Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General General Second post as a troll...first opinions after a weekend with my new stang.

Well, I posted some pics of the new stang up in the pics and videos forums. I took delivery Saturday, and I got in a complete wash and detail and about 200 miles of seat time. Just enough time to get some good data for a review.

The '00 stang is no CSVT in terms of space. I can only expect have one other passenger for all except the shortest of trips. Trunk space is OK, but the mouth of the trunk is so narrow that I can't put my sub box into the trunk. I guess I'll have to sell my xtant 12 and qlogic box in favor of smaller or more efficient hardware. Still getting reaccustomed to seeing my same car out there on the roads too....I got spoiled with driving around in a car with only 500 other copies like it in the country. Finally, I think the SVT may brake a little better than the Stang because its lighter.

That being said, those are about the only areas where the CSVT outshines the stang GT.

1. Acceleration is a given, but I forgot just how fast 260 hp is. This car flat hauls butt. Plus, third gear lasts almost to 100 miles an hour. Great for the quarter mile. 30-40 foot dual black LSD provided stips are available just a flick of a button and a quick stab of the throttle.

2. The car looks great. I don't care if there are about 160,000 of these things made a year. Its got a nice classic look that is catchy without being too racey.

3. The car rides better and I think perhaps more solidly than the CSVT. The CSVT felt nimble but very fragile. This car feels as solid as a brick and has handling characteristics as dependable as the sunrise. I really like the way the car feels going down the road.

I don't have any numbers, but this car has proven it will not disappoint in terms of performance and at $17k its a great performance bargain that I was glad that came my way.

B.O.R.I.N.G............ Sell it and get a 1987 or 1988 G.T.5.0 Big interior , hatchback, faster , better looking , less of them on the road , 1993 & older stang "not" built and marketed for woman like 94 + ................ 88 gt auto - 0 to 50 first gear. 50 to 95 second gear . 95 to 142 third gear. 142 + overdrive . Advise - Do not race 93 or older 5.0 stangs as you do not stand a chance. Remember , Factory "rated" H.P. and real H.P. are different in the old days . The car makers use to say the engines had less H.P. so people could afford auto insurence.

The SVT out handles, brakes, and looks the Mustang any day of the week.

It is nearly a second slower in the 1/4 mile. (vs the 5-speed - the Auto is another story )
That is most definitely noticeable.

However for 19k you could easily have a faster SVT (car price plus mods) :p

Nothing beats RWD... Can't argue with that...

starsky, you must be on crack.

Whatever you say.

Why an 87 or 88 in particular? I can think of several reasons in particular to NOT choose an 87 or 88 GT over other years of the Fox body.

Though the interior is slightly larger than the present Mustang, it isn't any more useful than the present interior, because the extra room is in places you don't really need it, excepting of course the hatchback area, but this brings its own problems, such as extra weight and issues w/ torsional rigidity.

This is only personal opinion and certainly debatable, and personally I'd wager that 99svtguy prefers the 99+ sheetmetal over the 87-93 GT style.

This also is very debatable. The Mustang has consistantly sold about the same # of cars for many many years, and the particular GT style you refer to was built for 7 model years, and the 99+ style has been around for only 3.5, so the only way there is less of them is through massive attrition. (though I'm not saying this isn't possible, just that this is a very difficult position to defend without a very detailed list of vehicle registrations from DMV/Sec. of State from every state in the US)

Umm, the Mustang was built to sell cars, and women are a part of that market. Do they buy the GTs? Sometimes, but more often they choose the base car. The GT wasn't designed to cater to women anymore than any previous gen GTs were. The 94 Body style was intended to bring mustang back to its traditional flair.

I would love to know how you can get a *stock* 88 GT auto to 142+ seeing as how the Fox GT hits an aerodynamic wall at about 138, despite the aerodynamic instability at anywhere near those speeds (not that the present car doesn't have rear end lift either, most cars do)
Not to mention the absolute lack of adequate braking in the Fox body for even normal speeds.

Stock for stock, a 99+ GT will walk all over a Fox GT. The only real advantage the Fox GT has over the 99+ GT is that engine go-fast goodies are cheaper and there is a wider selection (excepting the 87-88 you so lovingly refer to, as the speed density system in those cars doesn't respond as well to mods as does the MAF based system in the 88 CA and 89+ fox cars, this is why so many people upgrade the setups in pre 89 cars) but other than that the 99+ is just as easy to modify for more power, and it starts with an honest 45 more hp.

