SN95: What was Ford thinking?!?!
SJMike35
Yes, I'd really like to know... just WHAT was Ford thinking when it came
up with the SN95? And what went through its corporate mind when it dumped
the 5.0L in favor of the 4.6L SOHC as a primary powerplant? Didn't Ford
know that its customers' testosterone levels were tied to the powertrain,
so why didn't it respond accordingly? Why weren't Ford's engineers
begging for just .00000000001 more equivalent horses at the rear wheels
than a stock Camarabird -- after all, isn't Ford sensitive to its
customers pangs of inadequacy at the stoplight? Doesn't Ford know that
ONLY guys between the ages of 18 and 25 buy Mustang GTs AND those guys
suffer from severe performance anxiety?
Doesn't Ford know by now that nothing on the planet matters outside of
quarter mile times? What was going on at Ford, anyway?? Are they idiots,
or what!! Gawd, I just can't believe that my '96 GT won't outrun a Camaro
stock-to-stock... the humiliation of it all!! I mean, don't they know
that we could really care less if my Mustang rattles and shakes and
squeaks and falls apart after 50,000 miles are on the clock... who cares
if its uncomfortable to sit in or whether it has a decent sound system...
who cares whether the roof leaks or the hood is so far out of alignment
that it knocks paint off the fender when its slammed shut... and just who
the hell cares whether its interior looks like its made out of the same
material as the latest Super-Sized Olympics Collectors' cup full of
Mountain Dew resting on the dash? As long as it will whomp the BowTie
bunch, who really cares? Ford should have spent their money on the MOTOR
-- forget ergonomics crap and body rigidity and all that... I mean, the
engine's output is all that matters. Hell, don't bother painting the
sucker if it means you won't be able to put out 275 hp bone stock... just
give it to me primered and I'll see what I can do with a spray can next
week-end.
I mean, who really buys Mustangs anymore anyway? Surely no one over 25
and definitely no one that doesn't want to pull the quarter in the 12s...
no one with any kind of real money who expects quality and refinement...
no one whose friends drive BMWs and Acuras, etc. ... No, no, definitely
not! Ford should be content to build a $15,000 Mustang and sell it to
people who'll thrash it so bad during its first three years on the road
that the warranty costs to keep it going will exceed the sales price. And
Ford should be proud that so many of its Mustangs end up in the hands of
16-year-olds; so what if most of them will end up as a rolling piece of
crap pulled up next to you at the light, embarrassing the hell out of you
to even be associated with the same nameplate. Does that really matter?
And, whatever it does, Ford should NOT attempt to reposition the Mustang
"upmarket" -- and it should definitely forget making a Mustang that will
compete with EuroJapAsian products that cost up to $15,000 more... just
tweak the engine so it will outrun a Camarobird, keep the price way under
$20,000, and forget everything else!! After all, Ford doesn't need to
make any money on the Mustang... it doesn't need to do any aftermarket
research and development or fund its SVO team... just give us all that
power up front, in whatever package you must to offset your costs, and
make it cheap, cheap, cheap. Its an AMERICAN car, after all... it isn't
supposed to appeal to anyone who'd be caught dead in an Integra or a
Celica or anything but a Camarabird.
Just what IS Ford trying to prove, anyway?
Mike
'96 GT Convertible (Laser Red/Saddle Tan)
'93-1/3 LX 5.0L Feature Car Convertible (Canary/White)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
BUCKLE UP! A MIND IS A TERRIBLE THING TO TASTE . . .
Superuser
SJMike35 (sjmi...@aol.com) wrote:
: Yes, I'd really like to know... just WHAT was Ford thinking when it came
: up with the SN95? And what went through its corporate mind when it dumped
8<...*snip*
: Just what IS Ford trying to prove, anyway?
: Mike
: '96 GT Convertible (Laser Red/Saddle Tan)
: '93-1/3 LX 5.0L Feature Car Convertible (Canary/White)
Oooh! Almost bit, Mike!
