This Mustang article interested me

It is about a lightly built Mustang.

I never gave much thought to these cars. Some of it has to do with the mouth-breathers I sometimes see driving them like idiots around town, but most of it has to do with a drive I took in one. I took the helm in a friend's mid-90s Mustang GT (automatic) and it felt kind of boring to me. I didn't care for the throttle (very heavy) and the brakes were kind of bad. His might not have been the best example to hold up as representative for all of them, though. It was a used car with generic all-seasons on it, and it was seriously behind in maintenance when I drove it. He isn't an enthusiast, so as long as the car works, he is happy. In other words, it wasn't set up for anything other than commuting.

I was also used to driving my modified Turbo FC RX-7, which would try to reach out and kill me if it was even mildly moist or just break down without warning, so maybe my idea of "boring" was a bit skewed at the time.

I've promised myself that I'd get another "fun" car sometime. It'll have to have a usable back seat, in order to do "emergency family hauling duty" if required, soI've been thinking BMW, RX-8 or maybe even a GTO. This article got me thinking that maybe there is more to the Mustangs that I thought and maybe I should expand my horizons on them a bit.

It would have to be green, though.

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/08/boomerang-basement-bolides-zeroth-place-2003-time-attack-ford-mustang-gt/

This is a surprise to you?

Neat article. One of the mags tested the FR-S with it's stock Prius rolling stock against sticky tires in the stock size and +1 sticky tires. Let's just say that the FR-S would pick up most of the gap on the Mustang if it were running the same sticky compound in a stock size. So I agree with the assertion in the article that the FR-S is a platform. Before you hit the autocross, swap in some better rubber in the stock size, upgrade the brake pads and fluids, and remove all spare tires etc and you will have the new hot setup.

I never liked Mustangs before I tested 5 different sports cars in one day and decided on the Mustang. (I realize I'm talking about the newer S197 chassis here, though.)

You've got no idea how stupid-easy it is to work on those "New Edge" Mustangs. And no other vehicle in the 'States has anywhere near the aftermarket support that a Mustang does. Hell, there are several companies out there that ONLY sell aftermarket performance Mustang parts.

To compare the SN95 Mustang, even lightly modified, to a Miata, FRS or anything else like it is very interesting. Particularly since that version of Mustang really never was a sports car- it was always a Pony car.

So I'll leave it up to you what the true meaning is.

(and to see modern Mustangs being compared to M3's is really wild, to me)

pinchvalve wrote: Neat article. One of the mags tested the FR-S with it's stock Prius rolling stock against sticky tires in the stock size and +1 sticky tires. Let's just say that the FR-S would pick up most of the gap on the Mustang if it were running the same sticky compound in a stock size. So I agree with the assertion in the article that the FR-S is a platform. Before you hit the autocross, swap in some better rubber in the stock size, upgrade the brake pads and fluids, and remove all spare tires etc and you will have the new hot setup.

Personally, if I'm going to buy a new car, I don't want a platform to build on, I want a car that can do it all. If I'm going to start replace parts to make the car better, I'd prefer to replace worn out parts on a cheap used car.

bravenrace wrote:

pinchvalve wrote: Neat article. One of the mags tested the FR-S with it's stock Prius rolling stock against sticky tires in the stock size and +1 sticky tires. Let's just say that the FR-S would pick up most of the gap on the Mustang if it were running the same sticky compound in a stock size. So I agree with the assertion in the article that the FR-S is a platform. Before you hit the autocross, swap in some better rubber in the stock size, upgrade the brake pads and fluids, and remove all spare tires etc and you will have the new hot setup.

Personally, if I'm going to buy a new car, I don't want a platform to build on, I want a car that can do it all. If I'm going to start replace parts to make the car better, I'd prefer to replace worn out parts on a cheap used car.

New Edge Mustangs are cheap used cars.

In reply to Sky_Render:

Yes, I'd rather start with a cheap Mustang than a new FR-S.

bravenrace wrote: In reply to Sky_Render: Yes, I'd rather start with a cheap Mustang than a new FR-S.

I'd like to shake your hand right now.

I guarantee you that STB does nothing for that car's laptimes.

Interesting that they make no reference whatsoever to any improvements to the rear suspension. I'd at least want a panhard bar to keep the rear end from wiggling around.

ReverendDexter wrote: I guarantee you that STB does nothing for that car's laptimes.

Care to elaborate?

Pretty sure someone with a tuned NA miata of the same dollar amount could have beaten all the new cars too. It doesn't prove much because used car and mods will always be better dollar for dollar than stock

ReverendDexter wrote: I guarantee you that STB does nothing for that car's laptimes.

I personally wouldn't put one on there, but I can say the front on those is a floppy noodle, so an export brace could indeed help it. Reminds me of a guy locally that used to pwn F-stock classes with a 01 bullet that only had different wheels and victoracers.......he knew how to hustle that car around.

I'd buy the 96-98 cobra, then add sticky tires, big brakes, and coilovers.....

bravenrace wrote:

ReverendDexter wrote: I guarantee you that STB does nothing for that car's laptimes.

Care to elaborate?

