I agree. My first Mustang was a ‘98 LX V6. 5 speed manual and I installed dual Flowmasters and dual exhaust tips and it sounded amazing. I couldn’t afford the insurance for a GT; but that was enough for me and I had a blast with that red Mustang.
I was a bit surprised to find Kenny Brown is still around doing after market tuning for Mustangs, Camaros and trucks. Not sure he's reached AMG status but he's still working.
Those 94-98 Mustangs looked great, but the GT and V6 were criminally underpowered. GM ran rings around them performance-wise, but Ford consistently out-sold them, which is all they cared about. From the 1994 redesign onward, should have had a 200 hp V6, 300 hp GT, and 400+ hp Terminator Cobra.
Agreed, although for the first few years ironically the 3.8L V6 Mustang was at least more powerful and faster than the 3.4L V6 Camaro/Firebird. Some higher end tuning companies even made High-Performance Supercharged V6 Mustangs.
@@MarkMeadows90 he said HP, nothing about power to weight ratio...bud! Whenever these comments are made I get the impression people just can't accept the reality of todays performance, even from basic transportation vehicles. The last year Accord V6 w/6 spd manual ran .1 seconds faster in the quarter mile than this modified GT...think about that🤔
@@MarkMeadows90 when it comes to performance it does though. My Elantra Sport makes as much hp as an 84' Corvette and while not the high water mark of performance a 5.7L making the same power as a 1.6L is sad...or amazing, depending on how you look at it🤔
But the newer Mustang gets better gas mileage, rides better, handles better, brakes better, and is faster by a fair bit. The value per $ in the current car vs the regular Mustang GT is harder to justify un the newer car though.
I'd also like to add my Firehawk was still faster than this lol. And for some reason, all of those Mustangs seemed to hit the rear bump stops....a lot.
@@alexyoungberg5232 bro...its a comment about engine power bro, not power to weight ratio bro. Seems the power to weight crew is out and about. 6 spd Accord V6 barely beats this car in 1320...bro😅
Cars have got so much quicker than not long ago. New untuned 4 cylinder Mustangs & Camaros (It hurts me to write that) are running slightly faster times than this heavily tuned 1995 Mustang.
Ehh it depends, 0 to 60 they’re way faster. But the new muscle cars are very big and they slow down quite a bit after 100 mph. I was surprised when I beat a new challenger RT with my bolt on 03 GT 5 speed with 4.10 racing gears. At first he pulled from me but as we got faster I started pulling away from him.
What’s crazy is my Audi A5 2.0t with a tune has 385hp and 420tq with simple mods! Plus gets great gas mileage on top of spanking most cars on the road today!
Wow! That’s a pretty good increase in power for a 5.0 especially since they kept it naturally aspirated. I have always loved the look of these mustangs but I always thought the engines were kind of weak for how large they were. For example a 95’ 540i made 282hp, E420 made 275hp, eldorado made 300hp. Today’s mustang gt performance has superseded the modern equivalent of all those cars while still having the same relative pricing.
Companies plan 50yrs ahead, when the new 2023 cars are put for sale as new, auto makers already have their replacements.. I've said it many times, Ford planned this long ago, 1991 sell cheap 2v fleet engines, 2011 sell a race ready stroker Cobra 4v n name it "Coyote"..
It was easy to gain a ton of power with mods because they're so choked off. It had 215 hp 285 tq stock that shows you how choked it was. They peaked BEFORE 5k rpm for God's sake. It's easy to gain 100 hp on one even with the Ford gt40 stuff that came on explorers which is basically what this car has. Gt40, cobra and explorer intakes all have the same thing inside they even take the same gaskets.
The engine is severely choked off and easy to open up with aftermarket the mustang has always been about aftermarket. Heads cam intake and blower and you have a terror on your hands (by 90s standards and it could even compete with many cars today). People that judge cars by their stock performance don't understand mustangs especially these older ones.
@@Some_Person6 I appreciate that! The E50 generation Galant came out in 93/94. Face-lift probably in 96 or 97. The next Gen (EA0) came out in 98/99 but that's not the one.