Excepting very rare and isolated cases, this is absolutely false. Previous standards for rating factory hp had such oddities as not including the engine accesories when doing a dyno run, and the system was setup such that is was very easy to run a single "ringer" motor for determining the advertised hp. Now the "advertised hp" is an average of several engines, that are configured as they are in the vehicle (including exhaust systems) Hp ratings since ~93 are far more accurate than anything previously put out. Insurance rates are very very rarely a consideration for a hp rating, though other factors may be involved in getting a vehicle rated conservatively (I can think of at least one new car . . .)

Point being, that while the Fox body mustangs can be great cars, and can be made to be very fast, the arguments you use are completely useless, and you skipped ALL of the valid points for considering one. Not to mention you chose 2 of the worst years of the Fox (at least from a mod standpoint) to specifically call out.

99svtguy, good choice, I hope you enjoy the Mustang! feel free to drop me a line for any mod advice, as I have some unique experience in my knowledge of Mustangs, and would be more than happy to lend a hand in making your Mustang into exactly what you want it to be.

Regarding your sub box, pull the rear seats down, and feed them into the trunk that way. It'll be a huge pain to take them in and out, but that's one way to get over the small trunk opening.

For what it's worth, I was able to fit 7 people in my 94 Mustang, for a 3 hour ride.. 3 in the front, 3 in the back, and one small girl in the trunk You just have to get creative.

Hey congrats on the New car.

As the current owner of a 2000 SVT Tour, and a past owner of a 90LX I must say I cannot wait to get another mustang, especially a Saleen or a Cobra.

I agree with all of your points regarding both models, and I think you did the right thing going new vs. going Fox style 93 and lower.

I owned a 90lx and had alot of work into it, but it was obvious that the quality control on the Fox bodies was not nearly as good as the 94+ models, especailly with regards to the interior. The only really good thing about the older style was that working in the motor compartment was a breeze.

Also while there might be fewer fox bodies around NOW, there were tons of them when I had mine, and that was only two years ago..they are just an againg platform, and finding a decent one with low mileage is getting tougher every day...so imho you were better off going with the current model that you did.

Hopefully I will be joining you soon, as I am not a fan of my CSVT...it is nice don't get me wrong, but it is missing the power that I am used to, and the aftermarket seriously sucks for this car imho, nothing I would even waste the money on doing..not to mention I doubt that I would even want to do any of the work.

Good luck with it

I use to sell brand new mustang GT's off the lot, when you say it feels better(ride)in any which way shape or form than a 99+ CSVT, one thing comes to mind... you must be on crack! At high speeds my CSVT feels sooooo much better than a GT, it's much more stable..both in stock form. With upgrades the CSVT will just flat out run circles (handling wise) around the stang. I'm driven more than my share of GT's and as far as ride and handling I would have to disagree. On another point congratulations on your puchase.

Eric

Starsky,

I was gonna post a long winded reply to let you know just how full of **** you were, but I figured i'd give it an hour and Rara would cover it for me in greater detail.

Rara,

Thanks man, saved me alot of typing and got all of my points, plus the 87~88 mod factor I forgot about. Nice work as usual.

Catrman,
There is definately a story here, and it sounds like a good one. Please share sometime!

Seven people in an SN95!! I put Rara in the back of my Cobra by himself on the way to Indy and he *****ed the whole way!

Damn it, Rara. You took the words right out of my mouth.

I do have couple things to add. Perhaps this person was referring to the lightest fox body instead of the GT. Those coupes were pretty fast due to the extreme light weight and lack of options. But even low 14s is still no match for the newer GT.

Also, I think he meant the 87-88 were better because the forged pistons in them(hmm, force induction) if my memory serves me correctly. I could be wrong but do you remember exactly which year Ford stopped putting the forged pistons in due to cost.

Hehe

Nope, he specifically referred to the Hatchback and to the GT. (there were no notchback GTs)

The 5L got hypereutectic pistons in 93 (dangit, this means my 94 cobra has the hyperpathetic pistons ) So that can't be his thinking.

There are many, many reasons to consider an older fox body Mustang, and the various years of such. The problem here is that starsky did not use a single on of these arguments, and went with several completely nonsensical and inapplicable points.

And honestly, the only additional selling points to the 87-88 GTs over other variants/years of the Fox Mustang was the T-tops on an EFI car, and the later aero. The turbine wheels, but only if you really like them, and if you are a complete anti-airbag nazi. Other than that, the 87 Intake manifold sucked, the wheels were ugly (compared to the later "pony" wheels) no driver airbag, the speed density setup has got to go to make almost any mods worthwhile.