Jump to content
TEAM SHELBY FORUM

I'm *finished* with 5.0 Mustang magazine


Evil95GT

Recommended Posts

I've been a loyal subscriber to 5.0 Mustang magazine for years (hell, since 1993, IIRC). As of the issue I received today, I'm finished. The usual petty ramblings don't bother me. However, after the gross misrepresentation displayed in the article "SN95 alive", I've had it. The husband can continue on with it if that's what he chooses to do, but it's just not the magazine for me anymore. Allow me to explain:

 

If one is writing an article, I feel it's crucial to familiarize yourself with the subject. If there's something that's foreign to you, find something else to write about. As Jim Campisano (MM&FF editor) stated in his StangsUnleashed Interview , "Sticking to the facts is the most important thing". Here's where I ran into my issues:

 

I have no problems whatsoever with the author, KJ Jones. I've enjoyed his articles, most recently on the purchase of his rare T-top coupe. What I do have a problem with is the apparent lack of research on the topic. The errors and misinformation is endless, giving these cars more of a bad name than they deserve. See below:

 

 

While they don't absolutely suck, they're still considered the Mustang IIs of their time by some Stangologists we know

 

Ok, there's problem #1. Not only did you just knock the SN95, you also knocked the Mustang II, which shows your inability to open your mind to anything other than a Fox as a potential powerhouse. What a bonehead way to start off your article.

 

The '94/'95 cars were 200 pounds heavier than Fox Stangs

 

With what? 200 bars of gold in the trunk? My '95 weighed in at 3261 in stock form............I supposed a Fox GT with their bulky ground effects weighed 200 pounds less? I'd buy that if we were comparing the cars to a Fox Coupe or hell, even an LX hatch. That being said, if you REALLY wanna get technical, I have a 1989 Vert that weighed 3390 in stock trim.

 

The cars are definitely out there in surprising abundance, and can be purchased at fairly decent prices

 

That's almost funny. Let's see here...........two year production run, yielding combined sales of 310,000 units including V6s. But yeah, I guess they're just a dime a dozen. :headscratch: To date, try finding one (even a warmed over abused version for under $6K. The low mileage examples? You'll pay out the derriere.

 

 

'94/'95s featured a 70mm throttle body

 

LOLOLOLOL! A 65mm off the shelf throttle body is larger than the stock offering of 60mm. Had the cars been equipped with such sufficient throttle bodies, people like myself wouldn't need to upgrade.

 

Perhaps my biggest problem with this article

 

Only '94/'95 T5s and bellhousings can be used in either year Mustang

 

Some stangfreaks install Tremec 3550 or Z-rated T5 transmissions in '94/'95 cars. With this type of swap, a half inch aluminum or steel driveshaft spacer, a Fox Mustang bellhousing, and longer driveshaft bolts are required to compensate for the 5/8" difference

 

Screeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeech! Slam on the brakes. Holy shit. This is the kind of answer I'd expect from some poser on the street. Not a technical editor of a Mustang-oriented magazine. For the record, you CAN use a Fox T5 simply by using the matching Fox bellhousing and clutch fork. I know this, because I've been doing it for 8 years. Way to alienate the SN95ers more, eh? :rolleyes:

 

Tighter engine confimes warranted a slight redesign for the headers on the first gen SN95s, and tighter EPA regulations on the emissions warranted the addition of an EGR tube that plumbed directly into one of the header tubes on the passenger side of the engine

 

For what it's worth, I've run Fox body headers on my SN95 with NO fit problems. Furthermore, they added the EGR for those strict emissions standards? LMFAO! THis is the SAME set up the 1991 Thunderbird debuted on it's 5.0. :yup:

 

So yeah, this article just killed it for me. If it wasn't something I've extensively researched and feel so passionately about, I wouldn't give two shits. However, that's not the case. I just find it hard to believe that this article actually went through the hands of their Editor and made publishing. :nonono:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think most of the readers do not have the knowledge you have and will be influenced by this article. Michelle, I admire it that you have so much technical knowledge too and it is not out of books. :read: You can turn a wrench too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks so much for the kind words, PJ. I try to keep my rants to a minimum, but this one really got me. The part that disturbs me the most is like you said, people believe what they read. I learned a whole lot from reading car mags in my teens, but after reading stuff like this, it makes me wonder how much bad information I processed that might bite me in the ass someday, LOL.

 

The majority of the stuff I've learned (and what I'd recommend to *anyone* wanting to learn) was hands-on. It's not an easy task to explain in text how to adjust the timing, check piston-to-valve clearance, and so on. But when you take articles like this one into account, who would want to attempt it anyhow? :nonono:

 

I can totally agree that the SN95 five liter is like the orphan of the mix. However, there are ways around dealing with the EEC nightmares and the change in intake design without reverting back to Fox body offerings.

