The same thing could be said of a modified 427 Shelby Cobra vs. say a Corvette ZR1. It's not that I think the cobra would be "just as good." Not even close. It would be better in every way imaginable. New Mustangs are for some people. Fox mustangs are for me. There's no question which one is the best car in my mind. For me, it definitely does not come down to money.
In order: get brakes, get a caddy, get a caddy, get a caddy, get a benz, get an audi, get a caddy, get a bicycle, and get a prius. See, this is easy
Tried ordering a 14' sedan V. Two dealerships could not order me the car I wanted. Screw cadillac
Uhhh...yes it is. If you mod a SN95 suspension to compete with these new cars on a track, the SN95 is going to have 0 compliance and ride like complete crap. The fact that these cars can go as fast as they can around a track, and still be VERY comfortable and smooth in everyday conditions is a testament to just how much more advanced they are compared to the old cars.
Unfortunately Ford considers 99-04 vintage
Depends on what you want out of a suspension. New is not always better.
A real performance suspension is never going to be as comfortable as a stock street suspension, and a stock production car street suspension is never going to keep up with a real performance tuned/modified suspension. As trombonedemon said, new is not always better. Go trick out an SN95 or even a fox with a complete MM or Griggs kit all the way around, and you're going to run circles around an S197.
I'll stick to what I said: get a SN95 car, or Fox, up to the same level of performance as a new Coyote on the track, and the Coyote will run circles around it in NVH and ride comfort, as well as compliance.
Sure, you could build a complete suspension. You could also do that with a new car.
And I hate to break it to y'all, but 95% of the time, newer is better. Name one performance aspect of the new Coyote cars that isn't better than any previous Mustang.
Sure, you could build a complete suspension. You could also do that with a new car.
And I hate to break it to y'all, but 95% of the time, newer is better. Name one performance aspect of the new Coyote cars that isn't better than any previous Mustang.
What do you mean "better." Im sure John Moses Browning would disagree, military are still using his unchanged designs. The newer model Stangs are still having the same problems that the previous ones have ( clunks, pops. ) That should tell you the more things change the more they stay the same.
That's like saying we're still using the unchanged designs of Nikolaus Otto. That statement doesn't change anything. Yes, we're still doing suck-squeeze-bang-blow, but that process and all the details of it are many orders of magnitude better now than they used to be. Just like my polymer frame handgun is better than a hunk of metal we call a 1911, even though it uses the "same technology". (Oh man, I've opened a can of worms now....
If the new cars have serious NVH issues, I haven't heard about them. I'm 100% positive that they're not like SN95s were.
I'm honestly surprised that anyone thinks there's something subjective about how much better these new cars are. I've driven one and ridden in a couple others, and the difference is night and day.
Technically, he said how much it takes to make it "perform" as well. I guess "performance" is subjective, but to me, ride quality is a pretty important part to overall performance. Could you make a Fox as fast as an M3 around a track? Sure. But the ride would be terrible and not likely something a lot of people (re: wives, girlfriends, kids, etc.) would enjoy very much. It also probably wouldn't be as compliant, either, meaning that as soon as you left a perfect track surface for one with bumps and non-perfectness, the performance would decrease as well.
polymer vs. metal, no comment. But I still think the car kinda lacks an American muscle "feel." Strictly personal. For the record I never said I didn't like the car, its not so much of an improvement to cut my losses and go into more debt. Especially since for 5 hundred dollars a month my options for my Sn are limitless. New is not always better. Besides the debate is never ending.
I just cannot understand this ridiculous argument. What's the point in modifying anything, then?