I'm assuming he's referring to a strut tower bar. There is intense debate as to whether or not a strut tower brace actually improves cornering. Personally, I like them because they make the front end feel more "solid," which improves my confidence in the vehicle and makes me push it harder.

An panhard bar, Watts linkage, or Steeda's 5-link setup is a must for any pre-2005 Mustang that is raced regularly.

In reply to bravenrace:

There's no lateral load at the top of the strut towers, at least not enough to flex them. All the cornering load is being applied down at the A-arm mount points. The only measurable deflection that STBs have been shown to prevent in fox chassis cars is a slight compression between the strut tower and firewall under heavy braking.

A better option is a k-member brace, that goes underneath the motor and actually supports the points were load is applied. Or better than that is an aftermarket k-member, but that's a lot more money/time/involvement.

Now, keep in mind I'm speaking very specifically to fox-chassis Mustangs here. I'm very aware that certain other cars do have flex across the strut towers, I believe there're some older BMWs that are particularly bad about it.

Sky_Render wrote: Personally, I like them because they make the front end feel more "solid," which improves my confidence in the vehicle and makes me push it harder.

I'm curious if you could actually feel the difference in how "solid" the car feels with and without an STB in a double-blind test.

yamaha wrote:

ReverendDexter wrote: I guarantee you that STB does nothing for that car's laptimes.

I personally wouldn't put one on there, but I can say the front on those is a floppy noodle, so an export brace could indeed help it. Reminds me of a guy locally that used to pwn F-stock classes with a 01 bullet that only had different wheels and victoracers.......he knew how to hustle that car around. I'd buy the 96-98 cobra, then add sticky tires, big brakes, and coilovers.....

My 97 came from the factory with a STB that was triangulated to the firewall.

Why the need for big brakes when you already have 13" rotors with PBR calipers? (just throw good pads on)

Having one of those cars...

Exhaust (you know you want the noise)

Suspension, shocks and springs (stiff), front bushings, new front sway, and something for the rear (mine is stock in the rear but for shocks and springs, best description is slalom butt-wag from lateral axle movement, which can be a few inches) Camber plates! You need over 2* of camber for them.

Seats, the stock ones suck for agressive driving support. (also heavy)

RUBBER.

Sucky thing... my cobra requires premium.. and gets 20mpg

In reply to Apexcarver:

I didn't realize the 96-98 cobra's had the 13" pbr brakes that I have on my '91 taurus......

Granted.......I added them to it....

I'm not looking to build a race car. I want a street car that I can use at HPDEs and maybe autocross. The Forester XT is a great car, but I'm not going to lower it, so it will never be really good for either of those events.

I do have my '95 Golf, and if I'm realistic, that is most likely going to serve in both of those duties for a while. It's paid for, it's slow and parts are cheap and plentiful. Once I have a little bit of skill to back up my ambition, I'll be looking for more car.

I just double checked and my friend's car is a '99. I might to take it for another ride. Maybe the Mustang will make the list. Who knows?

What year did the cobra get IRS? 99, 01, or 03? I'd get one with it if you want to corner carve......the solid rear is still a good setup with the right parts though.

I agree with you, might as well find out if you enjoy it with the car thats paid for

yamaha wrote: What year did the cobra get IRS? 99, 01, or 03? I'd get one with it if you want to corner carve......the solid rear is still a good setup with the right parts though.

'99-'04

Though, the only '00 Cobras are the 5.4L Cobra R, and the only '02s were Australia-only RHD export cars.

Solid axle with a few parts is a better setup.. (and 50lbs lighter)

99 was the first year for IRS (Cobra only), but the 99's had a mild power deficiency (vs advertised numbers) and you need to look and see what "fix" may or may not have been done. ]

96-98. some 96's had a cooling problem (probably fixed on most by now), 98's IIRC did away with the factory strut tower brace and the dash clock. (Note, these years do NOT have TCS) 305hp

99's the afore mentioned power deficiency, got IRS, advertised power bump (+15hp to 320hp) did away with the IMRC ( intake manifold runner control) They got somewhat better seats.

2001 is like the 99, but no power problems

Mach1, 4 valve motor, solid rear axle. (IIRC 305hp) Shaker hood fun...

2003-2004 cobra.. 31 spline diff on IRS, Iron block supercharged 4v motor, T-56 trans. 390hp (pulley, chip, and exhaust = 500hp) Heavier through.

I still have a soft sport for the Terminators ('03-04 Mustang Cobras)...

This article intrigues me too. I was thinking about replacing my not-yet-completed CSX someday with a 94-95 Mustang GT with the 5.0 (not a mod motor fan) just because of the immense aftermarket and parts availability. They are still just used cars, and around here you can find serviceable examples for around $2-3K.

I wanted my Trans Am to become this type of car, but when a nose emblem for the thing costs over $100 alone, I'm cringing to find out how much it would cost to really bring it up to modern competitive standards.

Sky_Render wrote: And no other vehicle in the 'States has anywhere near the aftermarket support that a Mustang does. Hell, there are several companies out there that ONLY sell aftermarket performance Mustang parts.

Right up there with the Wrangler for aftermarket support and the ability to do anything you want to/with them. I've always wanted to add a mustang to the stable (heh, heh).