Which 5.0 handles better?
- Thread starter YellowLightning
- Start date
mattkimsey
I've compiled a list to recap this thread:
mattkimsey
I've compiled a list to recap this thread:
I have owned 8 fox bodied cars(2 SVO's which are supposed to be the best handling foxes) and I can tell you from EXPERIENCE that foxes do not even compare to SN-95's. You can bring up all the numbers you want but unless you have extensive time in the seat of both, which I and some other people here have, then how can you have an accurate opinion??? I hate it when someone has a post like this, wanting good solid info so they can make an educated decision on a purchase or whatever they are doing , and you get all these people chiming in that don't have any practical experience to back up their claim. Bottom line, the SN-95 is a much more solid, comfortable, better built, and most of all, predictable car than the fox!!!! Live with it
just want to start off by saying i love my sn95 mustang...however if handling is something you're concerned about, don't buy a mustang period. i know everyone will be mad at this but as my boyfriend is more one for imports(not a ricer but still..) i know what it feels like to take a curve at 80 and feel fine in his MR2 turbo and the same turn at 35 is quite scary for me...just a little personal experience for ya
PS: my suspension is stock so that could be the problem but i didn't see the point of putting money into it because it will never be that good. spend the grand or whatever you would spend on susp. on power mods and stick it to those imports on the track...that's what our stangs are meant for IMO
PS: my suspension is stock so that could be the problem but i didn't see the point of putting money into it because it will never be that good. spend the grand or whatever you would spend on susp. on power mods and stick it to those imports on the track...that's what our stangs are meant for IMO
I dunno. I have a friend with a SN95 that has a mildly modified suspension, and he is getting better times in autocross than some of the brand new Vettes are. Some of that could just be his heavy right foot, but still, it takes a fairly good handling car to pull that off. I don't want to argue with anybody, especially since I'm the one who posted the question, but from riding in his car, some pretty tight corners at 80 aren't much of a big deal. That's just a little taste of my limited experience with a SN95 though.
Michael Yount
Mustang Master
The term 'handling' is such a subjective one - it's really difficult to nail down exactly what good or bad handling is. If you drive a 30 year old pickup truck day in and out, and hop in your SN95 on the weekends, relatively speaking - it handles unbelievably well. On the other hand, if you've, for example, been an amateur or professional road racer, and driven race prepared vehicles - then hop in your stock SN95 - well, it probably doesn't feel like it handles so well. It simply doesn't make a lot of sense to try and describe it from a good, bad or even better handling perspective. It's more complex and subjective than that.
The other issue that bears discussing is the driver's role in all this. With a really good driver, I suspect we'd all be amazed at how quickly many unsuspecting cars can be made to get around an autocross or road course. A really gifted/well trained driver in a car that doesn't handle that 'well' can absolutely embarrass a less skilled driver in a very good handling car. So comparing lap times between cars really doesn't tell you much of anything. Put the same less-skilled driver in each car and then compare times - that tells you a little bit more about what's going on with the vehicle. Put the same skilled/well trained driver in each car - then you can really get a feel for the car's capabilities. To put that in the context of this discussion - a very skilled driver in a stock Fox body could run all over a less skilled driver in an SN95.
Ford evolved the car through the years. The changes for the SN94/95 cars were aimed largely at making the car more sophisticated (less NVH), better at stopping and better handling. A MUCH stiffer unibody was key to achieving reductions in NVH and to having the car handle better, and that's what the SN94/95 got. Even though it's a bit heavier, it has the potential to be better handling. Whether it lives up to it or not, in comparison to any other vehicle is largely in the hands of the driver. And when you start trying to compare modded versions of either car (Fox/Sn94-95) all bets are off.
There are lots of ways to improve things - y'all know the usual suspects out there that have proven suspension/chassis stiffening kits that help the Stangs handle better/more predictably. But the single biggest handling challenge for Fox or SN94/95 Stangs is difficult to overcome. It's the placement of the engine so far forward in the chassis - and the resulting forward biased weight distribution - it impacts handling and braking performance. If you take a look at the world-class handling vehicles out there - you'll almost always find that 1) they are mid-engined or 2) if front-engined, the engines are significantly set back in the chassis. Look at the tube-framed Mustang and Camaro TransAm cars from a few years back. The engines sit nearly under the windshield, and the driver's almost in the back seat. So if you really want to shake things up - cut that firewall and move the engine/tranny back. And then get ready to come up with your own spring/shock/bar rates and suspension geometry -- because nothing marketed for the Stang is designed with that static weight distribution in mind. Or you could always try to engineer an awd system -- anyone watch the Audis kick Cadillac/Corvette/BMW/Porsche-butt at Road America this weekend? Yeah I know - they keep adding/subtracting weight to equalize things - but the awd cars ALWAYS win the standing start!
