Chapter 1
The Beast in the Beauty

by Ryan King
5/05

For most enthusiasts, the 5.0 legend began with the Mustang in '87 with the LX and ended in '93 with the Mustang Cobra, but there are other cars in that lineage that are overlooked and one of those is the '95 Mustang GT.

In the late '80s, Ford knew what everyone else did: the Fox chassis was old. But, fact of the matter was, it was a hot seller, and it held the performance vehicle market by the jugular. There wasn't another factory offering near its market segment that could challenge the gutsy little Mustang until the mid '90s when GM introduced the LT-1 powered Camaro and Firebird. True, there was the Corvette, but it lacked the widespread distribution and low cost of the Mustang. It's a simple fact that bang-for-buck, the 5.0 held the performance market in its ever tightening grasp. Even with the introduction of the LT-1 engine and the subsequent seizing of the title of “King” of the bang-for-buck factory cars, the old 5.0s were still cheaper and the LX notchbacks could still hang with the bad ass Z28s.

When Ford introduced the new SN-95 (which was the internal designation for the new chassis’) Mustang, it’s looks and refinements popped, but its performance fizzled. It was no longer the car to beat, but the car to be beaten in. Performance numbers were way off from the old 5.0’s as the new Mustang’s best recorded quarter mile time was a sad 15.1 @ 92. The fastest published time recorded in a factory fresh fox-bodied H.O. was a 14.0 @ 97 in an ‘87 LX Sedan and the 5.0 hit a pinnacle with the GT-40 5.0 in the ‘93 Mustang Cobra that blistered down a best published time of 13.7 @ 101. Put the SN-95 Mustang’s drag racing numbers together with its softer, less aggressive handling, and you get a recipe for a marketing disaster. It’s new styling and refined driving demeanor weren’t enough to carry it with the performance enthusiast crowd.

So, why did the Mustang lose it’s performance and why did Ford opt to produce a slower car when the Camaro and Firebird were already out burning up the streets and taking names? It was simple, when asked what they should do with the old 5.0 H.O. engine, enthusiasts replied to surveys by telling them to leave the engine alone. The problem was, the enthusiasts wanted the Mustang to run the way it always did, and Ford took it literally. When enthusiasts ran into the ‘93 Cobra, it lost response and low end acceleration due to it’s drivetrain configuration and enthusiasts didn’t like it even though the car was faster. So, Ford provided a drivetrain combo that had the same power curve the old H.O. did. But, because of the added weight of the new “refined” Mustang, it ran like a dog.

It wasn’t until a few years ago I finally got the chance to drive one of these cars. It wasn’t until a few years ago I would even consider a car after 1972. At that point, I already had an ‘87 H.O. Sedan and had become more comfortable with the modern fuel injected engine, power brakes and steering. After driving the ‘87 and experiencing how it drove, I gave the stats of the ‘94-’95 GT a much closer look. When the ‘94 Mustang debuted, I immediately fell in love with the styling, but was uninterested in driving a new car, but now that I had an interest in newer cars, I was drawn to my favorite late-model.

What I came away with after looking at this car’s stats was that the published performance numbers seemed to be off. The car wasn’t that much heavier than the old Fox-Body GT and the engine didn’t make that much less power, so I was sure something was wrong. It only took one drive for me to know that I absolutely loved everything about the car...including the engine, which definitely didn’t seem to be as lack luster as the numbers I had seen indicated.

In March of ‘03 I bought the car you see here, a ‘95 GT, and there was no doubt that this car had my old ‘87 in cornering and braking, if not handling, and the drivetrain was definitely close to the old one. I decided after I drove it that I wanted to know whether or not this car was as bad as the press claimed it was.

It was a bright, hot afternoon when I first stepped foot (or rolled tire) onto a drag strip. I’d street raced for more than a decade, but I’d never been on a drag strip. It was time I hung up the dangerous sport of street racing for something a little more safe and sane. Testing this car would be my first foray into legitimate drag racing. The only mods I’d done to the big black Mustang were a K&N air filter and synthetic oil in the engine, so I felt pretty confident that the car wouldn’t have any “extra performance” over the stock ride. The track was un-prepped, and I was unaware that tracks were “prepped.” The car’s tires rear tires slid around like they were on oil when I tried to leave the line at 1500 and I knew there was a problem. On the street I was able to launch at 3000 without tire spin. My best time that night just brought me to within the factory best time I’d seen published: 15.1 @ 92.

I was unimpressed with my first track experience, but hopeful that with some track prepping, the track would match the traction I regularly found at stoplights and confident that the car would be able to run the way I thought it could with a normal degree of traction.

Not long after that first drag strip experience, I found out that my testing plans would have to be put on hold. I started to notice drivability problems with the Mustang that needed immediate attention: the steering was becoming wildly erratic, the engine started missing and the brakes began to shudder. While not happy about it, I knew I’d have to figure out the car’s problems before I could move forward with any kind of testing for the results to be accurate.

The preliminary test results I was able to get did give me some hope and fill me with some worry. The braking was sub-par, as was the gas mileage, but the 0-60 gave me a breath of fresh air. With regular black top beneath the GT’s tires, it was able to run a 0-60 in 6.6 seconds, just edging by Motor Trend’s number of 6.7 and opening up to consideration that there’s more in the quarter mile than I had gotten out of her at the track. To see the other preliminary test results without repairs and maintenance, see the end of this chapter.

For the next step, I’m going to diagnose and repair the steering as the directional stability has become downright dangerous. Keep an eye out for the next chapter in the saga of Project GT as Stage 1 moves forward!

Project GT Specifications (As Purchased)
Vehicle	1995 Ford Mustang GT
Exterior Color	Clearcoat Black
Interior	Opal Grey Cloth
Layout	Front engine/rear drive
Engine	5.0L V8 (302)
Induction	Ford EEC-IV SFI; 60mm Ford throttle body; 19 lb Ford injectors
Horsepower	N/A
Torque	N/A
Transmission	Borg/Warner T5 5-speed manual; OD
Gears	3.35/1.99/1.34/1/.62/3.15R
Differential	Ford 8.8"; 3.08:1; Ford Traction-Lok limited-slip differential
Steering	Power assist; rack & pinion; 14.7:1
Front Suspension	Independant; 460 lb/570 lb coil springs; Modified McPherson struts; 1.1875" swaybar
Rear Suspension	Solid; 170 lb/310 lb coil springs; Quadra-shocks; .9375" swaybar
Brakes	Power assist; ABS; disc/disc; 11"/10.5"
Wheels	17"x8" Ford aluminum 6-spoke Pony
Tires	245/45YR17 Michelin Pilot XGT Z4
Length	181.5"
Width	71.8"
Height	53.4"
Wheelbase	101.3"
Track	60.1"/60.1"
Curb Weight	3360 lbs
CID/Weight	11.13:1
HP/Weight	N/A
Gas Mileage	21 mpg
0-60	6.6 sec
60-Foot	2.247 sec
Eighth Mile	9.63 @ 72.5
Quarter Mile	15.1 @ 92
Skid Pad	N/A
60-0	141 ft

Click image for Chapter 1 Photos.