Was just sitting in my neighbor's 2003 Ford Mustang Cobra

He has one with 22k on the clock, owned it from new, only takes it out on nice days, dusts it off before it goes back in the garage.

So, I wanted to see how the seating position felt because everyone says it is awkward and it definitely is awkward. The stock shifter is far away from you, so far that with myself positioned comfortably in front of the wheel I could only shift into first by extending my arm completely and I'm not a small guy, around 6'1".

The thing that really got me was the clutch. OMFG, that thing is heavy as hell! I was in disbelief how heavy that pedal was. I mean, I've driven a C6 Corvette and the pedal was not even close to this thing. I don't even know how you could drive one in any sort of traffic. It's absurd.

Despite the faults I'm sure he will never get rid of that car, he loves that thing.

Harvey wrote: ...The stock shifter is far away from you, so far that with myself positioned comfortably in front of the wheel I could only shift into first by extending my arm completely and I'm not a small guy, around 6'1"...

I think that's why you're having trouble reaching. That is, if a five-ft woman got in the same car, I bet the shifter would be very convenient.

I've always found the overall interior experience of all SN95 mustangs to be E36 M3.

There's a Steeda Comfort Pro shift lever that takes care of the shifter ergonomics. I'd love an '03-04 Cobra to drive!

Vigo wrote: I've always found the overall interior experience of all SN95 mustangs to be E36 M3.

that's because they were Fox Mustangs (a mid 70-'s design) with more crap thrown into them to make them more "modern" and more stuff added just to pass silly things like rollover and crash protection standards..

I once drove a 99 SVT 4 cam. I can't think of any time I was more disappointed in a car, although a great amount that was wrong with that particular car could be fixed with a rear gear change. 2.93 gears with a 5 speed and a no-torque motor?

Vigo wrote: I've always found the overall interior experience of all SN95 mustangs to be E36 M3.

We'll an 03 isn't an sn95 so there's that. Anyway I had an 03 Mach 1 and loved the car..... I mean I want another one bad and am just waiting for the right one to come along (azure blue, low miles, manual, all original). I didn't mind the seating position at all, in fact that car was a great road trip car IMO. Now I also had a 95 sn95 gt and it wasn't half the car the Mach was.

kb58 wrote:

Harvey wrote: ...The stock shifter is far away from you, so far that with myself positioned comfortably in front of the wheel I could only shift into first by extending my arm completely and I'm not a small guy, around 6'1"...

I think that's *why* you're having trouble reaching. That is, if a five-ft woman got in the same car, I bet the shifter would be very convenient.

Possibly

In reply to Cotton:

2005 was the first S197. 2003 is definitely an SN95. I'm not sure how you'd confuse this if you also had a 1995. Here's some proof.

Interior, 2003 Mach 1;

1995 GT;

Well at least they added cupholders

The interior on my neighbors car is not bad. It's the black with red and the seats have nice bolstering, not as crazy as my FoST Recaros, but decent.

SN95 1994-1998
New Edge 1999-2004

Essentially a New Edge is just a reskinned SN95.

I currently have a 1995 GT and have owned a 1999 Cobra and 1999 GT in the past. The best mod to the Cobra was 4.30 gears. That 4V loved to rev!

Yeah, the interiors were pretty E36 M3ty but no worse than the F-body of the day.

For a web forum that loves to use OEM chassis codes to refer to cars, SN95 shouldn't be this confusing. "New Edge" is a marketing name much like "Wide Track" was used by Pontiac. And when the interior is the same, it's really not much of a reskin. They're really not much different than the Fox that went before it.

Streetwiseguy wrote: I once drove a 99 SVT 4 cam. I can't think of any time I was more disappointed in a car, although a great amount that was wrong with that particular car could be fixed with a rear gear change. 2.93 gears with a 5 speed and a no-torque motor?

Mod motors--especially the 32V variety--really need low gears to wake them up. It's one of the first upgrades most Mustang owners make. My DOHC 57 currently has 3.00 gears that are a relic of the old drivetrain, and the car is absolutely begging for something shorter.

