I have a subsciption to 5.0 & SF...why the hell haven't I gotten my copy yet?!
I look forward to reading the section about our cars though
I look forward to reading the section about our cars though
Thanks 5.0 mustang and Super fords magazine!!!
- Thread starter Killercanary
- Start date
When I bought my car a wanted the 96-98 tails. To this day most people think I have a 4.6.
It's a fricken 95 look at the tails and the fender badges. I'm glad I stuck with the 94-95 tails. Other wise I would be just another 4.6 rolling around.
-1
It's a fricken 95 look at the tails and the fender badges. I'm glad I stuck with the 94-95 tails. Other wise I would be just another 4.6 rolling around.-1
SeventyMach1
Keep it lubed .... keep it straight .... and keep
My thoughts exactly. i was pissed when i read the first paragraph. And for the sake of all fellow 94-95 stangneters who haven't gotten it, here is that first paragraph:JJ95GTID said:The article was okay. A little too short and not technical enough to really get its point across. The article made it seem like modding a 94-95 just wasn't worth the headache because of the EEC-IV in our cars. Well, we all know you can mod a 94-95 if you use the right parts. There is no shortage of exhaust choices for our cars. And, there are OTS cams designed to work with the vacuum needs of the 94-95 ECU. There is more but I don't want to ramble too much here because you already know what I am getting at with this.
I will admit that mod for mod a Fox will be quicker than a 94-95
I would still rather own and drive my 95 over a Fox anyday
I too am a fan of the horizontal tail lights. Just seems like one of the only ways to tell if a Mustang is a 94-95 from a quick glance. And, I believe our cars are unique in a good way.
:SNSign:
No offense to 5.0 Mustang & SF or its authors. I have had a subscription since I bought my Mustang in April 2002 and enjoy the magazine throughly.
"When it comes to positioning in the Mustang family's food chain, the '94-95 'Stang, without question, can today be considered the red-headed stepchild. While they don't absolutely suck, they're still considered teh Mustang IIs of the their time by some 'Stangologists we know."
Am I the only one who thinks this is complete and utter crap!?
they go on to complain about the weight, the computer, the taillights, and other little things. Maybe i'm just mis construing things, but i didn't think this article was that good. IMO, it really down played our cars as a fad by loosers that go to star trek conventions to see that guy that got killed in episode 492a38.
don't get me wrong, i've had a subscription to 5.0 since '01, and love the magazine, but this article was just crap...
i thought it was pretty good and neat to read about our specific cars in there. only thing i noticed was
my stocker definatly wasnt 70MM
maybe they were talking about the MAF?
my stocker definatly wasnt 70MM
maybe they were talking about the MAF?
Well....stock the EEC might be picky but with a tune in my experience and from what i hear, it does not give you any problems. A proper tune completely changes that "downfall".
What i hate is there is more to this hobby than drag racing...sure modding a fox with the same parts will most likely make it faster due to its lighter weight. BUT, i'll lose at the drag strip, but i would bet that the 94-95 looks better, drives better, stops better, and feels better than any fox. Thats no diss to fox's...thats just how it is, IMO atleast. Im sure many would agree.
If any car was considered the "red head step child" i would think it was the 96-98 GT's
What i hate is there is more to this hobby than drag racing...sure modding a fox with the same parts will most likely make it faster due to its lighter weight. BUT, i'll lose at the drag strip, but i would bet that the 94-95 looks better, drives better, stops better, and feels better than any fox. Thats no diss to fox's...thats just how it is, IMO atleast. Im sure many would agree.
If any car was considered the "red head step child" i would think it was the 96-98 GT's
YEAH! No **** man...I really can't figure out why the 94-95 has gotten this stigma recently.
Yesterday I pulled up to a light, between an Accord coupe with four fart pipes and ground effects and an LS1 T/A.
Two dues in the Accord. I overhead the following exchange:
"I'm a ****in' smoke both they asses!"
"Naw, but I think joo at least gonna smoke the Mustang!"
NO RESPECT FOR US!
