LT1 vs SN95 5.0 Cobra
#41
Edit - I had one 4.6 sohc that was built and supercharged that I hated. When they put out the 4.6 it was the worst thing they could have done. There are some fast ones out there but I will never own another one.
#42
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (2)
I have had plenty of both cars and I will say this, the Mustang is the better car. The build and ride quality were light years ahead of an f body. My 94 GT's odometer broke at 167k and probably has 200k on it now and it still rides tight with zero squeaks and rattles. It doesn't have sub frame connectors on it either. The seats are not ripped or worn out, both power windows still work, the dash and the door panels are not cracked, and I am still on the stock rear with tons of launches with slicks. I have had plenty of f bodies and they were just flimsy and put together with cheap parts from the factory. No bias here, just the facts from someone who has owned both for years. The LS1 is a great platform to say the least and GM hit a homerun when they came out but that is the only place where the f body is better. I think the 98-02 ram air TA's are some of the baddest looking cars to ever roll off of an assembly line. I sold my last Z/28 to concentrate on building my Mustang, it had less than half the miles and was only modded with a few bolt ons by me. Driving both cars was like night and day as far as quality. The f bodies have the older Mustangs beat in power for sure but that can easily be overcome. Aftermarket parts are a lot cheaper for the 5.0. Just my .02.
Edit - I had one 4.6 sohc that was built and supercharged that I hated. When they put out the 4.6 it was the worst thing they could have done. There are some fast ones out there but I will never own another one.
Edit - I had one 4.6 sohc that was built and supercharged that I hated. When they put out the 4.6 it was the worst thing they could have done. There are some fast ones out there but I will never own another one.
#43
If you are into comfort and you Dont like the rattle then you should of bought a corolla. Camaro and trans am's were made to perform, I really doubt they had in mind the plastics and other stuff they put into them. My 90 GTA is at 300k and has minor rattles that can easly be fixed but love the torque on it. The ws6 is at 118 and doesn't rattle much because I try and take care of it when I hear it... But yet! Who the hell is going to care about little rattles here and there when you are hauling *** down the track/street when you have a mustang in the rear view mirror. And I've driver crap load of stangs and I hate the seats and how the shifter sits all the way in the front.
door hinges, leaky t-roofs, hatch struts not holding, rear suspension rattles to name a few.
that said.....i can't believe the guy you quoted has 200k on a sn95 mustang, and doesn't need front end work. their struts go bad, ball joints, tie rod ends........
#44
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (2)
And these f bodies aren't new. Any car with this age will need lift supports at 10 years plus. You are naming wear and tear parts. In that case everyone would be complaining that their brakes wear down
#45
#46
If you are into comfort and you Dont like the rattle then you should of bought a corolla. Camaro and trans am's were made to perform, I really doubt they had in mind the plastics and other stuff they put into them. My 90 GTA is at 300k and has minor rattles that can easly be fixed but love the torque on it. The ws6 is at 118 and doesn't rattle much because I try and take care of it when I hear it... But yet! Who the hell is going to care about little rattles here and there when you are hauling *** down the track/street when you have a mustang in the rear view mirror. And I've driver crap load of stangs and I hate the seats and how the shifter sits all the way in the front.
#47
#48
10 Second Club
iTrader: (8)
My car is still pretty nice after 13 yrs and 110k. The only thing I've replaced tbat I didn't tear up is the lt window motor and I just recently put a new set of headlights in it. The way I figure its mostly how you take care of a car. With that said be honest about how crappy ford headlights and plastics are that fade, seats that break and lack of handleing until very recently.....not to metion a poopy 4.6.
#49
My car is still pretty nice after 13 yrs and 110k. The only thing I've replaced tbat I didn't tear up is the lt window motor and I just recently put a new set of headlights in it. The way I figure its mostly how you take care of a car. With that said be honest about how crappy ford headlights and plastics are that fade, seats that break and lack of handleing until very recently.....not to metion a poopy 4.6.
#50
My car is still pretty nice after 13 yrs and 110k. The only thing I've replaced tbat I didn't tear up is the lt window motor and I just recently put a new set of headlights in it. The way I figure its mostly how you take care of a car. With that said be honest about how crappy ford headlights and plastics are that fade, seats that break and lack of handleing until very recently.....not to metion a poopy 4.6.
#52
So far I haven't had that leaking problem.. (knock on wood) but anything can be fixed.....
And these f bodies aren't new. Any car with this age will need lift supports at 10 years plus. You are naming wear and tear parts. In that case everyone would be complaining that their brakes wear down
And these f bodies aren't new. Any car with this age will need lift supports at 10 years plus. You are naming wear and tear parts. In that case everyone would be complaining that their brakes wear down
door hinges aren't wear/tear items either. the most common car i've ever seen with bad door hinges, is the 80's camaro/firebirds. same for leaking t-roofs.
but then........like i said about the ball joints on fords.......it's like "jesus christ!! can't you people put a zerk fitting in these dam things?!". i've done more ball joints and tie rods on fords over the years than anything.
in fact, ford engineers have done such a great job with their "permanently" lubricated ball joints, they actually often require a different test method. and have you ever seen a ford....like a crown vic, or an explorer....that gives this little squeak when the driver turns the wheel? that is either one of the ball joints or a tie rod.
