I always liked those, but I can't see myself owning one. They're just not my style. I've driven a few, and they just feel disconnected compared to a '79-93.
The time has come..
- Thread starter LilBerx
- Start date
gearheadboy
15 Year Member
I had a 95 5.0l GT. I had tons of aftermarket sway bars and chassis stuff on it. Car was like new. 18,000 miles. It drove like it was on rails. I love my Foxes but I never owned a car that felt that stuck to the road. Cobra can only be a good thing.
FordRacing302
5 Year Member
What's the matter....not enough rattles and creaks for ya?
Having owned two '94 GT's in the past, I can say for sure that SN95's have plenty of "rattles and creaks" to go around...
No doubt, especially compared to what's being built today.....but they're still tighter and more rigid than any Fox.
Personal preference on looks aside, there's no denying that the SN95 picked up in the functionality department where the Fox left off.
What's the matter....not enough rattles and creaks for ya?
Well, if you run a healthy cam and lowered suspension you're gonna get rattles and creaks in either car. It's more about the interior (which I don't like mainly because of the giant plastic dash), and just the way the car feels to drive. It feels so much bigger than my coupe. It's hard to explain, I just feel like the older cars are more "muscle car" than the '94+. I don't drive my 28 year old car because it rides like a caddy lol.
Dude, it's a fox. It could be a sold sheet of metal and it'll find a way to rattle and creak. Who are we kidding here. lol
LOL, some say these things all rattle and creak, but honestly mine doesnt. Maybe because every bolt on piece pretty much has been replaced and upgraded, but for now its quiet and tight
Thats what I told my buddies about my wife in the beginning. Sooner or later the truth gets out!
Nice buy OP, I miss my '95 here and there. Lowered SN's with fat wheels and tires look pretty mean in their own right, especially Cobra's with that cool front bumper. Keep us posted if you end up modding it.
93project
Active Member
Well seems like GB is the main pro sn guy on this thread! For me... Sure the sn is ever so slightly more refined than a fox but, as stated, the fox is more muscle car by far. Sure it rattles, its noisy, you stink after driving it but. .. If you're driving around town in a strong, clean, painted, and well kept fox, you're gonna get way more looks, thumbs up, and "hey nice car!" Comments than you ever would driving the bloated, fat reared, sn95 on any given day.
Not a "pro SN guy" per se, I just recognize their mechanical superiority over their predecessor and am not too blinded by personal preference between the two to make the distinction. If it seems that way, lets take note....this thread was made in the Fox section...so it's no surprise there are going to be more pro Fox guys commenting. I can't be that "pro SN", since I do drive a Fox though, right? Your, or my opinion doesn't change the fact that the SN95/New Edge is the best that the Fox4 chassis had to offer. Whether one gets more looks that the other is really going to depend on whether or not the onlookers are more into Fox's, or more into SN95's? To be fair, I've seen some pretty "strong, clean, painted, and well kept SN95's" running around as well. More so than Fox bodies, which seem to be being run into the pavement around here.
Personally, I'd take more notice of a clean, '96-'98 Cobra driving by than I would any Fox body. There weren't made very long, or spit out in the quantity that the GT/LX Fox was for that matter. The Cobra is just a sexy car....and that's not just my opinion either. And you considering it a lesser, or at the very least no more special than a Fox body definitely puts you in the minority category in the grand scheme of things.
I'm guessing about 260rwhp....give or take 5hp.
JordanB21
Active Member
God I want a Cobra so badly. Love my GT and all, but that extra two grand or so for a 5.0 clean Cobra is so worth it.
I take notice of any mustang that isn't the economy v6 or 4 cylinder fox body, and isn't a new edge.
I see a v6 sn95, I kinda shake my head with upset when I see them.
I have 'yet' to meet another person that daily drives a 5.0.
I take notice of any mustang that isn't the economy v6 or 4 cylinder fox body, and isn't a new edge.
I see a v6 sn95, I kinda shake my head with upset when I see them.
I have 'yet' to meet another person that daily drives a 5.0.
How much of a difference will 4330 make as compared to sea level? I had my '02 GT dyno'd back in '09 with the stock 105,000-mile motor, off-road H, and 2.5" custom catback with 40-series flows; it put down 252.7/288 at the wheels (Dyno Sheet). No CAI, no tune, nothing. I would imagine a '96-'98 Cobra would do better than that even at 4330 above MSL.
Your car dyno'd much higher than average with those mods. Most with just exhaust are dynoing in the 230-240hp range. Especially with an auto.
Mine was a 5-speed. I couldn't believe it when they told me what it put down. I never should have sold that car. Such potential.
Sorry....thought I saw it was an auto in there. In any case....your numbers were still great. Were you the first owner? If not, are you sure it was bone stock before you got it?
Haha. It's cool. I never would have bought it if it had been an auto. I was the second owner, but my Dad was the first. It was definitely bone stock. Only had 31,000 miles when I took possession in '05. He never really drove it.
Anyway, enough about me and my old cars. Haha.
I hope the OP gets some good numbers!Similar threads