 

I feel the same way about the 1996-98 GT. The cars really received a label they didn't deserve regarding a "lack of potential". Like the 1994-95, there are ways to wake them up. All it takes is some patience, some know how, and determination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wrote a letter to editor Steve Turner first thing yesterday AM. Here's a copy:

 

Dear Mr. Turner,

I am writing in regards to the 6/06 issue containing the article "SN95 alive". While I am a fan of KJ Jones as an author, this article is extremely misleading, and a gross misrepresentation of what the SN95 5.0s really are. As an enthusiast who has owned a 1995 GT since new, I found at least 6 errors throughout. I find this disturbing because some people really DO believe everything they read. While I can agree that the SN95 is certainly the "lost child" of the movement, there are certainly alot of things you can do to transform the cars into every bit the powerhouse their Fox counterparts can be. The errors were as follows:

 

1) The SN-95 was *not* 200 pounds heavier than the Fox Mustang (unless you have your neighbor in the trunk)

2) The EGR tube wasn't an emissions move...........it appeared on the Thunderbird in 1991.

3) SN95s are in no way "abundant". The fact is, combined production was 310,000 units including V6 models. Good luck finding a clean example.

4) SN95 5.0s came with a 60mm TB.............I wish they were blessed with the 70mm, but it just isn't so.

5) The T4M0 processor is well mannered until you add a camshaft...........that's when things get crazy. A pair of AFR heads and a CAI isn't going to do it

6) The T5 remarks left me floored. I've been running a T5Z tranny for 8 years. I am running my SN95 driveshaft, a Fox bellhousing, stock bolts, and a Fox clutch fork.

 

I'm usually not one to rant or whine over the petty. However, after owning one of these bastard cars for over 10 years, living with the ups and downs, and learning ways around the EEC, I feel that articles like this are an extreme disservice to those who are inexperienced. While the SN95 might be the orphan of the movement, I feel it's also the best kept secret. You just have to be smart enough to tame the demons and find the hidden potential. Thanks for listening.

 

I toned it down, and tried to keep my assholishness to a minimum. I figure tactfulness wil yield better results in the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know I am going to splash onto some other magazines with this comment, but...

 

When I open a magazine on cars or a specific car, if after turning through 8 - 10 pages and I haven't got to the Table of Contents yet I put it back on the news stand. That speaks to me what the most significant importance is to that magazine and where the majority of their effort is at.

 

 

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know I am going to splash onto some other magazines with this comment, but...

 

When I open a magazine on cars or a specific car, if after turning through 8 - 10 pages and I haven't got to the Table of Contents yet I put it back on the news stand. That speaks to me what the most significant importance is to that magazine and where the majority of their effort is at.

Steve

 

 

Interesting perspective, Steve. On the flipside, I tend to LOVE the advertisements. For me, the more the merrier. With all the crap we have going on with the three cars (and now the Dodge), I'm always on the lookout for new products, big sales, and low prices. So while the advertising is great IMO, I simply can't deal with the lack of thought put into that article.

 

That being said, I've never been one to bitch and whine about the chics that adorn the cars. I think it's a great concept, and I truly do believe that beautiful women can compliment the car. The only one I *ever* found to be disgraceful was the Hot Rod chic of the year or whatever, that didn't have a CLUE who Linda Vaughn was when they asked her (this was after she did a Hurst spread). :nonono: Very beautiful girl, not trashy at all, very tasteful. However, when you're trying to portray the original Hurst girl, you need to know who she is. You see where I'm coming from?

 

I also never bitched when they incorporated the S197 Mustang to the point that they now receive around 80% of the content of the magazine. I can respect that they're obligated to report on what's new, what's hot, etc. And as an added plus, I'm learning what's out there should I ever end up with a 3V 4.6L. :yup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't know who Linda Vaughn was? Well, the girl was hired for her looks. 'Nuff said.

 

I remember when Car Craft went to all kinds of bikini babes leaning on all the cars. That only lasted a couple years and then a new editor took over and the magazine got back to business being much more of the car magazine that it originally was and less of a "car babe" magazine.

 

I do have my opinions of a lot of the pictures I see with a "babe" leaning on or over the car and why she is there, but that is a waste of my time.

 

A Dodge? I think I missed that update.

 

 

Speaking of the 24V 4.6L, do you know if they have the same ignition coil cover as the 32V? I haven't been able to find a picture to depict it, and Ford still has a 32V pictured in the brochure even though the text states a 3 valve per cylinder engine. :blink:

 

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...
...