Fox 5.0 Vs Sn95 5.0

[jozsefsz]

Also what would be best... find a complete car or start with a roller and sav a few bucks up front? One car I'm looking at is a roller without interior, motor, trans or computer. It's cleaner than the complete car but I've never tackled a project like that before...

If you're new to a project of this size, find one that's complete. That way you can work on it one piece at a time, and even drive it while you're working on it. Even if you don't plan to drive it, nothing gets older than an empty shell that doesn't move out of your way on the driveway.

You can always build up the "next generation" engine on a stand. Starting with an empty shell is a huge pain unless you know exactly what you want to do. It'll also cost you much, much more by the time you're done with it (T5's often fetch over $1000, you can get a running car for not much more). You'll have to deal with EVERYTHING that's missing. Oh, just needs an engine. Wait, that means motor mounts, exhaust, all accessories, computer - electrical, linkages, etc. Well over $1000 bucks right there in stuff that you'll need just to get it running.

Cool enough if you're building up a full-on race car, or if you're really an expert. Bad idea for a street car. Your goals of 11-12 seconds can be met with forced induction on a stock 94-95. Spend your time there instead of running wiring harnesses and piecing a dash together. Plus, if you can't drive it, you have no idea what else is wrong with it (trashed suspension, brake problems, a fuel tank full of sludgy gelatin, etc., etc.)

For preventive maintenance, change all fluids and filters, plugs cap & rotor, check the brakes. Inspect suspension and fix whatever's needed. These cars are incredibly reliable, and also very simple. Inspect tires, battery, wipers, all that stuff. Better yet if you're new to this stuff, take it into a mechanic for a pre-purchase inspection and get the whole list of what they recommend. You don't need to pay them to do the work, but you'll get a much better idea of what's needed.

 

[RaggedGT]

Abs, traction control wasn't available till 99 I believe.

Ok good. Wanted to make sure my car didn't have any driving aides I wasn't utilizing

 

[General karthief]

I've had traction control since 1957, been using it extensively since about 1969,

 

[revhead347]

I've owned both. The Fox body was the last muscle car ever made. It's a two door Ford with a bigger engine and drivetrain, nothing more, nothing less. Everything else in the car is indistinguishable in quality to a Ford Escort. The Pros are obvious, it's about 150lbs lighter, a little more leg room in the backseats, and if you get a hatchback, you can cram quite a bit in the back of it. The reason Foxbodies sometimes command more money is the quality. It's pretty hard to keep one of these cars in good shape. They just kind of fall apart just like an Escort does.

That being said, I would never trade in my SN for a Fox body. The SN is easier to work on, has much better brakes (with ABS as an option), is better looking (my own personal opinion obviously), has better seats, better visibility, an interior that is awesome and doesn't rattle or fall apart, an airbag for your hottie, and above all a stiffer chassis. Foxbodies fishtail bad when you floor it because the chassis isn't quite right; even if you put subframe connectors in it. the SN has a tendency to accelerate in a straight line.

Kurt

 

[jozsefsz]

Foxbodies fishtail bad when you floor it because the chassis isn't quite right; even if you put subframe connectors in it. the SN has a tendency to accelerate in a straight line.

Great comment, this point should be a very strong one for Op. I'm running a T76 at ~11psi boost and I've never had it go stupid, sideways, or even tug at the wheel. I've never driven a Fox turbo so I have no direct experience, but some Youtube vids I've seen scare the hell out of me with the way a turbo Fox can act under acceleration. If it can keep from spitting the axle out of underneath the rear that is...

 

[General karthief]

I feel those are personal opinions and not based on facts. Every body/platform change got better with technology advancements, 4 eyed, fox, sn95, s197, and so on all had their little quirks but I'll keep my fox, I have been looking at s197s lately but not because I think they are so much better than my fox, it's because they are afordable transportation and it has a v8.

 

[jozsefsz]

I feel those are personal opinions and not based on facts.

I'll disagree politely, there's a lot of historical fact and hands-on experience in this thread with just a bit of personal opinion (with folks humbly acknowledging when it is). But if folks agree to keep the awesomeness of the SN95 a secret and keep running up the price of the Fox-bodies, I'm all for it. More toys for us, for cheap.

 

[General karthief]

I could be a sn95 convert if and when I get one, they are more tunable right? They do have a stiffer platform than a fox, I agree. Maybe I'm just kinda jaded about my fox and took it more like they were getting bashed, probably not intended.

 

[revhead347]

No doubt you can get a foxbody down a prepped track nice and straight. It is the undisputed champion of drag racing. However, it takes a lot of suspension work; get your welder out for for an anti-roll bar. For a street car, the SN just seems to go better.

Kurt

 

[Black1987]

Coming late to the party, I have both a Fox and SN95 5.0.

If I had a choice between the two, I would pick the fox 9/10.

I agree an SN95 feels like a better put together car, rides better and stops better. However, modding them you fall in cliche market IMO.

The 94/95 ECMs do not play well with a lot of cams ( people on here will say doesn't matter go custom anyways and a tune blah blah thats not really in eveyones budget $$$). Fox is a simpler platform that just works.