--k
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kirk Rafferty (raff...@lewan.com) ## "You can't find a hermit to teach you #
Lewan and Associates, Denver CO # herming, because of course that rather #
Phone: (303) 759-5440 x355 # spoils the whole thing." ###############
http://www.lewan.com/~rafferty # ######## (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods) #
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Pinkert
On 11-Aug-96 19:09:51, PRP <prpa...@HiWAAY.net> wrote :
>the past. This I know is true because almost everyone that I pull up
>to that has an SN95 doesn't know very much about their car other than
>it's a Mustang GT or etc. and where they bought it. But that's o.k.,
>their enjoying it. But, the image has changed and I would asume that
Come on now...do you pull up next to a pre-SN95 Mustang every day that has
gauges on the hood? I don't. You all make it seem like people run around in
'93- Mustangs that are all in the 12's. Not in my area.
Every once in a while, I'll see an old GT with exhaust. But I see a lot of
old GT's and LX's with Mom & Pop in them...and they are definitely not car
enthusiasts.
I will grant you one thing...there are more modified pre-SN95s than modified
SN95s. How many years was Ford making the pre-SN95s?? Give it some time.
--
fl...@Radix.Net
Josh Pinkert
--
PRP
sjmi...@aol.com (SJMike35) wrote:
>Yes, I'd really like to know... just WHAT was Ford thinking when it came
>up with the SN95? And what went through its corporate mind when it dumped
>the 5.0L in favor of the 4.6L SOHC as a primary powerplant? etc, etc.
Your sarcasm is in a way absolutely true. Because what you are saying
is that the image has changed. The Mustang no longer has the "muscle
car toy, buy it and build it to your specs" image that it has had in
the past. This I know is true because almost everyone that I pull up
to that has an SN95 doesn't know very much about their car other than
it's a Mustang GT or etc. and where they bought it. But that's o.k.,
their enjoying it. But, the image has changed and I would asume that
there are a fair number of Mustang enthusiust who feel that they have
been left out to dry.
Paul Patterson
Huntsville, AL
'94 GT Vorteched
Jim (cheater8) Stoltz
Like me.
Jim
Kestrel
Do you REALLY want an answer to this? The truth is gonna be a little
hard to swallow....
This is just my observation, and I could be totally wrong, but I have
noticed that the newer Mustangs are beginning to look and feel more
like the domestics Escorts. Power is being reduced, cheaper interior,
cheaper options, more <heavy> safety equipment, etc. Its starting to
look like to me that product liability lawsuits are starting to weigh
on Ford's mind pretty heavy. Case in point: I am aware of a certain
lawsuit where some 19 year old in a '92 model GT left a party one
night drunk as a skunk. On the way back home, his fuel pump cutoff
switch popped out, and he didn't even pull off the highway before
getting out of the car to reset the switch. While stooped over
looking for the little reset hole back there in the trunk, an 18
wheeler came up over the rise and rear-ended him at 70mph, instantly
killing him, and totalling the car. The fool was, in my opinion,
clearly in the wrong, but his parents are charging Ford with a product
liability lawsuit, alleging that the reset switch was the cause of the
accident. Oh, by the way, I had to drag the fact out of the dad that
the fool was drunk. I mean, come on - stopping in the middle of the
highway WITHOUT pulling over? Geeze.....
As long as everybody wants to place responsibility for their actions
on others, products and services will become increasingly generic, and
watered-down.
Of course, this is all my opinion.....
Kestrel
On 9 Aug 1996 14:45:47 -0400, sjmi...@aol.com (SJMike35) wrote:
>Yes, I'd really like to know... just WHAT was Ford thinking when it came
>up with the SN95? And what went through its corporate mind when it dumped
>Just what IS Ford trying to prove, anyway?
