Fox body Stangs don't get the respect they deserve

Sorry guys, I know I talked about this on another thread but I thought if I put it out here we'd get more response.

WHY DON'T THE FOX BODY MUSTANGS GET THE RESPECT THEY DESERVE? Yeah, I know, they didn't have the most power, or the best brakes/suspension, and they're not as aerodynamic as the 94-04. But they had plenty of power-225 and torque-300 and they were very lightweight. With that lightweight, they are great for racing, especially dragracing. As for the looks of them, I like them. They are just a clean looking car. Just like the 1979 or 1980 Chevy Malibu.

The Fox is what got the Mustang to where it is now. Look at the success the Fox had. Not just in sales but that is when the aftermarket really started kicking out parts for the Mustang. Don't forget how easy it is just to tune-up the Fox 5.0, or to just work on it in general.

Just try to look for a model of the Fox. All I could ever find was a 90 or 91 GT conv. Yet if you try to look for a 94-04, no problem. I'm not saying that the Fox is the redheaded stepchild like the Mustang II (74-78) but, I just don't think some people realize the performance of the Fox, especially after a few inexpensive mods.

dude i hear you, i dont talk a whole lot about em cause i have 2000, but i know what ur sayin... check out this thread, i may have gotten a little angry... idk lol.

http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=497481

dude i hear you, i dont talk a whole lot about em cause i have 2000, but i know what ur sayin... check out this thread, i may have gotten a little angry... idk lol.

http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=497481


I tried to check it out but it took to long to open. I love the body on the 99-04. I drove a 02, it was AWESOME. Too bad it was auto. They didn't have and 5spd.'s in when I was there. I would love to get a 99-04 but my heart is with the Fox 5.0's.

Yea the fox body is sadly like that now. It seems every one sees the high hp numbers of the newer cars but they forget about the weight. The fox bodies did have that advantage over every Mustang that has come after them. But what I can't stand is that the SVO is so forgotten now. I have brought it up a couple of times with some of the younger Mustang guys and they have no clue what the car was. For its day the SVO was mean. In 85 the little 2.3 turbo was putting out 205 and the 5.0 was only getting 210.

Yea the fox body is sadly like that now. It seems every one sees the high hp numbers of the newer cars but they forget about the weight. The fox bodies did have that advantage over every Mustang that has come after them. But what I can't stand is that the SVO is so forgotten now. I have brought it up a couple of times with some of the younger Mustang guys and they have no clue what the car was. For its day the SVO was mean. In 85 the little 2.3 turbo was putting out 205 and the 5.0 was only getting 210.

i for one do know exactly what it is :biggrin: . ive read up on it some. i love it... heh my ranger has the same basic engine, that thing probably has more potential than my 3.8. and the ranger is light... fiberglass bed.

I really think that they are crap! Total and utter crap cars, with nice drive trains :)

personly i only like the 88-95 mustangs, the Fox makes a great light tq'y bastard. and the sn95 is just better looking to me lol

yea i kinda like the fox body mustangs. but now most people that look at them say there "old pieces of shit". but its NOTHING compaired to the disrespect 3.8's get

I really think that they are crap! Total and utter crap cars, with nice drive trains :)


SKY!! How can you say that man? You even own one! I know they were'nt the best car built, but come on man.

yea i kinda like the fox body mustangs. but now most people that look at them say there "old pieces of shit". but its NOTHING compaired to the disrespect 3.8's get


Yeah, they say that until they drive one, then they say "WOW, that car was fun".

As for the 3.8, the base model of any car is always going to be disrespected.

Compared to my (older) Pony, I don't like Foxes. Add to it that they're SO lightweight (in the a..rear), and it really did them in for me.

I like(d) the look of the 87-90, esp. with a body kit, but that was about it. the early ones looked like junk from the start, they just got better looking by the end of the 80's.

I love the fox body mustangs, for a while this year I was considering selling my 2000 GT for a 93 Cobra. Also the first fast car I ever drove was a bright yellow 87 GT, It had the full exhaust done, a short shifter / heavy clutch and a really nice set of heads on it. That car really made me fall in love with them.

