Stock HP-marekting ploy?

[Gearbanger 101]

OMG, this is retarded. Now you're making stupid ass comparisons, yeah, duh I'd squeel with 225s on a 15" rim. I own an 87 GT and a 95 GT, they're both really close to stock other than exhaust being the biggest mod. I know the 87 is faster straight line, I also know the 95 would crush it in a road course.

You were the one making the stupid ass comparison when you stated....

My friend squeels his tires going 25 around corners I take at 45 with no tire squeel.

I was meerly informing you that although the SN-95 is the superior chassis, The later GT's 17" wheel and tire package acount for a good portion of it's ability to take corners without (or very little) tire squeal. That is all.

 

[NightStalkersSO]

yeah, and it's a STOCK tire/wheel package, just like the STOCK tire wheel package on the fox....I was comparing stock to stock and you throw in that if I have 15" wheels on my 95 GT I'll have problems.....that's impossible since GTs came with 17" I was comparing stock to stock, that's what the discussion was about

 

[AznStanger3v]

we had my first 94 GT dynoed stock with a little over 100k on the clock and it got 196.4 to the wheels. Rough translation= 225 hp. Maybe i got the freak

 

[Gearbanger 101]

yeah, and it's a STOCK tire/wheel package, just like the STOCK tire wheel package on the fox....I was comparing stock to stock and you throw in that if I have 15" wheels on my 95 GT I'll have problems.....that's impossible since GTs came with 17" I was comparing stock to stock, that's what the discussion was about

Actually, if you want to get techincal. The 17" wheel and tire package was an option, not standard. But I think we get each others point.

 

[5spd GT]

16" wheels are standard on the 94/95's...don't compare optional to standard...91-93 5.0's got 16 inch wheels standard...compare standard to standard...

Foxes are barely faster than an Sn-95 in the quarter...and the Sn95's are superior on a road coarse...(look at bottom of post to find out why)...

A auto fox vert can weigh more than a sn95 5spd...its not like an sn95 weighs more no matter what...equal trim vs. equal trim a fox will be lighter...but the difference aren't as great as people believe...

To the original post:

Ford lowered the horsepower number to 205 for 1993 only. The engine didn't just lose horsepower; Ford's official line was that the method by which it rated horsepower had been changed and that this was really a more accurate number...

It was a marketing ploy because Ford could not fathom putting the new model car (94+) with 10hp less than the previous model...Ford denies this...but it makes complete sense...

Instead of the 04 Viper having 500hp...how would you like to buy a 05 Viper with 475hp....same principle applies...

I'll have to repost here on the chassis of the Sn-95's...

The 94/95 body style has a redesigned floor-plan, revised front crossmember, X-brace stiffening structure placed underneath the oil pan...even though the front suspension is still the MacPherson strut style unit the geometry and mounting bolts were revised also...along with the different spindles. The front crossmember was moved up slightly and the control arms are a bit longer and larger boxed sections were made into roof rails and rocker panels to help any kind of flexing problem...and with all this and some other slight changes the body is 56% stronger in the bending aspect and 44% stiffer in the torsion area than the foxbodied platform...

The wheelbase is almost an inch longer and is about 2 inches wider and you could get the optional ABS in the mustangs those years...and the Gt has 10.8in disc brakes in front and 10.5 in the back...a far cry from those "baby" disc in the fox and those musical instruments in the back (drums)...

 

[Gearbanger 101]

Foxes are barely faster than an Sn-95 in the quarter...and the Sn95's are superior on a road coarse...(look at bottom of post to find out why)...

A auto fox vert can weigh more than a sn95 5spd...its not like an sn95 weighs more no matter what...equal trim vs. equal trim a fox will be lighter...but the difference aren't as great as people believe...

You don't consider .4-.6 tenths considerably quicker?

 

[willys1]

4-6 tenths,yup, a half of a second is about 3-4 car lenths at 100mph!! The stock lower intake on 5.0 foxes was already a bottle neck on the motor The 94/95's have even more of a choke hold with the intake they use,that plus the extra wieght makes it about that much slower in the 1/4. Stock set ups yeah,the sn's handle and brake a little better,but with a few up grades foxes can be pretty mean on a road coarse! Im not putting anything down,I like the 94/95's,if I didnt I wouldnt be here.Its all good

 

[5spd GT]

You don't consider .4-.6 tenths considerably quicker?

