Arkansas Thread

1998 Gt

There will be a new mustang around town Dave Mcgee bought a 1998 gt it is red. It is all stock for now.

The more the merrier

RADIALKILLER said:

There will be a new mustang around town Dave Mcgee bought a 1998 gt it is red. It is all stock for now.

Click to expand...

glad to see I am far from being the slowest in town.. haha, although I really need a clutch

Hope everyone missed me while i was gone. I the kenne bell is lovin' this cold weather. I bought a new set of drag radials yesterday. I am going to have a video of the car hopefully in a couple of weeks. Brian, heard about new stang.

88GT460 said:

hey brian, how bout selling me some liftbars and drag shocks ?

Click to expand...

ok,do you need all of this installed also?

what up b ivey

98 GT with the 327's is faster than any stock 94-97gt. A tick more power and a tick more gear.

5spd GT said:

98 GT with the 327's is faster than any stock 94-97gt. A tick more power and a tick more gear.

Click to expand...

Why?
Isn't '98 still NPI?

4u2nv said:

Why?
Isn't '98 still NPI?

Click to expand...

It's still NPI, but I believe they changed a couple things on them. I think something about the exhaust was a little different, but I could be wrong. I don't know a whole lot about Pre-99 SN95's

RADIALKILLER said:

88GT460 said:

hey brian, how bout selling me some liftbars and drag shocks ?

Click to expand...

ok,do you need all of this installed also?

Click to expand...

Please tell me you're not going to take them "elsewhere" to get them installed after buying them from Teh Mustang Man (BFI) of the area!

4u2nv said:

Why?
Isn't '98 still NPI?

Click to expand...

A bit more tuning on the exhaust side with the ECC of the 98's. Plus they come with 327's in the t45's...

Barely, barely quicker on average.

Good information. Thanks!

96-98's are still the bastardized children of the modern-day Stang.

I'd still like to know why Ford left the 94-98's with such little power

4u2nv said:

Good information. Thanks!

96-98's are still the bastardized children of the modern-day Stang.

Click to expand...

No kidding, I really think they got a lot of unneeded flack, a PI headswap for $400 bucks (plus labor of course though...yikes) can put you in the 240rwhp range from that alone from what I have seen.

They say the 96-98's are slower than the sn95 5.0L's but I have never seen proof of that. Just drivers races The 98's have a tick bit more advantage to the 94-97's.

Peak torque on the 4.6L is acheived only 100rpm more than the 94-95's 5.0L. They both have flat torquey powerbands, just in different locations. Many say the 5.0L has more torque so it is faster...well afterall horsepower is just a measurement of torque output: HP = (rpm x torque)/5252. Plus 95% of a race time is spent above 3,500rpm so the 4.6L pulls a bit better up top. I'm bored...lol.

jasonh_86 said:

I'd still like to know why Ford left the 94-98's with such little power

Click to expand...

I think it is pretty simple, research and development. Sure they could make more power but that would cost Ford's R&D department to spend more money on research that would make "more power" and keep the goals in mind. MPG, streetability, and you have to think of the "soccer mom's" that just want a stang in their garage. They aren't buying it "for power". But either way if we want more power we got to pay With power there is usually sacrifices. Anyways, if they spend money on development then it reflects into the market. We are the market and we pay more. It is an everlasting balancing act unfortunately

The 86 and downs made even less power. Power is coming with technology while still letting us tick off 26mpg on the highway.

They are getting better. The entire platform

The 87-93's also came with "such little power" to Jason, just in a slightly smaller casing Not much weight difference really.

None of that probably made sense...sorry...lol.

I get what you're sayin now

I was just saying that it seemed like they didnt even move how much hp they had (actually, didnt it decrease a little from the 87-93's?) with the new body style.

I just expected there to be more power with new looks. I realized how much hp the 87-93 had, but that was pretty normal for their time, wasnt it? But i dunno..

Good points David, I just had to gripe about something

jasonh_86 said:

I get what you're sayin now

I was just saying that it seemed like they didnt even move how much hp they had (actually, didnt it decrease a little from the 87-93's?) with the new body style.

I just expected there to be more power with new looks. I realized how much hp the 87-93 had, but that was pretty normal for their time, wasnt it? But i dunno..

Good points David, I just had to gripe about something

Click to expand...

I'll throw out some other points...I'm still bored at work...

Your thinking of the 87-92 5.0's being rated at 225hp and the 93 models being rated at 205hp (underated)...the 93 Cobra's are rated at 235hp (underrated)...and the 94/95 sn-95 were rated at 215hp (slightly more restrictive intake/but with electric fan so it was basically canceled out)...