#53
#54
My car is still pretty nice after 13 yrs and 110k. The only thing I've replaced tbat I didn't tear up is the lt window motor and I just recently put a new set of headlights in it. The way I figure its mostly how you take care of a car. With that said be honest about how crappy ford headlights and plastics are that fade, seats that break and lack of handleing until very recently.....not to metion a poopy 4.6.
in the last few years, the only broken seats i've dealt with, are a dodge ramvan, and a jeep wrangler. fox body mustangs used to have problems with the seats ripping out of the floor.....mostly the police cruisers, as those were generally drivin by bigger guys. i think ford had a tsb on that, and a repair kit. in fact, my 89 had that kit installed......which would lead me to believe that a fat guy owned that before i did.
#55
by that same token......another customer has a buick century(91 i think) with 317k. original engine.
#57
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (55)
funny you mention toyota. had a camry in the shop last year. 624k on the odometer. 2.2 liter 5sfe engine. i asked him if it was the original engine. he said the original let loose at 330k, and that this one was a junkyard engine....it had about 70k when installed. you'd have never known this car had 600k+ to look at it.
by that same token......another customer has a buick century(91 i think) with 317k. original engine.
by that same token......another customer has a buick century(91 i think) with 317k. original engine.
#58
I would not drive it if it was given to me. The 96-98 GT's were pathetic. The newer 4.6 wasn't much better. The 96-98 4v Cobra's are a fun car to drive though, I have had two if those over the years. They rev like no other factory car I have ever driven. They are even better with 4.11's. The 5.0 was a much better platform even though I always thought Ford should have put the 351 in the GT's to start with.
#59
Banned
iTrader: (3)
I would not drive it if it was given to me. The 96-98 GT's were pathetic. The newer 4.6 wasn't much better. The 96-98 4v Cobra's are a fun car to drive though, I have had two if those over the years. They rev like no other factory car I have ever driven. They are even better with 4.11's. The 5.0 was a much better platform even though I always thought Ford should have put the 351 in the GT's to start with.
#60
To anyone who was into these cars back in the mid-90's, what were people expecting from the new motor in 1996 (referring to the GT's, not the Cobras). Were they hoping for big improvements or did it go down as expected? I wasn't into cars back then so I don't remember, lol.
gt40's are not good heads, but they work, and they work even better with boost. Plenty of mustangs have made 450 plust with stock gt40 stuff, a cam, and a vortech. I have seen stock long block cars both foxes and sn95's in the 11's. Please don't ever mention the word cleveland again...
Without looking I found this:
Without looking I found this:
Iron GT40 heads really aren't good, and they really are bad in many ways. No matter what is done to them, they just can't be stretched into "par" heads when considering available options. As for working better with boost... Well which head doesn't?
450hp... Using stock iron GT40 heads and intake? Idonno which cam you're thinking of or which Vortech. I do know that much power with those parts on a 302HO is something I'd call "higher than normal" in the Fox 5L world. I never spent much time looking into(or converting) fwhp vs rwhp. I remember seeing a bit over 300rwhp using GT40 TurboSwirl heads with an extrude honed intake along with a Vortech S-trim and supporting build parts. That was considered good DD capable power at the time(2001) with those parts.
You don't like the word Cleveland? Okay then, but Cleveland heads as compared to iron GT40's is like comparing the cylinder heads of a 2011 Mustang GT(as the Cleveland) to a 1998 Mustang GT(as the GT40). Cleveland heads are far superior to the almost halfway worthy iron GT40. I'll put it this way. I don't think the iron GT40 can flow as well on the intake side as the "C" head can on exhaust.
I remember how depressed I was seeing those 94-95 Cobras run mid 14s stock back in the day which were slower than the 93 Cobras
Cars main problems were the cam,ecm,lack of gear and some weight. You can go fast with cast iron GT40s heads and I think they are much better than the Gt40P crap heads.
Cars main problems were the cam,ecm,lack of gear and some weight. You can go fast with cast iron GT40s heads and I think they are much better than the Gt40P crap heads.
I have to look for my dynos/runs but I went high 11s at 122-123 MPH on street radials with GT40 stuff with a 11PSI powerjunk blower(433 my tune-479 after a Larocca tune). Not bad for back then.
Eh... No parts for the LS1 in 98. F-bodies had OBDII since 1996, just like every other American sold vehicle. Remember a time before LS1 edit? I do. Pricing generally favored the Mustang till June, 2002.