SKY!! How can you say that man? You even own one! I know they were'nt the best car built, but come on man.

I really have never liked their look from the ouside, but the inside is like watching a Kevin Costner movie, you get into it, and wonder when its going to end. Plus they all rattle, becuase the build quality is total crap, plus the dash is plain hideous as well. I would take a Mustang II over a Fox if I had the choice over again, and that is not saying much, but like I have always said, the drive train is second to none!

I really have never liked their look from the ouside, but the inside is like watching a Kevin Costner movie, you get into it, and wonder when its going to end. Plus they all rattle, becuase the build quality is total crap, plus the dash is plain hideous as well. I would take a Mustang II over a Fox if I had the choice over again, and that is not saying much, but like I have always said, the drive train is second to none!


I nolonger consider you a Mustang God. I see you have turned to the dark side just like Darth Vader. If you don't like the Fox, but you like the 5.0, then why didn't you buy a SN-95 (94-95) 5.0?

I like the interior. I like how the guages are and also the dash around the driver is kind of like a cockpit, it's just for the driver. Everything is easy to reach and read. The seat hieght is perfect, you're not sitting on the floor. As I also said before, I know they're not the best car, but you have to admit for the money they were the best bang for the buck!

The 5.0 liter has been around for almost 40 years, the Fox does not make up the whole Mustang breed. 94-95, they ate ugly too, and a lot heavier, its only my opinion.

The seats are crap as well, you need to replace them with something that is going to support you, not hold you in like a piece of cardboard.

Yes, by far the best bang for the buck, that is why I love the drive train. I am not a purest, everything has to be one make. I will always mix and match to come up with something I like, hence the project car. The GTR is a very well built car, hence its alomost $50k price tag when it was new back in the 80s, but the drive train is a pain to work on, and is very expensive, so I am just taking the best of both worlds and combine them.

buy a 95 cobra, put in 03/4 cobra seats, do weight reduction, and we are all happy. lol


I SO want a 95 GT/Cobra

you know, i never understood how people could be so affixed to the "fox", until one day i realized that in order to go into the next bracket of dragracing, i would either have to build a way bigger motor, or a lighter car. so after being anti ford for 20 years, i sold my 77 nova that ran 11.80's and weighed 3600lbs. bought a 91 lx 4 cyl. auto coupe and shoe-horned my rollercam 13-1 comp 406 bowtie and turbo 350 trans in the coupe. simply the best and most fun vehicle i've ever owned. 3.55 8.8 quad shock rearends are not easy to find, but i got one and i love it. theres so much information out there that a complete idiot could peice one together in no time at all. it took me 2 days, about 4 hours a night to swap it. about 1 week to find headers to fit it, and about 2 seconds to fall in love.:)

The 5.0 liter has been around for almost 40 years, the Fox does not make up the whole Mustang breed. 94-95, they ate ugly too, and a lot heavier, its only my opinion.

The seats are crap as well, you need to replace them with something that is going to support you, not hold you in like a piece of cardboard.

Yes, by far the best bang for the buck, that is why I love the drive train. I am not a purest, everything has to be one make. I will always mix and match to come up with something I like, hence the project car. The GTR is a very well built car, hence its alomost $50k price tag when it was new back in the 80s, but the drive train is a pain to work on, and is very expensive, so I am just taking the best of both worlds and combine them.


I agree, the Fox is not the whole breed. The 94-95 and 96 and up are awesome looking. I know it's only your opinion, just like it's only my opinion to.

As for the seats, in my 89LX the seats were kind of cushy, but in my 92LX it had the GT type seats and they were very supportive. I loved them.

I take it you are putting the 5.0, trans., and rear from a Stang in your Nissan? That's cool!!