1995 21k is $36,242.0 Today money. 35k in 1995 is about 60k in today money. 300hp was crazy power in the 90’s! The golden area 90’s of Japanese sport cars was crazy beating domestic sport cars with higher horse power and advanced technology! Amazing Morden 4 cylinders and V6 have bigger horsepower than V8 cars 20 years ago!
In the late 1980’s I bought from Kenny Brown some new take off 1989 Mustang GT wheels and tires and put them on my 5.0 4 speed Indy Pace Car. The difference between the Goodyear’s and the Michelin TRX tires was night and day. I was glad to get the worst performance tires in the world off of my Mustang.
Seriously, this is exactly how the 1994 GT should have come stock from Ford. Nice improvement over the Fox body in body in performance, also better than the Z28 Camaro of the time. Looks like it handles just right to, less body roll and pitch under braking. I’m not sure what Ford was thinking making the next generation of Mustang slower than the last. The gt40 engine parts were there to use already on Ford’s shelf too, from the fox cobra. They really wouldn’t have had to do much production wise to have made the 1994 GT exactly like this. It’s baffling.
Fords Modular SOHC and DOHC 4.6's, 5.4's and 6.8s wold have been shown up by the mildly reworked aluminum headed GT40 engines. So Ford held back on any performance upgrades from the factor. Saleen, SAAC, KB, and many others continued with the 5.0 and 5.8 engines and they outplayed the later Cammers. Ford wasn't sure how it was going to respond for 10 long years untill the S197. In essence, Ford kept the lid on another performance war by dumbing down the SN95 and New Edge.
@@deanstevenson6527 dude the 4v 4.6 would easily hold its own against this "reworked" pushrod with more cubes. The new edge versions had more power especially the Mach 1. A Mach 1 can di 360-370 to the wheels fbo and cammed. Pretty good for a 4.6 from the early 2000s. I don't think the mod motors would have gotten "shown up" maybe the early npi 2v. The 5.4 4v in the 2000 cobra r was rated 385 but put close to that down to the wheels bone stock. The modular are plenty capable. They knew what they had and there is a reason they switched.
The 2015 gt wasn't any quicker than the outgoing s197 either in a straight line. They had slightly more power but weighed more and had irs. They handle better but the s550 didn't become faster than the s197 5.0 until the 2018 models came out. The s550 compared to the s197 was very similar to the sn95 compared to the fox. S550 and sn95 were both far better platforms that were made better inside and out and handled better but were not faster stock vs stock in straight line vs previous model. The sn95 could run pretty close to what fox bodies did there wasn't but maybe 100 lbs difference between them maybe little more if you compare a lightweight stripper lx coupe but not much more. Gt vs gt there isn't more than 100 lbs or so difference. Similar to the s550 weight gain over s197.
The engine in this car is just a 96-01 Explorer engine with a different camshaft and valve train set up to take advantage of the cam. Maybe it’s the installation and tuning to get this combo to dial in that adds to the price, but I think even back then the Kenny Brown suspension set-up and HCI package could’ve been done for less than $5k. When I got hold to the mustang mags in 2001 a full Kenny Brown suspension setup(everything this car had including tubular K member and A Arms) could’ve been had for I think $2500. The Cobra breaks could’ve been brought from the Dealer for relatively affordable prices also. This car would sold a lot better at around a $30k than the nearly 40 they were asking back then.
The 95 Mustang GT was already a "potent" muscle car...🤣 I mean a Z/28 and T/A made 275 hp, a Corvette LT-1 made 300 and w/o looking it up the GT made what, 215 hp for 1995🤔 Yeah there's NO DOUBT we're living in the modern "!golden era" these days❗
@@angelgjr1999 Ford still outsold it's competition, so while Chevy n Dodge fanboys laughed at the Mustang, Ford was laughing all the way to the bank, plus then the very underpowered Modular Fords TERMINATED it's competition in 03 n 04..
Nothing builds excitement like a car tuned by a whiz-bang company named Project-Industries! indeed Brown was so into performance over show even his company name was a sleeper.