The other issue that bears discussing is the driver's role in all this. With a really good driver, I suspect we'd all be amazed at how quickly many unsuspecting cars can be made to get around an autocross or road course. A really gifted/well trained driver in a car that doesn't handle that 'well' can absolutely embarrass a less skilled driver in a very good handling car. So comparing lap times between cars really doesn't tell you much of anything. Put the same less-skilled driver in each car and then compare times - that tells you a little bit more about what's going on with the vehicle. Put the same skilled/well trained driver in each car - then you can really get a feel for the car's capabilities. To put that in the context of this discussion - a very skilled driver in a stock Fox body could run all over a less skilled driver in an SN95.
Ford evolved the car through the years. The changes for the SN94/95 cars were aimed largely at making the car more sophisticated (less NVH), better at stopping and better handling. A MUCH stiffer unibody was key to achieving reductions in NVH and to having the car handle better, and that's what the SN94/95 got. Even though it's a bit heavier, it has the potential to be better handling. Whether it lives up to it or not, in comparison to any other vehicle is largely in the hands of the driver. And when you start trying to compare modded versions of either car (Fox/Sn94-95) all bets are off.
There are lots of ways to improve things - y'all know the usual suspects out there that have proven suspension/chassis stiffening kits that help the Stangs handle better/more predictably. But the single biggest handling challenge for Fox or SN94/95 Stangs is difficult to overcome. It's the placement of the engine so far forward in the chassis - and the resulting forward biased weight distribution - it impacts handling and braking performance. If you take a look at the world-class handling vehicles out there - you'll almost always find that 1) they are mid-engined or 2) if front-engined, the engines are significantly set back in the chassis. Look at the tube-framed Mustang and Camaro TransAm cars from a few years back. The engines sit nearly under the windshield, and the driver's almost in the back seat. So if you really want to shake things up - cut that firewall and move the engine/tranny back. And then get ready to come up with your own spring/shock/bar rates and suspension geometry -- because nothing marketed for the Stang is designed with that static weight distribution in mind. Or you could always try to engineer an awd system -- anyone watch the Audis kick Cadillac/Corvette/BMW/Porsche-butt at Road America this weekend? Yeah I know - they keep adding/subtracting weight to equalize things - but the awd cars ALWAYS win the standing start!
go-stang5.0
New Member
It doesnt have to be fast to handle well mattkimsey. Some of the best handling cars dont have a lot of power and so they have a great learning curve. The most fun I have had around a parking lot is in and mx-5 miata and a BMW 325i and I have driven M cars. But again this has to do with the learnig curve and all that extra power with the M's. Around the lots I am always fighting my rear end (cant wait to get the panhard bar on) and its really difficult.
Oh and about the SN95 cars being stiffer, this is very true. But a hard top fox isnt too bad either. Actually I thought my sn95 vert was soft so when I got the hard top I put on a chromoly strut brace, MM k member brace and global west subframes and the car almost feels too stiff right now on the street. Everyting is so seat of your pants...But like others mentioned the brakes, spindles and other stuff are better from the factory. So if you plan on keeping you car pretty stock then sn95 is the way to go. But if you want bigger than stock brakes and you wanna redo the suspension, etc. the stock stuff is going to get pulled off anyways so what does is matter if its stock fox or stock sn95. That is my opinion. I went with an sn95 because of looks (interior and exterior) and because of amenities and features. But this is just personal preference.
Oh and about the SN95 cars being stiffer, this is very true. But a hard top fox isnt too bad either. Actually I thought my sn95 vert was soft so when I got the hard top I put on a chromoly strut brace, MM k member brace and global west subframes and the car almost feels too stiff right now on the street. Everyting is so seat of your pants...But like others mentioned the brakes, spindles and other stuff are better from the factory. So if you plan on keeping you car pretty stock then sn95 is the way to go. But if you want bigger than stock brakes and you wanna redo the suspension, etc. the stock stuff is going to get pulled off anyways so what does is matter if its stock fox or stock sn95. That is my opinion. I went with an sn95 because of looks (interior and exterior) and because of amenities and features. But this is just personal preference.
Similar threads