Still love ya Sky....just can't believe you dogged the Fox.
Oh well, Happy New Year!

you know, i never understood how people could be so affixed to the "fox", until one day i realized that in order to go into the next bracket of dragracing, i would either have to build a way bigger motor, or a lighter car. so after being anti ford for 20 years, i sold my 77 nova that ran 11.80's and weighed 3600lbs. bought a 91 lx 4 cyl. auto coupe and shoe-horned my rollercam 13-1 comp 406 bowtie and turbo 350 trans in the coupe. simply the best and most fun vehicle i've ever owned. 3.55 8.8 quad shock rearends are not easy to find, but i got one and i love it. theres so much information out there that a complete idiot could peice one together in no time at all. it took me 2 days, about 4 hours a night to swap it. about 1 week to find headers to fit it, and about 2 seconds to fall in love.:)


That's great that you realized what the Fox can do for you.
But that is sacreligous to put a Chevy drivetrain in a Mustang!!!!

I read a magazine (CarCraft) I think, they had a Fox that had a Northstar Caddy engine in it. It had around 600 or 700hp and ran 8 or 9's in the 1/4. Cool, but still sacreligous.

there is a 400hp foxbody w/ a GNX motor in it also

That's great that you realized what the Fox can do for you.
But that is sacreligous to put a Chevy drivetrain in a Mustang!!!!

I read a magazine (CarCraft) I think, they had a Fox that had a Northstar Caddy engine in it. It had around 600 or 700hp and ran 8 or 9's in the 1/4. Cool, but still sacreligous.

i understand what ur sayin... and i agree, but i think hes sayin he swapped his other motor from his nova in because he already had that one built and didnt want to build another one. which in that case i dont think its that bad.

The seats are crap as well, you need to replace them with something that is going to support you, not hold you in like a piece of cardboard.
Ahh seats just another thing Ford has never been able to get right in any production Mustang under $50K not that the 2000 Cobra R seats were top of the line. Yea they can make some that look great and are almost tolerable for distances under 150miles on public roads but in the end they are just about as supportive as a couple of milk crates.
http://www.fusionwerx.com/cobra/interior.jpg

Now I did have the chance to sit in a Kirkey race seat last week when I was in Daytona. All I have to say is I now want one in the office in front on my computer it felt so great to sit in.
http://www.maximummotorsports.com/images/rrseat-ft-web.JPG

The scary thing is I can almost get a set of them for what a set of parchment 01 cobra seats go for. This also goes in line with rims that Ford uses. For $169 I can get a 17x9 rim that weighs 21lbs were as a 10th anniversary rim will run $150 and weigh in at 37lbs. I mean if after market companies can make a superior product for about the same price why can’t Ford make their product any better than what it is?

This also goes in line with rims that Ford uses. For $169 I can get a 17x9 rim that weighs 21lbs were as a 10th anniversary rim will run $150 and weigh in at 37lbs. I mean if after market companies can make a superior product for about the same price why can’t Ford make their product any better than what it is?

i think it may be this perception at ford that most people dont notice this stuff, so they can get away with it, they are in financial trouble so they want to get more money out of anything they can. however i think most people do notice and that it is a bad policy. i think if they just went the extra mile and made the finest possible quality for the prices, even while losing profit per car they would be better off and sales would increase. However im not convinced that this is even happening, just a possible theory of mine.

on another note, i dont mind the seats, i go on long trips in my car all the time too. its 2 1/2 hours to school for me, and its a good 8+ hours to new york where my extended family is...

i understand what ur sayin... and i agree, but i think hes sayin he swapped his other motor from his nova in because he already had that one built and didnt want to build another one. which in that case i dont think its that bad.


DOES NOT MATTER! IT'S STILL SACRELIGOUS!!
It's in the bible!! Jesus said "Though shall not use but thy Ford in thy Ford". It's the way Jesus wanted it.

As for the GN 3.8turbo in a stang, cool, but still SACRELIGOUS!!

tell that to al the chevy's w/ ford rear ends

the Escorts w/ mazda motors or trannies (factory)

the Taurus's w/ yamaha motors(factory)

Best bang for buck 'pony' car flat out.

tell that to al the chevy's w/ ford rear ends

the Escorts w/ mazda motors or trannies (factory)

the Taurus's w/ yamaha motors(factory)

Tell that to all Ford guys that have POWER GLIDES.

Use the best parts, or what you have is fine with me. Being a purest really does limit yourself, I am not one to limit myself.

I find it all depends on what you're driving, and what you're driving it for.