$32,000 was a good price for this car considering that the Cobra was for sale at dealerships for $29,000. To build this car using a used 95 gt in 2024 would be very cheap.🎉
Nice car, but it had to be pretty annoying when a few months later the cheaper 96 Cobra was putting down similar numbers for much cheaper, and with a factory warranty.
Ouch, around $40,000. I remember looking at ‘94 Camaro Z28’s. I want to say they were around $17,500 if I recall. Also 14.0 seems awfully slow for 100 more HP than stock. What did these do bone stock ?
@@klasseact6663 I looked it up just to make sure I wasn’t misremembering something and the base V6 coupe started at $13,499 and the base Z28 started at $16,999, so I probably looked at a cloth/ no t-top model. I think cars just got insanely more expensive over the years.
@@RobertSmith-le8wp wow that's crazy! I say that because I had an 87' GN in 1995 and looking those cars up new in 1987 they were $17-19K, so I'd figure a Z 6-9 yrs later would've been more than that🤔
@@klasseact6663 Yea it’s pretty wild. I had a friend who bought a 454SS pickup in the early 90’s and loaded it was $18,700. My Dad bought a loaded 1992 Dodge Ram 3500 Cummins (manual, ext cab) and I remember it being $22,500. Even adjusted for inflation those are very fair prices. The prices on everything have gone completely insane over the past 25 years. He put over 600,000 miles on the Ram hauling a 40’ gooseneck and it pretty much just needed oil changes. That thing paid for itself about 100x over. The GN prices have gone insane over the past 5-10 years. Good condition ones are probably worth now that when they were new
These cars only looked good when they were built like this. Pretty sad that it took a tuner company to get it to run 14.0. My 86 GT ran a 14.0 bone stock.
All that cash to make it perform almost as good as a stock 93 Z28 (0-60 in 5.7 and 1/4 mile in the mid to high 13s) and the z28 cost less then half the price.
@@CamaroAmx of course chevy was faster... you had 4 bolts holding the water pump and valve covers and what 12 for the entire oil pan? those piles of junk leaked oil like Harley's ... Fords back then were built for abuse with sky high oil pressure and bolts galore
@@CamaroAmx z28 did not run high 13 in 93 they were low 14 second cars on their best day. This thing has very minor upgrades yall acting like it's got a built high compression stroker motor in it or somethin "all that money".
The cobra should have just had a 351 similar to the cobra r. This has gt40 heads and intake that is basically the same as what the cobra got these just had a better cam and factory headers and stuff plus the cobra was underrated they had more like 280 hp not 240 hp. They would dyno 230+ bone stock many times. I do think it should have had a 351 from the r and the gt should have got the engine the cobra got.
@@angelgjr1999 although i agree with being expensive, you realize it has different cylinder heads, intake manifold, camshaft, and a whole host of changes to the engine, right? The SN95s made 215hp stock. This was not a "tune" for under $1000 as you incorrectly assume. These cars were also OBD1, not the OBD2 that unleashed the "tuning" capabilities you speak of. These require custom PCM changes/chips with the stock PCMs in the passenger footwell. No plug in tuners like we enjoy today aside from some weird one off plug in's that didnt do much.
Yet 3 years earlier you did a story on the 92 SLP Pontiac Firehawk. It would spank this thing at literally everything!! It was a FULL second or more faster than this 0-60 and quarter mile 😂. Plus handled wayyyyyy better. Yeah great story lol
Am I the only one who thinks it EFFIN hilarious how in retro reviews they believed the viewers to be SO clueless that if they just touch, jiggle and grab random $h!t under the hood we'll think "Wow they really know what their doing and that car has GOT to be good, cause they wiggled everything for Gods sakes)!😅😂🤣😝
I work at FORD as a technician. Todays Mustang GT is so fast compared to this 1995. My coworkers 1989 GT foxbody, with mild tune and custom exhaust system, is faster than this 95
It traps more than 100 mph with an exhaust and tune? Don't tell me it runs 13.7 at 97 and it's "faster" because if it didn't trap over 100 it's not "faster".