>
>Mike
>'96 GT Convertible (Laser Red/Saddle Tan)
>'93-1/3 LX 5.0L Feature Car Convertible (Canary/White)
Henry H Hansteen
Kestrel (kin...@gte.net) wrote:
: On the way back home, his fuel pump cutoff
: switch popped out, and he didn't even pull off the highway before
: getting out of the car to reset the switch. While stooped over
: looking for the little reset hole back there in the trunk, an 18
: wheeler came up over the rise and rear-ended him at 70mph, instantly
: killing him, and totalling the car.
If the guy was killed, how would anyone know why he was reaching in the
trunk? Maybe he needed another beer.
Henry
Jim (cheater8) Stoltz
Henry H Hansteen wrote:
>
> Kestrel (kin...@gte.net) wrote:
>
> : On the way back home, his fuel pump cutoff
> : switch popped out, and he didn't even pull off the highway before
> : getting out of the car to reset the switch. While stooped over
> : looking for the little reset hole back there in the trunk, an 18
> : wheeler came up over the rise and rear-ended him at 70mph, instantly
> : killing him, and totalling the car.
>
> trunk? Maybe he needed another beer.
> Henry
And how did they know the reset switch popped out?
If it was popped out, it was probably from the truck
hitting it. I vote for the getting-another-beer theory.
Jim
Jeremy L. Rosenberger
Kestrel wrote:
[ story about some idiot snipped ]
> The fool was, in my opinion, clearly in the wrong, but his parents are
> charging Ford with a product liability lawsuit, alleging that the reset
> switch was the cause of the accident. Oh, by the way, I had to drag the
> fact out of the dad that the fool was drunk. I mean, come on - stopping
> in the middle of the highway WITHOUT pulling over? Geeze.....
First of all, I wonder how they know that he was trying to reset the fuel
cutoff switch? Dead people can't testify--was there a survivor that was with
him at the time of the accident?
Second, I'm with you--it's a bit ludicrous to sue Ford over the placement of
a fuel cutoff reset switch because someone *stopped a car on the highway* to
reset it. By this logic, I could stop my car in a traffic lane on the highway
to change a tire, subsequently get myself killed and my car totalled, and my
family could sue Ford because of their placement of the spare tire and jack.
Whoever these people are, I hope the judge orders *them* to pay reparations
to Ford!
Regards,
Jeremy
--
Jeremy L. Rosenberger
mus...@henge.com
`94 Cobra #302
Gordon L. Banks
sjmi...@aol.com (SJMike35) wrote:
>Yes, I'd really like to know... just WHAT was Ford thinking when it came
>up with the SN95? And what went through its corporate mind when it dumped
>the 5.0L in favor of the 4.6L SOHC as a primary powerplant?
I think Ford has gone back to "Job !", which is making money for its stockholders.
What the small handful of us racers want is not want the average Mustang
buyer wants. The average Mustang GT owner swells with pride at the thought
of his V8 being an overhead cam engine, even though they probably don't have
any idea what that means.
Ford is on top in sales right now. Do you think it was an accident? They do
their market research, and they know how few new car buyers are interested
in buying a hot rod. There were apparently just enough for Ford to produce
the limited edition Cobra.
Until something happens to make Ford change their mind, we will have no
more affordable Mustang hot rods for a while. But luckily for us, the 98-93
models are still plentiful and affordable.
Gordon Banks, Huntsville, AL
Robert W. Hall
In article <320fc4e9...@news.gte.net>, kin...@gte.net (Kestrel) writes:
|> Do you REALLY want an answer to this? The truth is gonna be a little
|> hard to swallow....
|>
|> This is just my observation, and I could be totally wrong, but I have
|> noticed that the newer Mustangs are beginning to look and feel more
|> like the domestics Escorts. Power is being reduced, cheaper interior,
|> cheaper options, more <heavy> safety equipment, etc.