A 06 engine in a Model T might be good for fun...but it would destroy the value of two vehicles. If you're driving/ running it, fine. If you're looking to 'preserve' it, that's another story.

Don't forget that modifyiing one of a type makes all the others that much more valuable.

Yeah but I don't see the average fox body being worth much in the future. You will have to own part of a limited production model for it to be worth much.

I find it all depends on what you're driving, and what you're driving it for.

A 06 engine in a Model T might be good for fun...but it would destroy the value of two vehicles. If you're driving/ running it, fine. If you're looking to 'preserve' it, that's another story.

Don't forget that modifyiing one of a type makes all the others that much more valuable.
Compare apples to apples. Ya, I can see myself finding a ol' 30s Buggati and putting a Ford engine in it, ya right, use some common sense.

tell that to al the chevy's w/ ford rear ends

the Escorts w/ mazda motors or trannies (factory)

the Taurus's w/ yamaha motors(factory)


Chevy's with Ford rear ends is fine, Anything with Ford parts is fine. But if it's a Ford...keep it Ford!

As for Ford/Mazda....Ford owns or is joint with Mazda, so that's fine with me. And the SHO's with Yamaha 3.4 v8, cool until the damn thing needs work. As you can see I'm not a purist, I just love Ford products.
But at the same time I kind of agree with Skyline when he says take the best of everything and don't settle for just what's outthere. READ YOUR BIBLE'S GUYS, JESUS WANTED US TO DRIVE FORDS....DIDN'T HE?

ford makes mazda

ford makes mazda

Are you sure about that? Or have they had joint ventures?

Chevy's with Ford rear ends is fine, Anything with Ford parts is fine. But if it's a Ford...keep it Ford!

As for Ford/Mazda....Ford owns or is joint with Mazda, so that's fine with me. And the SHO's with Yamaha 3.4 v8, cool until the damn thing needs work. As you can see I'm not a purist, I just love Ford products.
But at the same time I kind of agree with Skyline when he says take the best of everything and don't settle for just what's outthere. READ YOUR BIBLE'S GUYS, JESUS WANTED US TO DRIVE FORDS....DIDN'T HE?


I was talking the Yamaha v6, but the v8 has isses that require you to weld the cams or else they will break on you and teh v8 was just for trying to take teh Yamaha v6 and redesign it to a v8 (which a majority of SHO owners utterly killed the car as the weight didnt help that new heavy ass car)

Ford Killed the SHO. Ford takes initialy good cars and kills them.

Taurus(SHO), Escort(ZX2), Contour, many hate the new Focus...

Hell for a while the ZX2 out sold the ZX3+ZX5 with NO advertising help, and no dealers promotions...Ford has to stop "inovating" with current cars, because it doesnt have a history of working.

[/rant]

i think they get respect it just depends who its from. obviously chevy and import guys are gonna talk badly cause its just competitive nature to do so. Honestly for the buck theres not a car on the road that has as much after market support or is as easy to make fast. look at any magazine like summit. theres a complete 5 page section just on 5.0 stangs. they get respect you just gotta realize that theres always someone thats uneducated thats gonna spark up an arguement that they were slow and didn't handle good. But at the point where it was produced it was built to compete with cars in its class and those cars had simular characteristics. especially f-bodies of that time. they were making simular power. you can easily say that the performance of cars in that time sucked cause ever since then performance has gone way up, but they lack affordability and aftermarket support.

i think they get respect it just depends who its from. obviously chevy and import guys are gonna talk badly cause its just competitive nature to do so. Honestly for the buck theres not a car on the road that has as much after market support or is as easy to make fast. look at any magazine like summit. theres a complete 5 page section just on 5.0 stangs. they get respect you just gotta realize that theres always someone thats uneducated thats gonna spark up an arguement that they were slow and didn't handle good. But at the point where it was produced it was built to compete with cars in its class and those cars had simular characteristics. especially f-bodies of that time. they were making simular power. you can easily say that the performance of cars in that time sucked cause ever since then performance has gone way up, but they lack affordability and aftermarket support.