The 92-93 comparison in horsepower was strickly a marketing ploy...the 1993 5.0 had hypereutic (sp?) pistons which were actually lighter than the forged so the power was the same techincally with the edge going towards the 93 compared to the 92...the marketing ploy was there because the Sn95 was to be introduced the next year in 94 but Ford didn't want the previous model (93) to have more horsepower than their new model (94)...they want the Sn95 to be succesful (which it was) so they were willing to "hurt" the Hp numbers of the 93 to "heal" the 94-95 and beyond...

Actually the 87-93 5.0 dyno virtually the same if you compare year vs. year not MAF vs. SD...the numbers tend to vary in the later years due to all kinds of variables: State of tune, break-in procedure, 5spd or AOD, mileage, etc...

This is straight out of a book I have which is titled "Mustang 5.0 & 4.6"...which further backs up the above info...

"...Ford lowered the horsepower number to 205 for 1993 only. The engine didn't just lose horsepower; Ford's official line was that the method by which it rated horsepower had been changed and that this was really a more accurate number."

Down the page it talks about the hints that it was a marketing ploy because Ford could not fathom putting the new model car (94+) with 10hp less than the previous model...Ford denies this...but it makes complete sense...

Think about it this way...Instead of the 04 Viper having 500hp...how would you like to buy a 05 Viper with 475hp....same principle applies...

Now just because the engine wasn't upgraded (powerwise) that doesn't mean they didn't get upgraded. An sn95 is a better platform for an "overall car" IMO than a fox.

Examples are that the 94/95 body style has a redesigned floor-plan, revised front crossmember, X-brace stiffening structure placed underneath the oil pan...even though the front suspension is still the MacPherson strut style unit the geometry and mounting bolts were revised also...along with the different spindles. The front crossmember was moved up slightly and the control arms are a bit longer and larger boxed sections were made into roof rails and rocker panels to help any kind of flexing problem...and with all this and some other slight changes the body is 56% stronger in the bending aspect and 44% stiffer in the torsion area than the foxbodied platform...

The wheelbase is almost an inch longer and is about 2 inches wider and you could get the optional ABS in the mustangs those years...and the Gt has 10.8in disc brakes in front and 10.5 in the back...a far cry from those "baby" disc in the fox and those musical instruments in the back (drums)...

I've drove both and definitely prefer the Sn95...much better ride overall...

I think the power numbers for the time were fine. But just remember the difference between 93' and 94's is one production day

geeeeez david.. my knowledge of cars just got PWNT!

I feel dumb now! haha.. I didnt realize they lowered the hp rating on the 93's, that's why i was saying "such little power" about the SN95's. But it makes such good sense to lower the hp number if the newer model is going to be producing less than what WAS advertised (225 vs. 215).. I see where they went with that one, i would've done the same thing too if I couldnt/didnt want to put more power into the car.

Thanks for "puttin me in check" there, David (not bein sarcastic) lol

This place is better than Tech a lot of days. Great stuff!

I knew about the underrating of the latter Foxes.

I do, however, still think the 94-95's have an edge on the NPI 4.6's. Driver's race, perhaps, but those things were so clogged by restrictive heads, it insane. Ever witnessed a PI swap? You know for sure then!

Jason - I was just bored man, thought I would answer some questions and add unneeded info...I get like that sometimes. How are things?

4u2nv - I just like to classify it as a "driver's race". Now, I think both the 4.6L and 5.0L's both have restrictive heads, dynos show this for sure. A head swap on either produce a solid amount. I know from personal experience. Yep, a PI headswap is a bit more detailed than a 5.0L swap I know on paper (and from personal experience) that the 98's (of the 94-98's) has the ever so slightly edge on the other sn95's. Stock for stock...not modified Now the 03/04 blocks on the Cobra's are a nice platform to modify

5spd GT said:

4u2nv - I just like to classify it as a "driver's race". Now, I think both the 4.6L and 5.0L's both have restrictive heads, dynos show this for sure. A head swap on either produce a solid amount. I know from personal experience. Yep, a PI headswap is a bit more detailed than a 5.0L swap I know on paper (and from personal experience) that the 98's (of the 94-98's) has the ever so slightly edge on the other sn95's. Stock for stock...not modified Now the 03/04 blocks on the Cobra's are a nice platform to modify

Click to expand...

I still miss my 95 Cobra and will hopefully find one like I had, or get a nice Fox to redo. Either one will a forged stroker with forced induction.