Fox body Stangs don't get the respect they deserve

giddyup50 · #1 12-23-2005, 10:01 PM

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.

TheStang00 · #2 12-23-2005, 10:24 PM

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/vbul...d.php?t=497481

giddyup50 · #3 12-23-2005, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheStang00

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/vbul...d.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.

01L2Cobra · #4 12-23-2005, 11:52 PM

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.

TheStang00 · #5 12-24-2005, 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 01L2Cobra

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

. 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.

SkylineUSA · #6 12-24-2005, 02:19 AM

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

AltecZX2 · #7 12-24-2005, 02:24 PM

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

neatofrito1618 · #8 12-25-2005, 09:57 AM

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

giddyup50 · #9 12-26-2005, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkylineUSA

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.

giddyup50 · #10 12-26-2005, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neatofrito1618

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.

Truck · #11 12-27-2005, 12:20 AM

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.

BlackGT2000 · #12 12-27-2005, 10:54 AM

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.

SkylineUSA · #13 12-27-2005, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by giddyup50

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!

giddyup50 · #14 12-27-2005, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkylineUSA

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!

SkylineUSA · #15 12-28-2005, 01:23 AM

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.

POST REPLY TO THIS THREAD