I wouldn't say it's alot more capable they're not far off from one another stock vs stock and this is a better handler. I prefer the 4v too but I speak facts.
Not really surprising. Look at cell phones from 1995 to now. And cell phones are somewhat new. Gas engines are from the late 1800s. So if they can't improve on technology in 100 years they're doing something wrong. And the 90s cars were just getting over the strict emissions that plagued the late 70s and 80s.
@@sirbader1 Keep in mind, the rwd mustang has a big advantage at launch so the matched time and higher trap means it would only get worse for the mustang.
Had a fairly stock 94 mustang gt with lowering springs and kyb adjustable shocks and slightly stiffer control arms compared to the flimsy factory units in the rear...the understeer issue is easily solved with stickier and wider front tires...mine loved to oversteer but Handled like a go kart as long as you knew the limit before the rear end came out...very cheap to make these sn95 cars handle as well as a newer subaru brz
There just isnt anything you can do to make an SN95 good. I find it especially funny talking about the quality chassis even tho at this point the Mustang was an underpowered laughing stock with a 40+ year old solid axle design and some of the worst interior quality ever.
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
Want to help keep our weekly Retro Reviews alive? DONATE NOW: mptevents.regfox.com/motorweek
Now this is a 95' I would want!..probably a unicorn now!
Legend has it...Kenny Brown was the inspiration for Ron Swanson.
😆 Get outta here.
Ron Swanson was based on John Swartzwelder, who was a writer for The Simpsons.
The TV dinner guy?
Ron Fucking Swanson!
Those 90s Mustangs will always have a place in my heart.
@blackandgold51 I miss the Monopoly game from McDonald’s
@blackandgold51 Lol Yea man, I remember those. Well i was 19 in 1996, but I remember trying to win that car!
I love my 2003 Mustang GT. I love SN95 Mustangs.
I agree. My first Mustang was a ‘98 LX V6. 5 speed manual and I installed dual Flowmasters and dual exhaust tips and it sounded amazing. I couldn’t afford the insurance for a GT; but that was enough for me and I had a blast with that red Mustang.
@@mr.c493 I pay 170 dollars a month in insurance. :(
A teacher in grade school special ordered a 96 or 97? Aztec Gold GT manual. It stood out amongst the Camrys and Taurus’ for sure.
I was a bit surprised to find Kenny Brown is still around doing after market tuning for Mustangs, Camaros and trucks. Not sure he's reached AMG status but he's still working.
I still will forever wish I was 16 during the 90s so I could’ve bought one of these when they became cheap in the early 2000s
SN95’s in the 00’s were still in the high teens and twenties, lol. Hell, an ‘04 GT with less than 65k miles averages $13k+ right now.
@@southernpimp5252 not really, I remember in 05 picking up a 95 for 2000...
Those 94-98 Mustangs looked great, but the GT and V6 were criminally underpowered. GM ran rings around them performance-wise, but Ford consistently out-sold them, which is all they cared about. From the 1994 redesign onward, should have had a 200 hp V6, 300 hp GT, and 400+ hp Terminator Cobra.
Agreed, although for the first few years ironically the 3.8L V6 Mustang was at least more powerful and faster than the 3.4L V6 Camaro/Firebird. Some higher end tuning companies even made High-Performance Supercharged V6 Mustangs.
What the '95 Ford Mustang should've been!👍
Or at least the Cobra... whatever it's not that far away if you have a stock one
Agreed but 35k for a Mustang in 95 was European price territory.
@@nostalgiadad7137 , true.
@@nostalgiadad7137it was also competitive with European sports cars too.
He grabbed the power steering reservoir and wiggled it 😆 guess that's a part of the package making sure the power steering pump is tight
I like how he was under the hood making sure parts that don't move haven't moved......
LOL
that is how he tunes cars hahahah
that is how he tunes cars hahahah
not confidence inspiring
He charged 10k more for 1k worth of mods, lol that guy is a genius. Sadly some fell for it.
The cornering was actually impressive though.
Crazy to think there are minivans now that come with more HP.