Okay my hatch weighs 3160 without me in it...and in (your) most extreme case of .6 tenths...that would be the equivalent of 3760lbs for a 5spd Sn95...don't you think that is a little off...

The upper intake isn't much of a bottleneck even on the Sn95...the lower didn't change on either model (flow wis')...

A sn95 (both being good drivers) will just be on average .3 faster than the equivalent trim fox...Yes everything being equal the fox will win...but some people make the difference greater than what is is...

Plus the Sn-95 has an electric fan and kind of "combats" the "loss" from the different upper intake...

If you get to add parts to your fox to make it handle better...I get to add parts to my Sn95 to make it handle better

 

[willys1]

What does a 94/95 weigh?hard top, and a vert?

 

[5spd GT]

What does a 94/95 weigh?hard top, and a vert?

I believe the "average" Sn95 5spd coupe is around 3300lbs and the average vert weighs around 3500lbs...some more...some less...this is bone stock though...no aftermarket rims, body kits, etc...

 

[willys1]

I believe the "average" Sn95 5spd coupe is around 3300lbs and the average vert weighs around 3500lbs...some more...some less...this is bone stock though...no aftermarket rims, body kits, etc...

Thats not too bad,I thought it was about 300 pounds.

 

[willys1]

300 pound difference,Im going to bed!!

 

[Gearbanger 101]

Okay my hatch weighs 3160 without me in it...and in (your) most extreme case of .6 tenths...that would be the equivalent of 3760lbs for a 5spd Sn95...don't you think that is a little off...

The upper intake isn't much of a bottleneck even on the Sn95...the lower didn't change on either model (flow wis')...

Yeah, your hatch weight sounds about right. Mine LX Hatch weighs about 3275 and it's fully loaded with air, GT seats another 40lbs or so worth of stereo.

But lets not forget the coupes. We can't go and disqualify them just because thy never had an equivalent in the SN-95 body style. Most of them hover around the 3000-3100 mark. The upper intake on the SN-95 hurt them most at the top end of the RPM spectrum. The combination of their heavier weight hurting their bottom end and restrictive intake hurting their top end is where I got the “extreme” number of 6/10. But I feel it's still accurate non the less and recall seeing those sorts of consistent differences in street races and at the track in the past.

 

[5spd GT]

Yeah, your hatch weight sounds about right. Mine LX Hatch weighs about 3275 and it's fully loaded with air, GT seats another 40lbs or so worth of stereo.

But lets not forget the coupes. We can't go and disqualify them just because thy never had an equivalent in the SN-95 body style. Most of them hover around the 3000-3100 mark. The upper intake on the SN-95 hurt them most at the top end of the RPM spectrum. The combination of their heavier weight hurting their bottom end and restrictive intake hurting their top end is where I got the “extreme” number of 6/10. But I feel it's still accurate non the less and recall seeing those sorts of consistent differences in street races and at the track in the past.

Well I don't like comparing extremes to extreme unless I specify it...

Yeah my hatch is fully loaded no weight reduction unless you count the no-dogbone...I'm probably going to put that back on...well and the aluminum heads...I have a/c and everything...

The upper intake flows pretty well though and is probably pretty proportional to the flow of the lower intake and heads so it really doesn't hurt it...looking at the cfm #'s...

I've noticed at the track around .3 seconds difference...

I know a guy that had a auto-vert fox that ran a 15.8...but I don't consider everyone of those that slow...I think it had a lot to do with the state of the car...and I've seen the sn95's run mid 14's bone stock...and many slower than that...just like a few foxes faster than that...it's hard to compare different cars with different drivers...so in my mind I picture equal scenarios and see what they could run...I drove a 95gt and boy did it need some gears (273's)...

 

[Gearbanger 101]

Agree'd. Regardless of the difference in power, i'd still pick an SN-95 over another Fox any day. Don't get me wrong, I love my LX, but I want more than just a "point and shoot" car. As of Sunday, the Stang should be sold and I can get working on my newest project. My Twin Screw blown '96 Cougar XR7. More of the go and none of the "rattle, rattle, bang, bang" of my fox.

 

[5spd GT]

Agree'd. Regardless of the difference in power, i'd still pick an SN-95 over another Fox any day. Don't get me wrong, I love my LX, but I want more than just a "point and shoot" car. As of Sunday, the Stang should be sold and I can get working on my newest project. My Twin Screw blown '96 Cougar XR7. More of the go and none of the "rattle, rattle, bang, bang" of my fox.