Hmm.. the albeit heavy safety equipment is a good idea in my book, as are the
4-wheel discs and ABS. They really haven't reduced the power, they have
increased the power substantially (Cobra) and kept it about the same (GT)
while the weight has increased, thus making the '94-present GTs slower than
the older GTs and LX 5.0s. The interior of the SN95 is nice, esp. the dash,
but I agree it is cheaper looking in some respects. The seats in the newer
GTs and door panels (very plastic) aren't as nice as the tweedy fabric in my
'87. They really have improved the Mustang as far as body stiffness and
structural integrity. All in all, the SN95 is a considerably improved car
over the first generation Fox platforms. I like the styling though to me
it sits too high and the rear end is too thick, but I am partial to the
muscular squat look of my '87 GT.
|> >Yes, I'd really like to know... just WHAT was Ford thinking when it came
|> >up with the SN95? And what went through its corporate mind when it dumped
|> >the 5.0L in favor of the 4.6L SOHC as a primary powerplant?
A newer, more sophisticated, more efficent powerplant. Sounds good to me..
|> >customers pangs of inadequacy at the stoplight? Doesn't Ford know that
|> >ONLY guys between the ages of 18 and 25 buy Mustang GTs AND those guys
|> >suffer from severe performance anxiety?
This is definitely not true. Most drivers 18-20 and younger don't have the
brains or skill to drive a Mustang well (I was 18 when I got my GT new, but
I went to driving school and have behaved like a dork in it..) I've seen many drivers in their 30s, 40s and over driving GTs. My 74-year old dad drives one and loves it..
|> >Doesn't Ford know by now that nothing on the planet matters outside of
|> >quarter mile times? What was going on at Ford, anyway??
You are kidding, right? In real-world driving quarter-mile times are but one
small aspect of the measurement of a performance car. Handling, braking, steering
feel, ride, are all parts of the performance equation.
|> >or what!! Gawd, I just can't believe that my '96 GT won't outrun a Camaro
|> >stock-to-stock... the humiliation of it all!! I mean, don't they know
|> >that we could really care less if my Mustang rattles and shakes and
|> >squeaks and falls apart after 50,000 miles are on the clock... who cares
|> >if its uncomfortable to sit in or whether it has a decent sound system...
I care if the car has rattles. I care about a high-end stereo and comfortable
seats. All part of a serious performance car..
|> >who cares whether the roof leaks or the hood is so far out of alignment
|> >that it knocks paint off the fender when its slammed shut... and just who
|> >the hell cares whether its interior looks like its made out of the same
|> >material as the latest Super-Sized Olympics Collectors' cup full of
|> >Mountain Dew resting on the dash? As long as it will whomp the BowTie
|> >bunch, who really cares? Ford should have spent their money on the MOTOR
|> >-- forget ergonomics crap and body rigidity and all that... I mean, the
|> >engine's output is all that matters. Hell, don't bother painting the
|> >sucker if it means you won't be able to put out 275 hp bone stock... just
|> >give it to me primered and I'll see what I can do with a spray can next
|> >week-end.
|> >
|> >I mean, who really buys Mustangs anymore anyway? Surely no one over 25
|> >and definitely no one that doesn't want to pull the quarter in the 12s...
|> >no one with any kind of real money who expects quality and refinement...
|> >no one whose friends drive BMWs and Acuras, etc. ... No, no, definitely
|> >not!
Are you serious or just being sarcastic? I appreciate quality and refinement
and couldn't care less about '12s'. I want a quality, refined Mustang!
Ford should be content to build a $15,000 Mustang and sell it to
|> >people who'll thrash it so bad during its first three years on the road
|> >that the warranty costs to keep it going will exceed the sales price.
This is hysterical..
|> >Ford should be proud that so many of its Mustangs end up in the hands of
|> >16-year-olds; so what if most of them will end up as a rolling piece of
|> >crap pulled up next to you at the light, embarrassing the hell out of you
|> >to even be associated with the same nameplate. Does that really matter?
