Which 5.0 handles better?
- Thread starter YellowLightning
- Start date
the sn95's have a more advanced suspension system than the fox bodies do. They have a better ride and do handle better in stock form. But I still like my fox better than any sn95 no matter how much better the sn95's might handle
Michael Yount
Mustang Master
"the sn95's have a more advanced suspension system than the fox bodies do. "
I don't think there's that much difference between the 'suspension systems' in the cars. But the newer unibody flexes less than the fox bodies did - which helps the suspension pieces on there work more effectively. However, the later model Stangs are heavier than the fox bodies so it's a trade off. I'd guess that the one that had better rubber would win the contest if all else was stock. If braking were a big factor in the contest, the newer model gets the nod there.
I don't think there's that much difference between the 'suspension systems' in the cars. But the newer unibody flexes less than the fox bodies did - which helps the suspension pieces on there work more effectively. However, the later model Stangs are heavier than the fox bodies so it's a trade off. I'd guess that the one that had better rubber would win the contest if all else was stock. If braking were a big factor in the contest, the newer model gets the nod there.
QUICK91LX
Founding Member
the SN95's handle better. i have owned both, albeit my SN95 was a 4.6 but it handled and rode better than any of the foxes i have owned.
Michael Yount
Mustang Master
I think it's right on topic -- the main difference over the years has been the unibody getting more and more rigid. The basic suspension is the same - multi-link rigid axle in the rear; strut type suspension in the front. Sure, bushing rates, bars, shocks and springs have changed -- but the newer cars have a MUCH stiffer/less flexible body/chassis on which the suspension pieces work. Makes a huge difference.
Who really has a stock mustang???? its kind of a dumb comparison. Stock fox what year?? they had different rubber and wheels, same with the sn95.
swap out the springs, for some coil overs, get a sway bar, get some good rubber and spindles, some good subframe connectors and a fox will turn right away from the fat sn95 equally equipped, espically if you have a notchback fox. The hatchbacks and verts are different, but the notch with some simple bolt ons owns, my notch handles awesome (not with the tires pictured) and i only have bolt on stuff. and yes those are the wheels and brakes on my foxbody notchback.
swap out the springs, for some coil overs, get a sway bar, get some good rubber and spindles, some good subframe connectors and a fox will turn right away from the fat sn95 equally equipped, espically if you have a notchback fox. The hatchbacks and verts are different, but the notch with some simple bolt ons owns, my notch handles awesome (not with the tires pictured) and i only have bolt on stuff. and yes those are the wheels and brakes on my foxbody notchback.
def1eppard
Founding Member
Is it just me or is this question pretty much self explanatory?
Unless Ford decided to downgrade in technology for their newer cars.
Unless Ford decided to downgrade in technology for their newer cars.
Michael Yount said:
The only major difference, if you want to call it major, is the spindle was changed in the 94&95 cars to give better suspension geometry. and the 96+ spindles also make the front track width wider.. but those are all 4.6 so not really applicable in this scenario. If you just go 94/95 style spindles in the front you'll notice an improvement in handling without changing anything else.
Cadillac, your statement is pointless. I can take a pinto and build a suspension on it and it will out corner most new cars. Thats besides the fact. The SN95 is a far superior car, but everybody hates on them. But all they can complain about is 200 extra lbs. The SN95 comes with all wheel disc brakes, 5-lug setup, most have Mach 460 stereo which is awesome, strut tower brace, K-member brace, 17 inch rims, more room and better interior, aluminum radiator, electric fan, upgraded steering geometry and braking parts. These are all parts people upgrade to on their foxes so why not save the time and money and just buy a 94-95. I did and the car feels brand new and rides way better than an earlier mustang. If you want the weight back then lose the stainless steel exhaust, go to a non-catted alumized setup and bolt on some aluminum heads and your there. Thats like 100 lbs right there. The price is great on these cars too. I picked up my fully loaded 95 with only 98k miles for $6000 out the door on the dot, and 10,000 miles later its still running great. The best part is that its only 1 of 2 years with the newer body and the 5.0.
SmockDoiley said:
I didn't know the steering geometry is different. What is different about it?
And no matter how you slice it, when you do those changes to a fox, the fox will come out on top b/c of the weight difference. Any lightenng you can do to a sn95 you can do to a fox and come out lighter. Granted it's alot of work, so if you don't want to do the work, then get the sn95.
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)...
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)...
Ray III
New Member
xxxCadillacxxx said:
How is it dumb? A LOT of people have done no suspension work to their cars. For those who are going to, it's nice to know which car will require how much investment to get X performance out of it, isn't it?
I've owned 3 Fox 5L Mustangs prior to my 95 GT in the past 17 years(One of them was a '90 5L LX that I bought brand new). None of them could hold a candle to the SN95. The 95 is a waaaaaaaay more solid car. It's ride is extremely comfortable on the highway, yet still stiff enough for 'spirited' driving. In addition to the big design improvements that other people have mentioned, the little things are just engineered a LOT better (eg, the way trim pieces attach, electrical connectors, various lines, general fit and finish, etc.).
The Fox 5L may be a touch faster at the track due to slightly lighter weight, but I havn't noticed any difference in the buttometer on the street with regards to acceleration. In every other way, the SN95 surpasses the Fox body cars.
As I mentioned earlier, in the 17 years that I've owned 5L Mustangs, the SN95 is the best by far.
The Fox 5L may be a touch faster at the track due to slightly lighter weight, but I havn't noticed any difference in the buttometer on the street with regards to acceleration. In every other way, the SN95 surpasses the Fox body cars.
As I mentioned earlier, in the 17 years that I've owned 5L Mustangs, the SN95 is the best by far.
Silver95Stint
New Member
I have both and the 95 handles better. The 93 is almost scary at higher speeds, and with said higher speeds the 95 puts me more at ease.
PhLoBuS
New Member
yeah even though I dont own a sn95 I would have to say those handle better just because better technology...
super302
I'd do anything for free Bapples
mattkimsey
I've compiled a list to recap this thread:
I was looking at the slalom numbers and the sn95 goes about 0.5-1mph faster on average. So basically no difference, if one handles bad so does the other.
Those slalom numbers are interesting.
I know for a fact from riding and driving in a lot of different Mustangs that the ride quality of an SN95 is better, and that it has better fit and finish, so on and so forth.
What I have not had very much of is the chance to drive a SN95 at the limit on the twisties. I've had my buddy's going full tilt on the I-state, but that doesn't give you a good idea of how it handles corners.
Highway driving, the SN95 is hands down a better car, but.............
Something about this just does me in.
It's the modern muscle car man. Forget grace, forget agility, forget handling, It's got balls man! Just kidding. I've actually seen some out race a lot of newer cars at Autocross events. A lot comes down to the driver too.
I know for a fact from riding and driving in a lot of different Mustangs that the ride quality of an SN95 is better, and that it has better fit and finish, so on and so forth.
What I have not had very much of is the chance to drive a SN95 at the limit on the twisties. I've had my buddy's going full tilt on the I-state, but that doesn't give you a good idea of how it handles corners.
Highway driving, the SN95 is hands down a better car, but.............
Something about this just does me in.
It's the modern muscle car man. Forget grace, forget agility, forget handling, It's got balls man! Just kidding. I've actually seen some out race a lot of newer cars at Autocross events. A lot comes down to the driver too.
Ray III
New Member
The fox handles like ass. No two ways about it.
Not difficult to make it a great handling car though.
That's a sweet lookin ride is it yours?
Not difficult to make it a great handling car though.
That's a sweet lookin ride is it yours?
Similar threads
