RWHP SN95 vs. fox

rj95svt · Jul 31, 2007

I figured I would go ahead and start this topic up. Why do typical H/C/I combos seem to make less horepower in SN95 cars when compared to fox body 5.0's. My thoughts have to do with the intake elbow as well as factory tuning but when custom tunes apply the tune becomes a non issue. What do you guys think?

I also wonder why in stock form they are so far behind the foxes in actual power production.

Therian · Jul 31, 2007

rj95svt said:
I also wonder why in stock form they are so far behind the foxes in actual power production.

It has been claimed that due to Ford knowing that it would be putting out an underpowered 4.6 in 1996, they purposefully underrated the 94-95 GTs in order to not make it look like the GT was going down in power from 1995 to 1996.

gcomfx.com · Jul 31, 2007

We're the red headed step children of the Mustang world. It's just how it works. Now get back to scrubbing the kitchen floor! LOL

rj95svt · Jul 31, 2007

gcomfx.com said:
We're the red headed step children of the Mustang world. It's just how it works. Now get back to scrubbing the kitchen floor! LOL

lol!

Anyways If you compare the actual RWHP of a stock 94-95 to a 87-93 there is a signifigant difference in the power. Somewhere around 10-20 hp.

BTW I had a 96GT and it wasn't near the dog that everyone said it was. I was able to faster times in the 1/8th than most 94-95 GT's. It had flowmasters, gears, and a K&N and it ran a 9.14 1/8th.

final5-0 · Jul 31, 2007

I do not see the SN elbow air intake setup being all that much
of a restriction to air flow myself

The pcm in each generation is radically different

The older pcm is not effected by h/c/i as much as the newer

Now ... are you saying if each example has the benefit
of a tune ... the Fox Stangs out powers the 94-95

Grady

rj95svt · Jul 31, 2007

Well to be honest I haven't really noticed to much with a tune but I do think that intake elbow is a possible restriction depending on which brand it is and how the they line up with the intake and throttle body not to mention the actual bend in the elbow which seems pretty severe. I think there might be some power left on the table there but a rather small amount.

final5-0 · Jul 31, 2007

rj95svt said:
Well to be honest I haven't really noticed to much with a tune but I do think that intake elbow is a possible restriction depending on which brand it is and how the they line up with the intake and throttle body not to mention the actual bend in the elbow which seems pretty severe. I think there might be some power left on the table there but a rather small amount.

Good points indeed about the elbow

I gotta ask you to look at the bend of the elbow
and then look at the bend on a 94-95 Fox conversion

Now ... tell me you don't notice more of a bend on the Fox

You mention different elbows and I agree
They're not all made the same

I got an Edel and I think it is the most restrictive
Someday I'll move over to a TFS elbow

Grady

Therian · Jul 31, 2007

rj95svt said:
BTW I had a 96GT and it wasn't near the dog that everyone said it was. I was able to faster times in the 1/8th than most 94-95 GT's. It had flowmasters, gears, and a K&N and it ran a 9.14 1/8th.

No doubt, that's the difference. Gears really wake the SN95s up.

wytstang · Jul 31, 2007

I wonder if the PCM diff one being Load based vs RPM based is what's causing this. Just thinking out loud. Also having a slightly longer drivetrain may take a small nibble in drivetrain loss.

nmcgrawj · Jul 31, 2007

Therian said:
No doubt, that's the difference. Gears really wake the SN95s up.

True. I used to race a buddy of mine with a 96GT, no gears. I had my 3.73's and we had the same bolt ons...(exhaust/ pullies). If i launched well and got out ahead, i wouldnt walk away but he wouldnt catch up. Now that he has gears im willing to bet that its a full drivers race.

Those cars arent dogs...their low end is just soft as *****.

final5-0 · Jul 31, 2007

nmcgrawj said:
Those cars arent dogs...their low end is just soft as *****.

Absolutely just as I have always seen the mod motors

They can shine at the track
and
It is at the track where WOT is the focus

Now ... Lets talk about driving around town
and
It is this application where more than WOT is needed :Word:

Grady

final5-0 · Jul 31, 2007

wytstang said:
I wonder if the PCM diff one being Load based vs RPM based is what's causing this. Just thinking out loud. Also having a slightly longer drivetrain may take a small nibble in drivetrain loss.

That is exactly what I was talking about above

I couldn't say about the longer dt
but
Seems kinda logical

Grady

rj95svt · Jul 31, 2007

Therian said:
No doubt, that's the difference. Gears really wake the SN95s up.

I was running cars that had gears too! I had that one by over a tenth he was running 9.30's. It could have been driving. I don't know but 96-98 GT's aren't far behind 94-95's if any.

Grady your right about the elbow in front of the throttle body on the foxes it's much sharper but I'm not sure it makes as much difference before the throttle body. Again the difference is gonna be small but I think one is there.