Power to weight ratio bud
@@MarkMeadows90 he said HP, nothing about power to weight ratio...bud! Whenever these comments are made I get the impression people just can't accept the reality of todays performance, even from basic transportation vehicles.
The last year Accord V6 w/6 spd manual ran .1 seconds faster in the quarter mile than this modified GT...think about that🤔
@@klasseact6663 technology has improved. More efficient engines. But sometimes, newer isn't always better.
@@MarkMeadows90 when it comes to performance it does though. My Elantra Sport makes as much hp as an 84' Corvette and while not the high water mark of performance a 5.7L making the same power as a 1.6L is sad...or amazing, depending on how you look at it🤔
@@klasseact6663 we agree to disagree.
Kenny Brown was the engineering brains behind Saleen
I remember as a little kid seeing these and thinking they were better looking than anything from Ferrari or Lamborghini.
He made today’s muscle car yesterday 😀👏🤟🏽 very nice package and numbers aren’t bad either
*Converted that's about $60,000 in today's currency.*
*2020 Mustang GT 350 retails for $59,140...*
🤷♂️
To be fair its like spending base model price twice on a base model.
But the newer Mustang gets better gas mileage, rides better, handles better, brakes better, and is faster by a fair bit. The value per $ in the current car vs the regular Mustang GT is harder to justify un the newer car though.
@@nickbruns4154 Yeah and that newer mustang will depreciate for decades. Buy an old mustang and they never lose value unless you wreck it.
$72k chief. Read the description
@@RallyLancer95 base price is 35k chief. Watch the video..
I miss the days when 320 hp was hot street car. My wife’s Toyota Highlander makes almost the same power as my Foxbody.... 😭😂
Mustang curb weight: 2,700 lbs
2020 Highlander: 4,500 lbs
Power to weight ratio matters bro
@@alexyoungberg5232 yeah I know. But it’s just crazy the kinda of power modern engines are able to make.
My 2.0 turbo is putting out the same HP my Lt1 was putting out. That's crazy to me.
I'd also like to add my Firehawk was still faster than this lol. And for some reason, all of those Mustangs seemed to hit the rear bump stops....a lot.
@@alexyoungberg5232 bro...its a comment about engine power bro, not power to weight ratio bro.
Seems the power to weight crew is out and about. 6 spd Accord V6 barely beats this car in 1320...bro😅
Cars have got so much quicker than not long ago. New untuned 4 cylinder Mustangs & Camaros (It hurts me to write that) are running slightly faster times than this heavily tuned 1995 Mustang.
Ehh it depends, 0 to 60 they’re way faster. But the new muscle cars are very big and they slow down quite a bit after 100 mph. I was surprised when I beat a new challenger RT with my bolt on 03 GT 5 speed with 4.10 racing gears. At first he pulled from me but as we got faster I started pulling away from him.
Nitrous
This is not "heavily tuned". It doesn't take much to make 320 crank hp from an old 302.
What’s crazy is my Audi A5 2.0t with a tune has 385hp and 420tq with simple mods! Plus gets great gas mileage on top of spanking most cars on the road today!
Wow! That’s a pretty good increase in power for a 5.0 especially since they kept it naturally aspirated. I have always loved the look of these mustangs but I always thought the engines were kind of weak for how large they were. For example a 95’ 540i made 282hp, E420 made 275hp, eldorado made 300hp. Today’s mustang gt performance has superseded the modern equivalent of all those cars while still having the same relative pricing.
Companies plan 50yrs ahead, when the new 2023 cars are put for sale as new, auto makers already have their replacements.. I've said it many times, Ford planned this long ago, 1991 sell cheap 2v fleet engines, 2011 sell a race ready stroker Cobra 4v n name it "Coyote"..
It was easy to gain a ton of power with mods because they're so choked off. It had 215 hp 285 tq stock that shows you how choked it was. They peaked BEFORE 5k rpm for God's sake. It's easy to gain 100 hp on one even with the Ford gt40 stuff that came on explorers which is basically what this car has. Gt40, cobra and explorer intakes all have the same thing inside they even take the same gaskets.
