So, my dad's looking at a '97 Mustang 'vert. 60,000 km's, white top, white interior. Car is very, very clean. 4.6 with an automatic. I'm no fan of auto's, but my dad's 70, and my mom will want to drive it some too, so the slushbox is OK for them.
I drove it, and it's pretty tight. Not all squeaky like I thought it would be. Not as fast as my G35, but nice sounding.
Anyway, having never driven a fox mustang, I wonder if they all feel somewhat "jiggly". Kind of mushy and imprecise? Hard to describe. Almost like the body isn't completely attached to the suspension? It handled fine, steered ok (although with the 245/45's it really follows road ruts). It didn't feel worn out, just weird. Is this normal?
Yup. The normal fox chassis has the structural rigidity of a wet noodle. The convertible version is even worse. And the SN95 is stiffer then the 79-93's!
Fun cruiser, but it will have the ~190HP dog of a 4.6 and the craptastic AOD-E trans.
Try finding them a 94-95 5.0 version or a 99-04 4.6 version, they will like either one much better. Avoid the 79-93 Vert's like the Plague! Also, may want to give Camaro/Firebird drop-tops a try if they aren't set on a Mustang.
only 190? I know fox 5.0s where rated at 225. thats a sizable drop
Yeah, they are very sloppy. Especially when the roof is lopped off.- Exactly what P71 said....
they are rated at 215 at the flywheel for that generation of GT, the early mod motor GT's are a bit of a dog. (you might look 94-95 for the 302)
What you are probably feeling is the lateral movement in the rear axle from the "quadrabind"
here is mustang suspension 101 http://www.miracerros.com/mustang/t_suspension.htm
the short version is that the rear end had poor lateral location. that plus the front control arm bushings are big enough that the shop i had press them out for the new poly ones on my car thought the control arms were from a truck!.
dont take anything said wrong, you CAN make them fly through corners. (they just get less comfortable the faster you make it)