What? I think it is very unfortunate that many Mustangs end up in the hands
of 16 year olds. These kids are not skilled to take care of and properly drive
a high performance car. It is a sad sight to a Mustang that has been thrashed
by some dumb kid...
|> >And, whatever it does, Ford should NOT attempt to reposition the Mustang
|> >"upmarket" -- and it should definitely forget making a Mustang that will
|> >compete with EuroJapAsian products that cost up to $15,000 more... just
|> >tweak the engine so it will outrun a Camarobird, keep the price way under
|> >$20,000, and forget everything else!!
Why? Building a Mustang to compete only with GM's plastic uglies is setting
sights too low. Ford wants to compete with an international market of products..
|> >make it cheap, cheap, cheap. Its an AMERICAN car, after all... it isn't
|> >supposed to appeal to anyone who'd be caught dead in an Integra or a
|> >Celica or anything but a Camarabird.
You have a pretty narrow view of things..
|> >Just what IS Ford trying to prove, anyway?
That they can build a better Mustang..
Robert W. Hall rh...@eecs.umich.edu http://www.eecs.umich.edu/~rhall
PhD Candidate, Computer Science and Engineering
Software Systems Research Laboratory
Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
SJMike35
In article <4v8f1l$6...@news.eecs.umich.edu>, rh...@earth.eecs.umich.edu
(Robert W. Hall) writes:
>You are kidding, right?
Man, the whole post was a joke to me when I wrote it. Bizarre satire of
the even MORE bizarre debates that find their way into this newsgroup...
note below the cars I own! They are Mustangs number 5 and 6,
respectively, that I've owned since my first Mustang (a '69 coupe) when I
turned 16.
Joshua Lowe
Gordon L. Banks (glb...@hiwaay.net) wrote:
: Until something happens to make Ford change their mind, we will have no
: more affordable Mustang hot rods for a while. But luckily for us, the 98-93
: models are still plentiful and affordable.
Don't rule out the 94-95's, either. The 94's are hitting the
$12,500-$13,000 range now, and offer a much better platform than the
87-93's. The extra weight is worth the 4 wheel disc brakes (easily
converted to cobra spec), ABS, dual airbags, much improved interior,
suspension, looks (imo), etc. Since my 93 LX coupe got totalled by a
jerkoff from kansas type tourist, I'm trying to decide whether to have my
engine moved over to another 93 coupe or a 94-95 GT. It's a tough choice,
I wish I could combine some of the elements, namely the lower cost and
light weight of the LX coupe with the newer GT.
A rio red 94 GT with a black, tan, or grey leather interior would be quite
nice, especially with Cobra R wheels, Cobra brakes, Eibachs, Steeda
swaybars and bushings, Cobra front fascia (or Saleen ground efx). Toss in
my 320hp motor and I'll be happy to give up some weight for the looks,
handling, braking, and ride quality improvements.
I have no problem with the SN95, I have a problem with Ford's sucky choice
of engine for the current GT. 40hp and 50-60ft/lbs short of being worth
the price..
--
=====================================================================
Joshua J. Lowe - / - bo...@newworld.bridge.net/bo...@shadow.net
=====================================================================
SJMike35
In article <4v8s4e$7...@news.bridge.net>, bo...@news.bridge.net (Joshua
Lowe) writes:
>40hp and 50-60ft/lbs short of being worth
>the price..
Ah... here is the point, Josh. What does 40hp cost these days, and what
is the best (if not cheapest) way to get it? I realize that, outside of a
blower, this question remains somewhat unanswered related to the 4.6L...
however, these days and for that powerplant, pulling together 40 more hp
could be a new computer chip away.
Matt Kennel
: >Yes, I'd really like to know... just WHAT was Ford thinking when it came
: >up with the SN95? And what went through its corporate mind when it dumped
: >the 5.0L in favor of the 4.6L SOHC as a primary powerplant?
