Thoughts On The Sn95

I looked for three straight months for my sn95. And chose it over all other body styles. I think it'll be sought after. My o2.

sent while thinking of mods for my 4.6s using tapatalk

Careful about that II comment Those are coming into their own right, but certainly not as popular as their predecessor or the Fox-bodied variant.

I think the Fox-body may be seen more by the muscle/race car crowds as plentiful and cheap horsepower. Let's face it, that generation Mustang really did a lot to bring an aftermarket to the Mustang name, due to the "5-Oh." And, lots of engine interchangeability could be had if you wanted to build something really nasty.

The SN95s were an improvement over the Fox in many respects with the new chassis, and again, we saw a few different engine configurations available in these. Particularly with the '94-'98s. And even the New Edge, to a degree...but you certainly don't see as many big-block swaps in the SN95s as the previous generation.

Not to mention their production lifespan. You basically had 15 years worth of the Fox-bodies, and a combined 10 years of the SN95s...5 years for each '94-'98 and '99-'04. So take that into consideration as well.

When the 1994 model came out, I had just turned 16. I was in the process of getting my license so it was the first new Mustang I got to see when I started driving. I thought that thing looked so awesome...of course I wanted one! In 1999, my initial impression of them was "meh." But with a few tweaks on the '01, it looked better...in '03, I bought a new Sonic Blue GT and still have it. Still see a lot of New Edges on the road too. And unfortunately, as time wore on for the '94-'98s, I personally started thinking the design looked a little bland.

I was never crazy about the Fox-bodies though. They're just too boxy looking and about the only Mustang design cue they have in them is the long hood/short deck proportions. No horse on the grille (save for the '93 Cobra), no side scallops, and the tri-element taillights are mostly non-existent. In my opinion, I feel the Fox (at least in appearance) is less of a Mustang than the Mustang II.

I can't say what the future holds for the early SN95s. But hopefully people don't forget them, or any part of the Mustang history, and keep up on them with some fine examples. I've been to shows and certainly see some nice clean rides there from that era...so hopefully those that have them, hang on to them. We're starting to get into the timeframe that that generation can start being considered "Historic!"

Agreed...that seems to be one thing Mustang fans have over other models...a good, loyal following. We wont let our beloved pony car die! When Ford "threatened" to turn it into a FWD car, boy did the fans let 'em have it.

The SN95 also seemed to be the last of the "original" designs that didn't lean on a retro look. The S550 is certainly a new look overall but there still seems to be a touch of retro to it...but far less than the S197s presented.

I think how people will see these cars -- 94 all the way to 04 and perhaps a few years beyond -- will depend on what happens to Mustangs and muscle cars in general in the next few years. There's an honest simplicity to these cars that's entirely lost in the new ones. The new cars are all about technology for technology's sake. Yeah, they're fast and full of whiz-bang tech but there's something missing about them and they're kind of, well, ugly. I don't want one. For a "muscle car" I'd rather have a simple and honest Fox notch or even my 02 GT than a new GT. Perhaps this is how the previous generations felt when their carbs gave way to fuel injection. Once in a while I find myself surfing autotrader for the car of my youth, the car that inspired me to get my GT over 12 years ago: a 1966 Chevelle SS. As I age I pine once again for simpler times...

And so it may be with generations hence. They may look at the relatively simple GTs of the 90s and early-oughts and desire them over the hyper-complex, over-engineered, over-nannied cars of the near future...

You have to take it all in context I think. I also think you have to separate between 94-5 and 96-98. 94-5s still had the 5.0, and a lot of the same mods carried over. 96-98s came out, and thirty years of aftermarket turned into 0 overnight. When these cars were new, nobody really modified them because there was nothing out there to do it with. No cams available, no aftermarket heads, etc. The big mods were throttle bodies and those goofy external timing adjusters that nobody uses anymore. Back when the 99s came out, it was all about the PI heads. "Those cars are junk, the heads are boat anchors, etc" We've proven over the years that was all a bunch of malarkey, but the mindset remains. Stock for stock yes these cars don't have the same power, but there's a lot more available now than there was in 96-98. Some people rag on the style, but I really don't think it's the looks, I think it's this mindset that the 99-04s are faster. That's like a lot of people will always opt for a Fox over a 94-5. They're lighter, yes, but I own a fox and a 96 gt, and the chassis feels so much more solid on the 96. I know the sn95s were heavier, but the overall quality I think improved a bunch. Daily driving the 96 is more comfortable too. I think in the long run, these cars will appreciate in value, but unfortunately I suspect we'll see a lot of them go through junk yards before people start to figure it out.

Tom