Also, I'm firmly in the "99-04 is still an SN95" club. I'm well familiar with the "New Edge" moniker, but I think drawing a distinction between the 94-98 and 99-04 is a bit arbitrary.

Will wrote:

Streetwiseguy wrote: I once drove a 99 SVT 4 cam. I can't think of any time I was more disappointed in a car, although a great amount that was wrong with that particular car could be fixed with a rear gear change. 2.93 gears with a 5 speed and a no-torque motor?

Mod motors--especially the 32V variety--really need low gears to wake them up. It's one of the first upgrades most Mustang owners make. My DOHC 57 currently has 3.00 gears that are a relic of the old drivetrain, and the car is absolutely begging for something shorter. Also, I'm firmly in the "99-04 is still an SN95" club. I'm well familiar with the "New Edge" moniker, but I think drawing a distinction between the 94-98 and 99-04 is a bit arbitrary.

get past the styling, they are just a 2 door 78 Fairmont with 5 lug wheels and front wheel hubs with integrated bearings..

that's because they were Fox Mustangs (a mid 70-'s design) with more crap thrown into them to make them more "modern" and more stuff added just to pass silly things like rollover and crash protection standards..

Granted, but the fox body interior was worse.

I have always wanted one of the "bullet" ones that were in the mid / late 2000's

pres589 wrote: In reply to Cotton: 2005 was the first S197. 2003 is definitely an SN95. I'm not sure how you'd confuse this if you also had a 1995. Here's some proof. Interior, 2003 Mach 1; 1995 GT;

I was talking about the whole new edge deal. And yes the Mach was miles ahead of the 95. Bullitt gauges, better materials, better look IMO, much better handling, and the mod engine. They felt like completely different cars to me so I definitely don't look at it as just a reskin. I owned them at the same time, drove them back to back often, and the difference is huge.

still an sn95.....that's like 4th gen f-body guys saying the updates in 98 caused them to be 5th gens...they even got pretty sweet engines and exterior styling upgrades. New Edge was just a way to sell people on the updated styling.

Cotton wrote: I was talking about the whole new edge deal. And yes the Mach was miles ahead of the 95. Bullitt gauges, better materials, better look IMO, much better handling, and the mod engine. They felt like completely different cars to me so I definitely don't look at it as just a reskin. I owned them at the same time, drove them back to back often, and the difference is huge.

But the mod motor started in 96, in what you consider an SN95. If you want to make a fair comparison, compare a 98 GT and 99 GT and tell me how different they are.

Will wrote:

Cotton wrote: I was talking about the whole new edge deal. And yes the Mach was miles ahead of the 95. Bullitt gauges, better materials, better look IMO, much better handling, and the mod engine. They felt like completely different cars to me so I definitely don't look at it as just a reskin. I owned them at the same time, drove them back to back often, and the difference is huge.

But the mod motor started in 96, in what you consider an SN95. If you want to make a fair comparison, compare a 98 GT and 99 GT and tell me how different they are.

I was comparing my cars, so it was the 5.0 (my gt was a 95) vs the dohc 4.6.

a better engine does not make a completely different car... it just makes the same car better.. same with different shocks and springs..

bolt all that stuff into a 78 Fairmont (and it would bolt right in..), and you'd get the same results.. but it would still be a Fairmont..

I also drove a 4 cam Cobra and while I loved the motor the car felt like crap. Terribly heavy clutch and my knees were in the dash in order to actuate it fully. Sounded excellent though. Wouldn't mind that motor in a Factory Five '33 hot rod.

I wonder what the engineers were thinking with the Terminator...

Engineer 1: "Hey, we should make it more comfortable, let's spend the money on an IRS."

Engineer 2: "What clutch should we use?"

Engineer 1: "Whichever requires a Herculean leg press every time you want to change gears."

Engineer 2:"Perfect."

In reply to calteg:

You missed the part where an accountant ran through yelling "SPEND NOTHING SPEND NOTHING". As far as I can tell, they pretty much all use the same cable clutch no matter which version of SN95 we're talking about. Which I think is insane; T56 connected to a cable and not a hydro setup??