Very well put! I agree. But you mention Summit with 5 pages just for 5.0 stangs. But that's mostly for the 5.0 engine, not the 87-93 Fox body. I think most people do respect the 5.0 engine, I just don't think they respect the Fox body. They think it's too boxy, not aero enough, brakes suck (I have to admit that one), suspension sucks, etc....etc... You will especially hear younger kids that have never road in or driven one (like my cousins) say that stuff. Ohwell, that's their loss.

i think thats just there way of justifying the money they spend on their cars lol. i mean really ppl have to look at what it is. a car built in the 80's. look at all the other cars around that time. back in that time frame the mustangs were considered good. plus there musta been something good about them cause that chassy was used up until like 2004 with slight changes.

Fox Body doesn't get respect because it’s looks like an old Taurus. If the 3 gen Camaro looked like an 1980's Cavalier it would get dissed just as much as the Fox Body.

plus there musta been something good about them cause that chassy was used up until like 2004 with slight changes.
There wasn't anything good about the chassis other than it was cheaper to keep it and make slight changes than to design something new. Let’s take a look at events like road racing since it is very demanding on the chassis. In order for a SN95 or even a foxbody to be competitive the chassis has to be reinforced with a set of subframe connectors. But how extensive do they need to be? Well let’s put it this way a set of KB Extreme matrix is highly recommended even if you are just going to get out there and have some fun a couple times a year.
http://mustangwarehouse.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/28019illus1.jpg

Without them over time the chassis can twist to the point that the windows and doors do not properly close. In other words it should have disappeared years ago. To quote a friend “Aftermarket performance parts should be added as enhancements and not as requirements to make up for faulty design.”

yea you have a point. i've heard a lot of stories and facts about the older fox body not fitting right and i've seen a bunch of 5.0's with doors that sit weird and stuff. my friends dad is a body repair dude and he hates stangs cause he says they fit for shit. maybe it's me but here in rochester theres a huge group of fast stangs that i've grown to respect. they build fast cars for cheap and normally beat everything when we race. this is my opinion, but i think the older styles look meaner mainly because they are so crude. look at old muscle cars they were grunty, bad gased, big motored, poor handling hogs that were just simple as hell. i love it

Hey guys, I want to butt in here for a moment. I live near a military base and have seen cars come and go. The Fox body on a Mustang had its excellent rep here for about 5 years and then the soldiers all went to Iraq. Of course as soon s they got back with their large sums of money they bought brand new cars. Poor little Mustangs get sold to like teenagers and they wreck them. I mean you get some snotty nosed little brat with a hyped up motor, loud exhaust, and etc. They think they are the greatest and everyone should watch them and pay attention to them. I mean it is that kind of mentality that is actually driving the Fox bodies down into the ground. I love Mustangs in general, but the Fox body is my favorite. I just hate how people get minor little things done to their cars and think they are the greatest person alive. It drives everything into the ground.

Fox Body doesn't get respect because it’s looks like an old Taurus. If the 3 gen Camaro looked like an 1980's Cavalier it would get dissed just as much as the Fox Body.


Dude....that stuff you got is pretty good! Give me some! It doesn't look like a Taurus.

Hey guys, I want to butt in here for a moment. I live near a military base and have seen cars come and go. The Fox body on a Mustang had its excellent rep here for about 5 years and then the soldiers all went to Iraq. Of course as soon s they got back with their large sums of money they bought brand new cars. Poor little Mustangs get sold to like teenagers and they wreck them. I mean you get some snotty nosed little brat with a hyped up motor, loud exhaust, and etc. They think they are the greatest and everyone should watch them and pay attention to them. I mean it is that kind of mentality that is actually driving the Fox bodies down into the ground. I love Mustangs in general, but the Fox body is my favorite. I just hate how people get minor little things done to their cars and think they are the greatest person alive. It drives everything into the ground.


That's true of almost any car now. Some punk rents Fast and Furious and he thinks if he uses a satelite dish on his trunk for a spoiler on his Civic, all of a sudden....he has a race car. Oh, don't forget the coffee can for a muffler.