The engine is severely choked off and easy to open up with aftermarket the mustang has always been about aftermarket. Heads cam intake and blower and you have a terror on your hands (by 90s standards and it could even compete with many cars today). People that judge cars by their stock performance don't understand mustangs especially these older ones.
I want one of these now
Please a review of the 94 Galant!
you been asking for forever lol
Dude, I hear ya. I'll look into it but that'll make you the first to have a 2nd wish granted.
Also unlikely we reviewed a Galant in '94. Maybe when all new in '96
@@Some_Person6 I appreciate that! The E50 generation Galant came out in 93/94. Face-lift probably in 96 or 97. The next Gen (EA0) came out in 98/99 but that's not the one.
1995 21k is $36,242.0 Today money. 35k in 1995 is about 60k in today money. 300hp was crazy power in the 90’s! The golden area 90’s of Japanese sport cars was crazy beating domestic sport cars with higher horse power and advanced technology! Amazing Morden 4 cylinders and V6 have bigger horsepower than V8 cars 20 years ago!
I have never heard of a Kenny Brown Mustang
Gotta love the sn95
No, I dont.
In the late 1980’s I bought from Kenny Brown some new take off 1989 Mustang GT wheels and tires and put them on my 5.0 4 speed Indy Pace Car. The difference between the Goodyear’s and the Michelin TRX tires was night and day. I was glad to get the worst performance tires in the world off of my Mustang.
With all that work and tons of money only fourteen flat😢😢😢
Wow
That's a great Motorweek clip
“Prices can top $40,000....whew!”
Can’t imagine John’s reaction over most new vehicles.....
$40,000 in 1995 = about $70,000 today, like the current GT500
This soundtrack is 💣
OH WOW, I remember this from back in the day! I totally forgot about it!
A Panhard bar on a triangulated 4 link set-up?! Now what is that suppose to do?
3:27 that music flair 🤣
Copywrite-free Top Gun soundtrack
Neat review! I have a 96 GT that I've been modding for years!
Awesome video. It's funny my great uncle's name is Kenny Brown and is super into mustangs. Has a 2014 GT500 with 1200hp.
Cant wait for the livestream!
Seriously, this is exactly how the 1994 GT should have come stock from Ford. Nice improvement over the Fox body in body in performance, also better than the Z28 Camaro of the time. Looks like it handles just right to, less body roll and pitch under braking. I’m not sure what Ford was thinking making the next generation of Mustang slower than the last. The gt40 engine parts were there to use already on Ford’s shelf too, from the fox cobra. They really wouldn’t have had to do much production wise to have made the 1994 GT exactly like this. It’s baffling.
Fords Modular SOHC and DOHC 4.6's, 5.4's and 6.8s wold have been shown up by the mildly reworked aluminum headed GT40 engines. So Ford held back on any performance upgrades from the factor. Saleen, SAAC, KB, and many others continued with the 5.0 and 5.8 engines and they outplayed the later Cammers. Ford wasn't sure how it was going to respond for 10 long years untill the S197. In essence, Ford kept the lid on another performance war by dumbing down the SN95 and New Edge.
@@deanstevenson6527 dude the 4v 4.6 would easily hold its own against this "reworked" pushrod with more cubes. The new edge versions had more power especially the Mach 1. A Mach 1 can di 360-370 to the wheels fbo and cammed. Pretty good for a 4.6 from the early 2000s. I don't think the mod motors would have gotten "shown up" maybe the early npi 2v. The 5.4 4v in the 2000 cobra r was rated 385 but put close to that down to the wheels bone stock. The modular are plenty capable. They knew what they had and there is a reason they switched.
The 2015 gt wasn't any quicker than the outgoing s197 either in a straight line. They had slightly more power but weighed more and had irs. They handle better but the s550 didn't become faster than the s197 5.0 until the 2018 models came out. The s550 compared to the s197 was very similar to the sn95 compared to the fox. S550 and sn95 were both far better platforms that were made better inside and out and handled better but were not faster stock vs stock in straight line vs previous model. The sn95 could run pretty close to what fox bodies did there wasn't but maybe 100 lbs difference between them maybe little more if you compare a lightweight stripper lx coupe but not much more. Gt vs gt there isn't more than 100 lbs or so difference. Similar to the s550 weight gain over s197.
