Honestly, the stock GT setup is, by far, the best compromise for "everything".
In real life, there's a trade-off for any of the 4 "targets" I mentioned above. You have to have a firmer ride for handling. That hurts comfort and for qtr mile launches. The same is true for lowering. A lowered car (more than 1") is worse for qtr mile launches and hurts comfort. For the qtr mile, don't forget about the need for big tires in the rear and how the rear squats during launch.
Also, in terms of handling, bumpsteer, center of gravity, and geometry changes become important! So, without a lot of $$$ mods (and most likely a new k-frame and fender mods), lowering a Stang by more than ~1" screws up a lot of things!
You're in LA. So, you could likely lower the car more than 1" and not have problems with the potholes and snow that most of the country has. For any part of the country that gets snow, the big cities and the small local streets are often "potholes connected by small patches of asphalt". That's a great description of any New England big city.
Back to the lowering. Coil-overs may be what you want. They offer the ability to adjust the "spring rate" and height. However,
*I* will say over and over and over, the Fox and sn95s strut towers were NOT designed for coil-overs, not by a long shot! It's one thing for a "weekend toy" qtr mile or circle track car to run coil-overs. Yea, it's not seeing real-life pot-holes, speed bumps, and so on. And, it's not taking the beating that a street car takes. Stangs have had their coil-overs go through the strut towers, had their coil-over crack, distort, ruin the strut towers and so on. But, after a few million cars and 20+ year, you've never heard of that from the coil spring system (not counting the POS strut towers
rusting out).
Also, *I* am not a fan of coil-overs in a powerful qtr mile car that lifts it's front end off the track. Yea, put the FULL force of the engine and heavy-*ss front-end of the car on a "small bearing" that's on the CC plate (caster camber plate - required for coil-overs) which is bolted to the weak *ss strut towers. YIKES!!
Qtr mile cars have light front springs. So, they come close to, or hit, full jounce (front-end compression) when the front-end comes crashing down after a launch. With the stock setup, the springs fully compress and it's the FCA, compressed spring, and the
top of the beefy k-frame.
With a coil-over setup, it's the FCA, rod in the strut fully compressed, bearing in the CC plate, and a lot of force that's now pulling the strut tower backwards and inwards from that
single ~1.5" point.
Last: Yea, I've read a lot about people saying how coil-overs are "okay for a Fox/sn95". Hmm, I don't know one that's involved in "high-stress" high-reliability mechanical design. And, responsible for designs that would likely get them fired, and likely never work again as an engineer, if their stupid design failed because it was a stupid *ss design (like the flaming river steering shaft). Yea, GMS and C&L can design and sell pure cr*p, and "get away with it". It's different when it's an engineer designing for a high visibility and reliability market (like for OEM automotive, Defense, aerospace, etc).