LOL
urban96 said:we get thrown under the bus and compaird to the mustang II's
Bastards... I wouldn't drive a 4.6 or a fox.. unless it was a notch..
wow...I just went to make this thread and it was already posted....just got mine. It was a good article...very funny all there talk about our computer. Oh and i also like my horizontal tail lights.
nmcgrawj said:
Yeah I agree, if you look at the road racing series all those guys are running the SN95's because they're stiffer. Did they mention that in the article. I haven't gotten my copy yet, but I'm always a week or two behind you East and West coast guys.
The article should have talked about how our cars give you all the updated good qualities of the sn95's, but retain the loveable 5.0. If your gonna be modding the hell out of a fox or an sn-95, your gonna need a complete custom tune anyways, so I don't see the big deal with the computers.
Bastard child late model stang? How is that NOT the 96-98?
Bastard child late model stang? How is that NOT the 96-98?
Odd thing is...when i first started looking for a car, i instantly wanted a 94 or 95 convertable. The way i see it, you get the best looks outside the 67, the best motor 302 H.O, and the best interior. What more could you want? I dont get the bitching about the computer either...everyone gets them custom tuned wich totaly elminates this prblem. I dont know about you guys, but when people find out that my car has a 5.0...the only comments I get are "sweet". Stupid, stupid, stupid if you ask me. Foxes may weigh a bit less wich gives it the edge on the strip, but the guy who wins in the fox is still a looser because...hes sitting in a fox! Not knocking the fox in anyway, but it is not even in the same league with the SN cars in terms of just being a nice car.
The article was NOT pro 94-95 as they want us to believe. 5.0 do some research, 70mm throttle body? Computers that are unforgiving, red headed step child?
OK, MM&FF, here is your chance to do a better article and show up tour competition. I was "given" my 95 GT. I paid a grand for it from a friend who could not start it. He wanted a dodge truck anyway. I was not too excited at first. AODE, heavy, felt down on power compared to my foxes I used to own. But then I thought how good it was to have leather seats, (a first for me), 4 disc brakes, 5 lugs, nicer interior, strut tower brace, 60mm t.b., 70mm maf, etc.
My first mod was 4.10 gears. I always wanted them in an auto. mustang. Kind of like the old Drag Paks. Then a Transgo kit, and some other stuff. It isnt so bad, I like the car. Ive been tried by ricers, the last being a wrx, and with my stock wheels (for now) I guess they think Im going to roll over. That rear gear gets em off the line and stays on em. Dont meant to ramble, but I guess thats why they have a 94-95 specific post for us. So we can talk about OUR cars.
OK, MM&FF, here is your chance to do a better article and show up tour competition. I was "given" my 95 GT. I paid a grand for it from a friend who could not start it. He wanted a dodge truck anyway. I was not too excited at first. AODE, heavy, felt down on power compared to my foxes I used to own. But then I thought how good it was to have leather seats, (a first for me), 4 disc brakes, 5 lugs, nicer interior, strut tower brace, 60mm t.b., 70mm maf, etc.
My first mod was 4.10 gears. I always wanted them in an auto. mustang. Kind of like the old Drag Paks. Then a Transgo kit, and some other stuff. It isnt so bad, I like the car. Ive been tried by ricers, the last being a wrx, and with my stock wheels (for now) I guess they think Im going to roll over. That rear gear gets em off the line and stays on em. Dont meant to ramble, but I guess thats why they have a 94-95 specific post for us. So we can talk about OUR cars.
ProKiller said:
They didnt respect us then and u think they would care about a letter we write? If we put together a article for any magazine, it should be to another magazine...explaining our disgust with that article and wanting a fair representation of our cars.
I read the article. Total BS. Since when do our computers not let you add bolt-ons? My car is running the STOCK TUNE and I've gone 13.3 last year and should do mid-high 12s this year...got a bunch of bolt-on parts (including exhaust, intake manifold, CAI, throttle body, and 1.7s), a converter, and a nitrous kit. My computer has been FINE- 100% FINE.
Utter crap- they make it sound as if you CAN'T add bolt-on parts without getting a tune everytime. Absurd.
Utter crap- they make it sound as if you CAN'T add bolt-on parts without getting a tune everytime. Absurd.
Similar threads
