ratio411
Founding Member
What intake manifold is this?
- Thread starter traewolfe
- Start date
So what are your supporting mods? What's your ultimate combo?
Sent from my iPhone 4S using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone 4S using Tapatalk
I'm not in for an argument either. I had two foxbodies, and one of the best parts about upgrading to an SN was being done with that god forsaken throttle linkage. Fox throttle bodies jam all the time, and the cable is more complicated than it needs to be. They wear out and fall off too. I'm not saying that there is never a situation where it is advantageous to change over to the fox setup, but for most cars, it's a lot of money, a lot of hassle, and has no real advantage.
Kurt
Kurt
ratio411
Founding Member
I suppose I might feel the same if I had that kind of luck with our Foxes.
For me it has been the other way around. Nothing but issues with the SN throttle/induction, and perfection with our Foxes.
99FiveOh
15 Year Member
Out of ALL the Fox bodies I've owned and the 2 SN95 setups with Fox TB conversions I have NEVER had an issue with the linkage jamming. I also don't have any idle issues, my throttle blade opens faster for better response, I don't have to spend double the money for a throttle body, I can run taller Fox style valve covers and I don't have an ugly elbow cluttering up my engine bay. Ford used the elbow design because they had it laying in the T bird parts bin. Nothing more. It served no purpose but to save them money. T birds and Cougars were luxury/sport cars. A soft opening throttle blade was fine for them but not a Mustang.
I am totally an advocate of swapping to a Fox Throttle body. One of the best mods I ever made!
I think the throttle bodies cost the same. Maybe a $20 difference. I personally haven't noticed any throttle response differences. I actually like the larger pedal travel on the SN. It makes it easier to control the engine when you are making more power.
I met one of the members of the design team for the SN in the late 90s at a Mustang show. The elbow in the intake was a much larger issue with the Mustang community at the time, because the aftermarket hadn't developed too many solutions for it yet. He said that intake design was changed to straighten the air path to the engine for smoother operation and power. The old Fox intake has a very sharp elbow on the inlet pipe which causes velocity problems. The throttle body was updated to the standard of the day.
Kurt
I met one of the members of the design team for the SN in the late 90s at a Mustang show. The elbow in the intake was a much larger issue with the Mustang community at the time, because the aftermarket hadn't developed too many solutions for it yet. He said that intake design was changed to straighten the air path to the engine for smoother operation and power. The old Fox intake has a very sharp elbow on the inlet pipe which causes velocity problems. The throttle body was updated to the standard of the day.
Kurt
99FiveOh
15 Year Member
Regardless of what Ford "thought" a straighter intake charge would do for performance, they got it wrong. My guess is that it was designed for the T bird/Cougar in order to dodge an obstacle in the engine compartment. It's not secret that the design team for the 94 Mustang had to scrounge whatever they could find to try and piece the car together on the cheap, otherwise Ford would scrap the Mustang. The intake and associated induction pieces are a direct carry over from the 93 Bird/Cougar.
It's funny how Foxes seemed to make more power with their "sharp elbow" intake tubing lol. Either way, I like my Fox TB setup and I wouldn't go back for anything.
It's funny how Foxes seemed to make more power with their "sharp elbow" intake tubing lol. Either way, I like my Fox TB setup and I wouldn't go back for anything.
Neither setup seems to have any effect on power. It's just not a restrictive part of the overall Ford intake design. I do know they had to build the car on the cheap. It probably had more with having to get the intake lower down to clear the strut tower brace and the hood. If I was going to remove the elbow I'd find a way to stick the SN throttle body on the the intake without the elbow.
Kurt
Kurt
My understanding was the reason was clearance for the hood which sat lower than on the Fox
99FiveOh
15 Year Member
I don't think you're understanding me. The parts were already there, they were NOT designed for the Mustang at all. They used currently designed parts from various other Ford vehicles to cut costs. The intake was already being used on other cars so they simply implemented it onto the Mustang. The intake being borrowed from another car meant they could shut down production on the older Fox style plenum/throttle body/spacers and free up $$$.
I've read that too but it really has no effect on hood height. My car has no clearance issues at all and I have a Fox TB on it with a taller Eddy intake. They did move the engine forward 3/4" but they compensated by pulling the accessories in tighter to the engine. I'd really be interested to see exactly how much "lower" the elbow setup sits in the engine bay compared to the Fox setup. I'll bet it's very minimal.
But, to each his own. It is true that increased throttle response has no bearing on actual power output but I bet it helps 60' times!
JordanB21
Active Member
The intake itself is what people often say is the reason why the sn95s make less horsepower, I disagree with that. It's the stricter emission control when dealing with the sn95 versus the foxbody. Maybe, maybe, the intake being shaped different effects it, but I don't think it's the reason why and I certainly don't think the elbow versus corner is why the horsepower difference.
It's just a general thought for a curved direct length to the fender is better than 90 degrees, though it wouldn't really matter much anyways.