Dude....that stuff you got is pretty good! Give me some! It doesn't look like a Taurus.
Taurus:
http://i19.ebayimg.com/01/i/05/e4/34/d6_12.JPG

Mustang:
http://i15.ebayimg.com/04/i/05/ee/26/80_3.JPG

The Fox Body looks like a Taurus just like the GTO looks like a Grand Am. And both don't get the respect they deserve because they look like normal cars.

dude it totally depends on what angle your looking and which fox your lookin at. at a certain angle on some they look like escorts too. but most of the time they dont, and the fox can be very mean looking.

i think among real car enthusiasts the fox does get a lot of respect. but among the general public the car just looks old and people dont know about its potential and abilities. and then theres ricers, well it doesnt get respect from them because they are retarded, the only cool things to them are park bench wings on imports.

Here is the stupid thing....you look at the ricers and they all look the same. One comes up behind you and you are like...."Ohhh...it is a Honda Civic" and then you see that the damn thing is like an Acura or something. They all look retarded.....The biggest pain in the ass is all these Cavaliers, Neons, and little dinky american cars getting all the neons, coffer can mufflers, little dot for headlines. You look and think WTF. You know, I give them props for doing something like that , but man get your own style. Anyone can adda $50 muffler and $20 air filter. Does that make you a racer....I think not. Those kind of people disgrace car enthusiasts everywhere.
I agree that from certain aspects the Fox body looks like a Taurus, but what came out first? The body style for the Fox kind of came out first with the SVO back in 84 I believe. If I am wrong please let me know. Many car companys take the cheap way out and make models look a like.

The fox body style started in 79. The most noticable change was the front fascia in 87, and some changes to the rear and motor here and there. Other than that they didn't change all that much between 79 and 93.

So, the taurus and thunderburd, cougar, escort styling of that time came after that. Thuse the so called look-a-likes derived from the primary Mustang

makes sense. they had there performance car so they thought if they added some styling from the mustang it would have ppl thinking those other cars were sporty. kinda like the mind of a young 15yr old kid. " my taurus has the same headlights as a mustang i think it looks sporty" it is a norm that car companies take styling from there higher end cars to add value and agression to there lower end.

Darn, I missed most of this conversation. Oh well, I'll try to get some stuff in.

Looks, the front of the fox is plain looking. I think getting a front bra cover for it is a must as it lets it look a little bit better. The back though I think is very good looking. I think the styling from the side mirrors all the way back is great looking.

I'd like to point something out. People don't call these things "Fox Mustangs" at all. The name you'll hear is 5.0. Yes, the engine was around a long time but from '87-'93 is when it hit a high note. When I'm at a light, I don't hear people in the next car saying, "it's a fox" they say, "it's a 5.0."

Engine, the 5.0 is a great engine but doesn't get some respect because it made 225 horsepower. For a V8 that is rather low and sad. This is not the 5.0's high point though. The thing is, 300 pounds of torque, is what the 5.0 is. A 5.0 will knock on the LS-1's door when dealing with torque (I know because I gave one a good run at a stop light), rival the high held Supra (it only has 20 more), beat the Skyline (yes it's true), and keep up with several other cars, in torque numbers that is.
That's torque though, sadly if you own one you'll see where the torque runs out and the horsepower kicks in. It feels as if the car falls flat when this happens.
The thing is to work with what you have. If you get a nice exhaust, low gears, and a nice intake, people will have a hard time even keeping up as you cruise around town. On the highway though is a different story.

Oh, by the way, I'm no stranger to this subject. We have two 5.0 Fox Mustangs.

http://files.automotiveforums.com/gallery/watermark.php?file=/500/22382290_gt_3.jpg
My dad's '90 GT.
http://files.automotiveforums.com/gallery/watermark.php?file=/500/223822front_side.JPG
My '86 GT.

Darn, I missed most of this conversation. Oh well, I'll try to get some stuff in.

yeah i was wondering where you were... you havent been around for a while.

yeah i was wondering where you were... you havent been around for a while.

Oh I've been around, I've just found myself posting mainly in the off-topic section. I'm going to try to start posting again in here and in the street racing section though.

Darn, I missed most of this conversation. Oh well, I'll try to get some stuff in.