What's your point? The OP asked how much it would take to out perform an S197 with an SN95. And NO for christ's sake, he wasn't talking about NVH, "compliance," fuel mileage, tire wear, ride, how cold the A/C can get, how loud the stereo system can go or any other asinine arguments you're trying to come up with to rub everyone's nose in the fact that new generations are improvements over the last. I don't understand why people have to jump in and answer a question like, " How much $ would it take to make an SN95 outperform a new 5.0?" with a statement like, "just buy a new one, because you can never make your car outperform a new one in every single conceivable, possible way." If the man wants to build his SN95 to go faster for less money, it is absolutely possible. Or maybe he's like me, and he just likes his car. I have a fox that at one point had a twin-turbo kit, Steeda suspension, Baer Brakes, R-compound tires, and they still haven't made a Mustang GT that would out-accelerate, out-handle, or out-stop that car. At that point, back in 2004, I had $11k into that car total including purchase price. That car was a
ease and cost of DIY intallation and tuning of aftermarket performance parts.... kinda related to this thread, actually
Are the new cars better at the OBJECTIVE things you can measure? Probably at just about all of them. Are they better at going fast on the OP's budget? Are they better at making the OP happy/content? Are they a better financial decision in general? Are the really better? To you and me, the answer is yes, but maybe not to the OP, and that's what makes this subjective.
Wow, finally someone who has common sense. Thank you for restoring my faith in this board and humanity.
No. ride quality is not a part of out performing an S197 in the context of the OP's question, and you obviously knew that. So, I guess your intention is just to be annoying. You're doing a great job at that.
And you know this because you've built a fox to do it and own the M3 to compare it to? Or are you just talking out of your ass? Did you know, the new S197s are solid axles, RWD, V8 cars cars too? The GT tests right there with the M3, and a Boss 302, and GT500 will outrun them. You could install coil-overs with progressive rate springs, bigger brakes, and engine modifications that would absolutely allow you to make it outrun an M3 around a track AND improve the ride at the same time. They do not have some special segment of physics that only applies to them. Your blanket statement is wrong.
Obviously performance would also decrease for the M3 over bumps and imperfections on the road surface. You're thinking small, in terms of modification, but it's irrelevent, anyway.
If you haven't noticed, I haven't once addressed the OP. I addressed a poster's comment that the new car's suspension isn't much better than an old setup that was modded; I HAVE driven both, disagree with that statement, and explained why. Obviously, you think that there is no car that can or will ever be made that is capable of out-doing a Fox in any way, shape, or form, and therefore, I digress.
Have you looked at my sig and seen what I drive? I have a 1998, NON-performance improved, AUTOMATIC, Mustang GT. Arguably one of the slowest V8 Mustangs EVER built. I am WELL aware of the reasons for modding old cars, how much fun it is, and how much 'cheaper' it is. I promise that I wouldn't still have this car if I didn't enjoy every minute of driving it. My car is a significant amount faster in a straight line than a stock Coyote (faster than most non-FI ones, as well), every bit as fast around a corner, and still gets as good a fuel mileage. The ride isn't bad, radio sounds good, A/C is cold, etc. In summary, it is as good or better in almost every 'performance' aspect as one of these new cars. BUT, as an entire car, as a package, there's NO WAY I'd ever even think that it's half the car these new ones are.
I'm realistic man. I know the difference between the objective stuff and the subjective stuff. For me, that doesn't make it a better car. A fox body is my dream car. Specifically, the completion of my next project is my dream car. Isn't it always? A fox was my first car as a 15 year-old. It was a car my father and I shared, and a car that my step father and I worked on together. It's a car I know every nut and bolt on. It's been customized a couple of times the way I wanted to do it. It's been both the source of amazing fun and accomplishment, and also the source of frustration/anger/disappointment. It's skull drug some guys so bad that after they stopped talking
So, a guy asks what it will take to make his car faster than a new one, I assume that to them it may be what mine is to me. NVH, compliance, comfort, ride, touch screens, built in espresso makers & scrotom-massagers don't make a car better. There is actually an appeal to simplicity, and driving without traction control, ABS, active handling, launch control, etc... Frankly, I want my car to be harsh, and at least somewhat noisy. I want it to vibrate a little at idle to let people know it probably ain't a pushover.
Yeah, wow. Actually, your car is every bit as quick and traps as high in a straight line as my old twin-turbo combo (a small incon kit on a mild 302), which is surprising considering the considerable power difference. I'll chalk that up to your Auto not really putting all of the power it can through the dyno rollers. I'll bet you've surprised the