: I think Ford has gone back to "Job !", which is making money for its stockholders.
: What the small handful of us racers want is not want the average Mustang
: buyer wants. The average Mustang GT owner swells with pride at the thought
: of his V8 being an overhead cam engine, even though they probably don't have
: any idea what that means.
Probably it has nothing to do with it.
Look at where the 4.6 has gone into:
1) Crown Vic
2) Continental
3) Mark whatever
4) Town Car
5) T-bird
6) Mustang
For all but maybe one, quiet and smoothness and efficiency is the primary
concern. Notice the Mustang got the new engine last. It's easier
to retro-fit power into a smooth engine than vice versa. Consider that
buyers of a Lincoln do NOT want to modify anything to their vehicle.
Compared to GM (or Chrysler), Ford still seems to like rear-drive and V8
power. They keep the V8 but only for dedicated sports cars.
--
Matthew B. Kennel/m...@caffeine.engr.utk.edu/I do not speak for ORNL, DOE or UT
Oak Ridge National Laboratory/University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN USA/
I would not, could not SAVE ON PHONE,
I would not, could not BUY YOUR LOAN,
I would not, could not MAKE MONEY FAST,
I would not, could not SEND NO CA$H,
I would not, could not SEE YOUR SITE,
I would not, could not EAT VEG-I-MITE,
I do *not* *like* GREEN CARDS AND SPAM! Mad-I-Am! (inspired: PvdL)
Josh Pinkert
On 19-Aug-96 15:41:16, Matt Kennel <m...@caffeine.engr.utk.edu> wrote :
>Probably it has nothing to do with it.
>Look at where the 4.6 has gone into:
> 1) Crown Vic
> 2) Continental
> 3) Mark whatever
> 4) Town Car
> 5) T-bird
> 6) Mustang
_SNIP_
>Compared to GM (or Chrysler), Ford still seems to like rear-drive and V8
>power. They keep the V8 but only for dedicated sports cars.
I beg to differ. In the above list, what cars are 'dedicated' sports cars.
You MIGHT be able to call a Mustang a sports car, but it is easy to list all
of the un-sports car like aspects of the mustang.
Come to think of it, Ford doesn't really make any sports cars...at least in
the US. Everything is way too heavy!
David A. Lyons
On 19 Aug 1996, SJMike35 wrote:
> Ah... here is the point, Josh. What does 40hp cost these days, and what
> is the best (if not cheapest) way to get it? I realize that, outside of a
> blower, this question remains somewhat unanswered related to the 4.6L...
> however, these days and for that powerplant, pulling together 40 more hp
> could be a new computer chip away.
There's no way you're going to get 40 hp out of a computer chip unless the
engine is seriously de-tuned in the first place.
All computer chips do is mess with the timing, fuel pressure, and maybe
some other operating parameters controlled by the computer. How much
horsepower can you get by optimizing these parameters? Depends on how
"un-optimized" they are to begin with. How "un-optimized" are these
parameters in the 4.6 from the factory?
David Lyons
http://g50mc.org/members/lyonsd
Clinton/Gone '96
Joshua Lowe
SJMike35 (sjmi...@aol.com) wrote:
: Ah... here is the point, Josh. What does 40hp cost these days, and what
: is the best (if not cheapest) way to get it? I realize that, outside of a
40 _real_ hp, not 'claimed'. Probably intake, exhaust, and possibly head
modifications. Getting 40 _real_ extra HP could cost anywhere from a few
hundred to a thousand dollars. When I say real, I mean as opposed to
claims that K&N filters give 20hp. BS.
: however, these days and for that powerplant, pulling together 40 more hp
: could be a new computer chip away.
I doubt they made the fuel/spark curves _that_ weak. The place where big
payoffs from EEC-V recalibration could be found would prolly be after big
mods like heads, intake, cams, blower. Then I'd expect 40+hp numbers from
a computer reprogram..