Well yes and no. I do understand what you're saying. The intake was redesigned at some point for a reason. Which car it went on first isn't really that important. Manufacturers usually try and group design changes together on particular models to keep production costs down. That's like saying the only reason they put an LS1 in the Camaro was because it was already in the Vette, and not because it was any better than the LT1. I also know that when you put a taller intake on an SN, you can get it to clear by putting a different strut tower brace on it. However, your definition of clearing and the manufacturers definition of clearing are different. A production car has a different standard for how much clearance there has to be between the hood and the intake. I'm not certain that's why they went with the intake they did, but that's what I've heard. The same way they made the engine 3" shorter in the SN to clear the hood. We all know that you can fit Foxbody accesories in an SN without hitting the hood. Either way the throttle body had to be changed at some point because the standard had changed. You never see throttle bodies like the ones on the Foxbody on cars of today.
The Foxbody and the SN made the exact same peak power. There have been countless tests to prove this. The SNs were slower because they are about 150lbs heavier. They also adjusted the torque onset via the computer to keep from braking T5s.
Kurt
The Foxbody and the SN made the exact same peak power. There have been countless tests to prove this. The SNs were slower because they are about 150lbs heavier. They also adjusted the torque onset via the computer to keep from braking T5s.
Kurt
Anyway, we could go on about this all day, but I try answer questions on here as honestly as possible. I don't have anything against converting to a Fox throttle body for clearance, ease of parts availability, or even if you just like the appearance of it better. But if someone is asking about how to set up an intake on a forum with no pretence of any of those conditions, I'm not going to imply that they should spend a lot of time and money tracking down a Fox EGR, a Fox egr spacer, a fox throttle cable, a fox throttle body, a fox inlet tube, a fox idle air controller, a header cap, a fox breather tube, all the hardware, and then modify the inlet tube for the iat sensor. I'd be more open to advocating that process if I saw any real evidence that improves performance. Everything I've heard about the Fox conversion is just hearsay. Venom did the swap maybe two years ago. Someone told him that there was hp to be gained by swapping to a Fox throttle body. He went through the whole process of tracking down those parts, and then when he redynoed the car, it actually lost a hp.
Kurt
Kurt
99FiveOh
15 Year Member
You don't need all that stuff to make the Fox throttle body work. A 94-04 4.6 CAI works just fine, you just cap off the 2 lines you don't need. You don't have to buy any caps for the header either, you just put a penny in there call it a day. Cost: 1 cent. And the only way to know completely if the Fox TB made anymore power is to quickly swap all the parts right on the dyno and wait for the engine to cool COMPLETELY before trying again. Of make both runs on a hot engine. If you come back at any time then all results are out the window due to variables in conditions.
Also, where are you getting that the SN engines sit 3" lower than Fox engines? The mounts, K member and engine are all the same. The upper intake manifold itself has a slightly lower profile than the earlier unit but that's all. Also, if a different intake were necessary then Ford would have simply made the strut tower brace different to compensate. Keep in mind that some Mustangs from 94-04 didn't come with a tower brace period. So evidently they figured it wasn't as necessary as they thought.
The OP actually lives in the same town as I do so if he needs help swapping to a Fox throttle body I'll help him.
Also, where are you getting that the SN engines sit 3" lower than Fox engines? The mounts, K member and engine are all the same. The upper intake manifold itself has a slightly lower profile than the earlier unit but that's all. Also, if a different intake were necessary then Ford would have simply made the strut tower brace different to compensate. Keep in mind that some Mustangs from 94-04 didn't come with a tower brace period. So evidently they figured it wasn't as necessary as they thought.
The OP actually lives in the same town as I do so if he needs help swapping to a Fox throttle body I'll help him.
I said it was 3" shorter, not 3" lower. Most people don't want to have a "penny" mod on their engine. Of course it would be ideal to dyno test by doing it in the same day right after swapping only those parts, but I don't know anyone who's done that, or have heard anywhere of someone actually doing that. I'm giving an example best on the best data I have. That's the only dyno test I know of where the only change to the engine that would effect power was the Fox throttle body swap, and the owner lost power. Even if the difference negligible, there certainly wasn't any gain.
More than likely they chose to put the curved inlet intake on the SN because it was the most advanced design they had at the time. They hadn't done it up to that point, because making the change on the Fox Mustang would have incurred an increase in production costs. Either way, we know the intake they put on the SN doesn't hurt performance. Fox body Mustangs an SNs put the exact same 190 hp to the wheels.
Kurt
More than likely they chose to put the curved inlet intake on the SN because it was the most advanced design they had at the time. They hadn't done it up to that point, because making the change on the Fox Mustang would have incurred an increase in production costs. Either way, we know the intake they put on the SN doesn't hurt performance. Fox body Mustangs an SNs put the exact same 190 hp to the wheels.
Kurt
Similar threads