And also most importantly SNs do not come with the TRW pistons like 87-92 5.0s did.

A fox has a ton of aftermarket support with less quirks then the SN and almost all the negatives the fox has compared to the SN, can be corrected with a junkyard visit to rob those parts off an SN.

The SN seems better on paper but however ( this is just from my experience) very rarely you see a SN95 drive around a fox period. I dont know why but the car feels like a dog stock to stock against a fox and you can see this by going to your local test and tune night.

The only thing I would give the SN a huge advantage on is the market is in slump right now and you can get a less worn out version for pennies compared to a similar fox.

They are both good cars but you might take a hit if you invest ( never invest in a car period) in an SN due to its less than popular style. I like them both but I drive my fox more than my 2017 GT. SN the wife drives.

Also one last thing:
My Stockish Fox vs a bolt on 95 Cobra

The Cobra had every advantage:
Better Suspension(drag springs/shocks)
HCI
O/R Exhaust
Ignition
Nitto Street tires vs my All Season
And a Tune

But still lost 3 times in a row

View: https://youtu.be/CUuw65hsnbI


View: https://youtu.be/TiPGuYdwReo


Both are great, but for Racing Fox
Cruising SN

 

[jozsefsz]

The SN95 might arguably be a little more "tuneable" (the computer has some parameters earlier models don't and its faster processing allows more complete datalogging) but they don't care for almost any mod without tuning -- in my opinion largely due to the closed loop it tries to force at idle. Good for emissions, terrible for easy modifications. My advice is that if you want to get an SN95 and modify it, a Quarterhorse is pretty much a requirement. I'm sure that's a bit of a turn-off to the amateur modifying community. It's not all that expensive in the bigger picture, but it does require a bit of learning. Luckily everything you know about tuning a Fox with a Quarterhorse still applies.

As an SN95 owner, I personally wasn't bashing Foxes, but defending the SN95. The Fox has plenty of fans so it really doesn't need any defense. Whatever the reason(s), SN95's just aren't popular - not that my protests will help really in the bigger picture. I'm old enough to have bought mine when the 94-95 came out - they were wildly popular and people loved the styling, handling, the unique colors, safety features, and the comparatively polished cockpit interior. The 96-whenever when the first generation 4.6's were dropped in killed it. That torque-less boat anchor made the car take a back-seat to the 350-powered Camaro and Firebird of the time. By the time they fixed that with the New Edge cars the damage was done.

I agree they aren't an investment, no car really is, though for utility it's hard to beat the up-front price of the SN95. Having a Fox today, it may well appreciate, and you'd do pretty good if you wanted to sell it. Buying a Fox today, you have to worry that there's a bubble / peak, or it might still appreciate.

The parts issue isn't bad at all (compared to say my '69 Mercury or '78 II), since so much of the Fox powertrain fits, and most of the suspension and interior up through new-Edge works as well. It may be a little harder to find what you're looking for than for a Fox, but not much. I've never worried about the pistons too much either (would be nice to have the forged ones) - the block is the weakest link anyways regardless of the year.

I guess in summary, there are lots of good arguments both ways. Go test drive one, see which one you like better, and what fits in your price range for its condition. You can get either one into the 11's or 12's without all that much trouble.

 

[sbolt]

Great comment, this point should be a very strong one for Op. I'm running a T76 at ~11psi boost and I've never had it go stupid, sideways, or even tug at the wheel. I've never driven a Fox turbo so I have no direct experience, but some Youtube vids I've seen scare the hell out of me with the way a turbo Fox can act under acceleration. If it can keep from spitting the axle out of underneath the rear that is...

At one point I had an '89 LX 5.0 and my '95 GTS at the same time. I found the same to be true.

 

[revhead347]

I agree an SN95 feels like a better put together car, rides better and stops better. However, modding them you fall in cliche market IMO.

The 94/95 ECMs do not play well with a lot of cams ( people on here will say doesn't matter go custom anyways and a tune blah blah thats not really in eveyones budget $$$). Fox is a simpler platform that just works.

And also most importantly SNs do not come with the TRW pistons like 87-92 5.0s did.

That's a good perspective. I guess it depends on how far you intend to go with the car. A basic HCI setup on an SN is no more expensive. However, there is a gap between HCI and full on racecar that I am certainly in where I have had to be a little more inventive at times getting parts to work on a car with a 2 year production run. For example, you get hit really hard in the wallet if you want to upgrade the radiator on an SN. I don't buy the tune argument though. 20 years ago, maybe, but these days everyone does a tune even with no mods. They are cheap compared to everything else.

The TRW forged pistons argument was disproved like two decades ago. The cast pistons that came in 93+ cars performed better than the old forged ones in most circumstances. Certainly not a concern for anyone on a budget. The block will split before you scatter a stock cast piston. Not to mention that modifying a car with a 25 year old engine that hasn't been rebuilt is usually a poor starting point anyway.

Kurt

 

[jrichker]

Fox vs. SN95 - it's like women - tall, short, curvy or slender; whatever you like, you'll meet one who is different and will change you mind about what you think is attractive...