As far as the load based pcm being the difference If both cars have the same hard parts and the A/f and the timing was identicle there is no way there could be any difference in power given the same air quality. The longer driveline is something that I haven't thought of but I think if it would make any difference at all it would be to small to matter because the only difference in driveline length is in the input shaft on the tranny right not a heavier component like the driveshaft.

gcomfx.com · Jul 31, 2007

I think many of us have been modded too long. LOL I wouldn't look at the elbow as much as I would the stock intake from a thunderturd. 4800 and you are done.

rj95svt · Jul 31, 2007

Yeah I'm thinking that is the biggest difference in stock form. It has to be. There is no other reason the 94-95 shouldn't have more power or atleast equal other than the pcm's tune. The electric fan should give our cars more power as well.

final5-0 · Jul 31, 2007

rj95svt said:
As far as the load based pcm being the difference If both cars have the same hard parts and the A/f and the timing was identicle there is no way there could be any difference in power given the same air quality. The longer driveline is something that I haven't thought of but I think if it would make any difference at all it would be to small to matter because the only difference in driveline length is in the input shaft on the tranny right not a heavier component like the driveshaft.

I agree

The reality of the whole tuning deal can be looked at in at least a couple
of ways as I see it

1) Most Stangers don't tune with the pcm
and
It is my contention that ........
Fox folk who don't do better than SN folk who don't

With a 94-95 ... You go hosin around with fuel pressure and the
pcm is gonna try and compensate. While the same can be said
for the A9L ... I don't think it is a stretch to say the 94-95 is less
tolerant to stuff like that.

2) Quality of tune

Hey ... its just a fact that numbers of Foxes compared to numbers
of 94-95's is so lopsided

So many more peeps are familiar with the older pcm's and that
can make a difference

I suspect you see some of that still going around today and it
certainly could hurt a 94-95 Stang owner :Word:

Good Stuff by all

Grady

nmcgrawj · Jul 31, 2007

rj95svt said:
I was running cars that had gears too! I had that one by over a tenth he was running 9.30's. It could have been driving. I don't know but 96-98 GT's aren't far behind 94-95's if any.

Grady your right about the elbow in front of the throttle body on the foxes it's much sharper but I'm not sure it makes as much difference before the throttle body. Again the difference is gonna be small but I think one is there.

As far as the load based pcm being the difference If both cars have the same hard parts and the A/f and the timing was identicle there is no way there could be any difference in power given the same air quality. The longer driveline is something that I haven't thought of but I think if it would make any difference at all it would be to small to matter because the only difference in driveline length is in the input shaft on the tranny right not a heavier component like the driveshaft.

People might get confused when the call the 96-98's dogs....a dog on the street is completely different than a dog on the track. U're lookin at idle - 3-4k rpms compared to 4-6k rpms. One car shines in one window while the other shines in the higher one.

And guys who convert to the TKO setups have the same tranny as fox's...with an additional spacer between the driveshaft and rear end. Those are aluminum and extremely light.

rj95svt · Jul 31, 2007

There is no doubt my 96 wasn't near as much fun due to the lack of grunt below 3,000 but it pulled very hard 3,000-5,000 but by 5,000 it was done. I shifted it at 5,200 because any higher would slow it down. It had a very narrow rpm band.

gcomfx.com · Jul 31, 2007

rj95svt said:
There is no doubt my 96 wasn't near as much fun due to the lack of grunt below 3,000 but it pulled very hard 3,000-5,000 but by 5,000 it was done. I shifted it at 5,200 because any higher would slow it down. It had a very narrow rpm band.

In all honesty, that's about the powerband my car had when I first got it. Wow, it's almost hard to imagine that now. With the new setup, running through the 3-5k range is unbelievable. One should not blink or you find yourself at 7k.

HISSIN50 · Jul 31, 2007

I aint real bright but I like what I'm seeing here. Some/most of my post is a rehash of what's been said.

Grady is right on about the foxes and the bend (that SOB is about a 90* in stock form). And if there's any supposed loss from 'our' intake, you'd think our E-fan offsets it (as RJ said).

I think it's all in the PCM. The 5.0 was a dirty motor (what lead to it's being phased out IMHO) and they were doing all they could to get it clean. Foxes do tend to run on the rich side (and when sensors go awry, ya know how we tend to go lean? Well foxes go rich. Foxes can run very nicely in FMEM). It also seems like the WOT trims and settings favor a fox (and as Grady noted, the foxes are more tolerant of WOT enrichment before the look-up tables are overwritten).

As Grady and you guys noted, a tuned HCI combo vs a tuned HCI combo would be a good run for the money. I also think a tuned stock fox combo vs a Grady-like tuned stock 5N95 combo would be a good run for the money (the 5N95 tune would yield more benefit than the A9L tune, bringing the former back onto the playing field).

Miscellaneous ramblings.

RWHP SN95 vs. fox

rj95svt

Member

Therian

The Highlander

gcomfx.com

rj95svt

Member

final5-0

Mustang Master

rj95svt

Member

final5-0

Mustang Master

Therian

The Highlander

wytstang

Mustang Master

nmcgrawj

Advanced Member

final5-0

Mustang Master

final5-0

Mustang Master

rj95svt

Member

gcomfx.com

rj95svt

Member

final5-0

Mustang Master

nmcgrawj

Advanced Member

rj95svt

Member

gcomfx.com

HISSIN50

"How long does it take to get help in here?

Similar threads

RWHP SN95 vs. fox

Member

The Highlander

Member

Mustang Master

Member

Mustang Master

The Highlander

Mustang Master

Advanced Member

Mustang Master

Mustang Master

Member

Member

Mustang Master

Advanced Member

Member

"How long does it take to get help in here?

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency