I wouldn't say the SN95 was slower than a Fox. Other than a 5-spd LX coupe or LX hatch, most foxes were struggling to get out of the mid 14's back in the day when they were all stock. An AOD fox was a 15 second car.
When I had my 2003 GT 5-spd, I clicked off a 14.1 bone stock. A few minor bolt on's and i was solidly in the mid 13's. I remember the big WOW back in the day was the advancement of the 4R70W and how an automatic GT was now a low 14 second car as well.
However, back in the day, a 14.1 was still slow. Here were were in the 2000's and running the same times as a 20 year old Mustang. It certainly hasn't advanced as it did from 2000 to 2020.
Still, stock for stock the SN was slower than the Fox in a straight line, and in that era the Mustang was always considered a straight line car. Historically, we should all be happy that there was a '94 Mustang at all because as we all know Ford had it's head on the block and was sharpening the axe right up to the presidential pardon
Reading about the history of the SN95 project and how it came together on a bare bones budget is actually pretty interesting, and realistically it was the best thing that ever happened to Fox owners because so many of those newer suspension pieces can be backdated into our vehicles.
With all that said, I will maintain that the reason the SN95 remains unpopular is twofold. First, the relatively low performance of the car hurt it a lot. Whichever way you cut it, the 94-95 5.0L car was slower to 60 MPH and in the 1/4 Mile than the 93 5.0L. On top of that, it was going up against the 93 Camaro/Firebird which was already stomping the 93 GT, and the expectation was that Ford would offer more competition with the 94 redesign. It took buying the Cobra to be competitive with the Z28, the GT simply had no chance. To make matters worse, in '96 Ford rolled out the 4.6L V8. This engine had even lower performance and the already slow Mustang GT got even slower! Again, stepping up to the Cobra was a world of difference, but it was also quite a bit more expensive, and they only made a limited number.
He was the lead engineer for John Force racing, and he went to Ford and told them "I need the back end of the car to be shaped like this in order to win races."
Actually that big saving happened back around '88/'89 as the new Probe came out in '89. The outcry changed Ford's mind.The SN was built at the last moment by committed enthusiasts to keep the Mustang from being a 4cyl FWD car (Probe).
C/D: Enough about the new, touchy-feely John Coletti. Let’s talk about your performance history at Ford. Tell us how you saved the Mustang.
JC: I was born in Newark, New Jersey, but I was raised in Detroit from age three. I got the car bug in 1964, when the Mustang was introduced, so it was special to me. And the Mustang as we knew it was due to be killed in 1993 or 1994. I was in the design center, and I saw this [mock-up of a] car and said, “What the hell is that?” As usual, I was sticking my foot in my mouth. They said it was the next Mustang GT. I said, “That is not a Mustang.” Later, of course, it went into production as the Probe.
C/D: And what about the Mustang?
JC: The real Mustang needed to have airbags on both sides, and Ford was not going to retool the car. So they said, “What do you think you can do to save it?” I said, “I don’t know if I can do anything, but I’d sure as like to give it a try.” So we put nine guys together in the skunkworks. We came up with something they liked, and they let us build it.
C/D: But it was a challenge, some of the stuff you got through the beancounters.
JC: With the supercharged Mustang Cobra, I wanted to get rid of the of the old I-beam rods and go with Manley connecting rods. Those were $55 apiece, compared with $1.60 for the production rods. To the accountants, the rods looked and felt the same. They said, “Are you nuts?” I said, “Well, if you want the engine to stay together . . .” Everybody knew I was crazy, so usually they let me do what I wanted to do.
They've all been crushed already.I don't know why, but you don't see many rusty SNs.
Kurt
I've never heard this, and I have a really hard time believing that Ford designed their Mustang around niche drag racing.
I am not sure what changed between the '93 and '94 to plant the rear or make it go straighter. I think all the rear components are the same (maybe even interchangeable). Wider rear should not make it hook better and the disc brakes don't do a thing for traction. As far as I remember the major changes were chassis stiffening related and some revised front suspension components. Now the chassis changes would limit some of the flex in the chassis that could make the car "squirrelly". The suspension stuff again shouldn't make it launch straighter either.
So if the improved driving experience just boils down to chassis improvements, then that's what us Fox guys need to focus on and we should be all set.