Looks, the front of the fox is plain looking. I think getting a front bra cover for it is a must as it lets it look a little bit better. The back though I think is very good looking. I think the styling from the side mirrors all the way back is great looking.

I'd like to point something out. People don't call these things "Fox Mustangs" at all. The name you'll hear is 5.0. Yes, the engine was around a long time but from '87-'93 is when it hit a high note. When I'm at a light, I don't hear people in the next car saying, "it's a fox" they say, "it's a 5.0."

Engine, the 5.0 is a great engine but doesn't get some respect because it made 225 horsepower. For a V8 that is rather low and sad. This is not the 5.0's high point though. The thing is, 300 pounds of torque, is what the 5.0 is. A 5.0 will knock on the LS-1's door when dealing with torque (I know because I gave one a good run at a stop light), rival the high held Supra (it only has 20 more), beat the Skyline (yes it's true), and keep up with several other cars, in torque numbers that is.
That's torque though, sadly if you own one you'll see where the torque runs out and the horsepower kicks in. It feels as if the car falls flat when this happens.
The thing is to work with what you have. If you get a nice exhaust, low gears, and a nice intake, people will have a hard time even keeping up as you cruise around town. On the highway though is a different story.

Oh, by the way, I'm no stranger to this subject. We have two 5.0 Fox Mustangs.

http://files.automotiveforums.com/gallery/watermark.php?file=/500/22382290_gt_3.jpg
My dad's '90 GT.
http://files.automotiveforums.com/gallery/watermark.php?file=/500/223822front_side.JPG
My '86 GT.


I disagree with you on useing a bra. They rub and wear off the paint, hold moister, and they don't allow the paint to breathe. If you want the front to look better, use headlight covers, I think they look mean.

With the 5.0 having 225hp/300tq, I agree those are not great numbers today, however look back 10-15 years and that was as good as it got unless you went up in class like the Vette, Porsche...etc...etc.

I know nobody says "hey look at that Fox body". But that is the bodystyle that I'm talking about. I never said the 5.0 engine doesn't get respect. I do agree some people do dog the 5.0 engine. Most people do know about and respect the 5.0 because they know that they are bullet proof and they know about the aftermarket for the 5.0.

Nice GT's

Taurus:
http://i19.ebayimg.com/01/i/05/e4/34/d6_12.JPG

Mustang:
http://i15.ebayimg.com/04/i/05/ee/26/80_3.JPG

The Fox Body looks like a Taurus just like the GTO looks like a Grand Am. And both don't get the respect they deserve because they look like normal cars.


I agree, they could have had more of an aero look to them, but all they share with the Taurus is the blue oval in the center, the shape of the headlights are close. And that's it. As someone said earlier (maybe it was you) look at GM and their different cars, they have similar looks aswell.

I see what you're saying, but I still think you're smoking crack.

I had someone tell me once that my car looked like an escort. If you look at an escort it has like wird, humungous headlights that look weird. I would like to slap some sense into people that think the cars look the same. people do not just look at the engine in the car, they see fox body and they instantly want it for some reason. Not it is all about hese new 05's. What is the big deal about them anyways? Sure, lots of power with a light body, but unless you are a top mechanic, you can barely work on the thing. The Fox body paved the way for most of the Mustangs today.

^^ actually the new stangs dont have a light body

I agree, they could have had more of an aero look to them, but all they share with the Taurus is the blue oval in the center, the shape of the headlights are close. And that's it. As someone said earlier (maybe it was you) look at GM and their different cars, they have similar looks aswell.

I see what you're saying, but I still think you're smoking crack.
It was me that said the GTO looks like the other Pontiac and as a result (like the fox body) doesn’t get the respect it deserves.

A good example of this is my brother who is not as much of a car guy assume that the new GTO was just another case of GM putting a muscle car name on a V6 FWD car (like the Monte Carlo) till I told him that the GTO was the real deal RWD 400 hp V8 etc.

Most people (especially women) judge cars based on there looks and the Fox body Mustangs look like a generic FWD Ford car and that’s why it doesn’t get the respect deserves.