c, and a few other weight reductions can't equal out the field. IMO, the SN95 is a TON better for a d/d just because the interiors are still in decent condition usually, and alot more comfortable. You will also have better braking with all wheel discs.

Most foxes are rated at 225 we are rated at 215 I'm petty sure it has some thing to do with our intakes and puters.

 

[mackey]

The ratings don't matter. The last foxes so called "lost power" because they changed the way they did the testing on the engine. I am pretty sure they started testing the engines with accessories. I do not remember what year though. I do remember that it was a 10hp drop.

 

[CManT1914]

Hmmm..... While I love foxbody Stangs, if I were to have to choose between 2 equally good condition Stangs, one being a fox, the other an SN95, I would pick the SN95 hands down. Better handling, quality, looks (in my opinion) even if they are a little heavier/slower. I used to drive my friend's 89 LX all the time, it was quick, but it handled like crap, and don't even get me started on the brakes. Those are garbage. I love both, but I love SN95's a little better.

 

[Steeda90GT]

Actually it was a 20HP drop, from 225HP to 205HP for 93. They attribute this to "different methods of testing" but who knows, I remember back then everyone thought Ford did it to make the 94s look better when they rated them at 215HP.

As for the original question, If it's going to be a D/D then I would go for the 94/95 (this is coming from a fox AND SN95 owner). Much better build quality, modern interior, better brakes, better handling, electric fan, strut tower brace/lower brace, modern looks, etc.

The downfall to SN95s: weight, CPU (can be changed with a ship/dyno tune), slightly less HP, parts = more $$$

 

[ProKiller]

Looks - SN95
Weight - Fox
Handling - SN95
Brakes - SN95
Power - Fox(not by much)
aftermarket upgrades - Fox
-the parts are cheaper, and less computer problems, just less hassle most times
interior - SN95

its up to you but you can find a nicer SN95 than you can find a Fox. Foxes are older, have more aging problems. SN95s are just better IMO. But i guess i'm biased, owned 2 SN95s now, and only ridden i a fox twice(wasn't impressed with ride quality either).

 

[dstanggt50]

I had an 87gt conv w/almost the same setup as my 95, totaled my car and originally was looking for another fox, came across the 95, and after a test drive, really liked how the car handled, not nearly as many rattles. I think the fox was maybe a little quicker. I'll always like fox body's, but still prefer the sn95.

 

[WhiteDevil]

It seems like for weight everyone compares a stick lx fox to a Covertable auto Sn95. The wieghts from my expirience are very similar. So are the performance stats. Most stock 5spd foxs and SN95s are in the high 14s stock, enought said. The looks are much more contemporary on an Sn95 stang, brakes are better, 5 lugs, better build quality. The Chassis is lightyears better than the Fox Chassis. My dad recently found an old mustang mag in Dec. of 93 when they first unveiled the 94 and they first got a test drive. They said the chassis as something like 67% more rigid and 70% stronger in torisional force. They basically said the entire car was better than its fox predecessor, i tend to agree.

 

[xr8d302]

you're probably going to get alot of SN95 bias in a 94/95 specific chatroom, don't you think?

 

[Macksta]

I reposted this in the fox, i really like the looks of the fox better, but you all have good points, the inside of an sn95 is a dream. Im going to grab an sn95 as soon as i find one that fits me, and buying tips?

 

[Rootus]

It seems like for weight everyone compares a stick lx fox to a Covertable auto Sn95. The wieghts from my expirience are very similar.

That's quite true. My brother's '90 LX 5.0 weighs in less than 100 lbs less than my SN95 GT. When you add in the ground effects on the Fox GT's, they're actually very close to an SN95 in weight.

Dave

 

[Scott_95GT]

SN95 or fox?

I have owned two 95 GT's, while all my friends have had foxes. I am a big fan of both. Advantages of the fox: Slightly better straight-line performance, cheaper parts, forged pre-92. Advantages of the SN95: Brakes, suspension, interior. Having driven both, I would say the SN95 is much more daily-driver friendly. I also feel the SN has better looks in stock form as well. It's also easier to find a SN95 in good, daily-driver condition.

 

[67stang390]

Hey Macksta I replied to your post in the 5.0 Talk section as well. The interior of the SN95 is so much better than the Fox, I don't even know how to describe it. Just watch out for broken power driver's seats. I forgot to add in my other post that it seems like there are more aftermarket parts available for the Fox. Not a whole lot, but I definitely noticed when I was building my car that finding things like Accufab throttle bodies, exhausts, etc. was easier for a Fox than the SN95.