I'm gonna need one of these.
The engine in this car is just a 96-01 Explorer engine with a different camshaft and valve train set up to take advantage of the cam.
Maybe it’s the installation and tuning to get this combo to dial in that adds to the price, but I think even back then the Kenny Brown suspension set-up and HCI package could’ve been done for less than $5k.
When I got hold to the mustang mags in 2001 a full Kenny Brown suspension setup(everything this car had including tubular K member and A Arms) could’ve been had for I think $2500. The Cobra breaks could’ve been brought from the Dealer for relatively affordable prices also.
This car would sold a lot better at around a $30k than the nearly 40 they were asking back then.
The 95 Mustang GT was already a "potent" muscle car...🤣 I mean a Z/28 and T/A made 275 hp, a Corvette LT-1 made 300 and w/o looking it up the GT made what, 215 hp for 1995🤔 Yeah there's NO DOUBT we're living in the modern "!golden era" these days❗
Yeah, the 1995 Mustangs were very slow when stock. It wasn’t until the new edge that Mustangs finally broke under 14 second quarter miles.
@@angelgjr1999 Ford still outsold it's competition, so while Chevy n Dodge fanboys laughed at the Mustang, Ford was laughing all the way to the bank, plus then the very underpowered Modular Fords TERMINATED it's competition in 03 n 04..
Wow that’s a flashback lol. I had those exact OZs on my 88 LX 5.0 convertible
I had those OZs on a 93 Camaro Z28 just not in chrome.
@@jrms60r mine weren’t chrome either. But exactly same design. I remember they were very expensive with the tires from Tire Rack
Good old 90s
Nothing builds excitement like a car tuned by a whiz-bang company named Project-Industries! indeed Brown was so into performance over show even his company name was a sleeper.
Man one of these would have been sweet from new, does anyone know how long Kenny's tuning company lasted in the market
Still around
Kenny’s mods are the same we did in our garages in the 1990’s...
$32,000 was a good price for this car considering that the Cobra was for sale at dealerships for $29,000. To build this car using a used 95 gt in 2024 would be very cheap.🎉
You mean to say that Kenny didn't call Bill Shteen to get shocks for the 320X?
0:41 "Quick, we have to get some B- roll of a random dude pulling on a bunch of random hoses."
I wonder if this car has been LS swapped yet?
Nice car, but it had to be pretty annoying when a few months later the cheaper 96 Cobra was putting down similar numbers for much cheaper, and with a factory warranty.
At first, I thought it was a ChrisFix's Mustang as thumbnail
I miss his driftstang, hope he makes a new video soon. He inspired me to buy my first Mustang. :)
320 HP 340 torque with 3:55s should have put down a quicker ET than 14?
This is what the mustang should have been at the time...but I always wondered why Ford went with those tail lights? We're hey ever horizontal?
Yes, they becáme horizontal in 1996. My dad had a 96 GT, looked way better than the 95 IMO.
Ouch, around $40,000. I remember looking at ‘94 Camaro Z28’s. I want to say they were around $17,500 if I recall. Also 14.0 seems awfully slow for 100 more HP than stock. What did these do bone stock ?
I'm pretty sure Z's were more than $17.5 in 1994🤣
@@klasseact6663 I looked it up just to make sure I wasn’t misremembering something and the base V6 coupe started at $13,499 and the base Z28 started at $16,999, so I probably looked at a cloth/ no t-top model. I think cars just got insanely more expensive over the years.
@@RobertSmith-le8wp wow that's crazy! I say that because I had an 87' GN in 1995 and looking those cars up new in 1987 they were $17-19K, so I'd figure a Z 6-9 yrs later would've been more than that🤔
@@klasseact6663 Yea it’s pretty wild. I had a friend who bought a 454SS pickup in the early 90’s and loaded it was $18,700. My Dad bought a loaded 1992 Dodge Ram 3500 Cummins (manual, ext cab) and I remember it being $22,500. Even adjusted for inflation those are very fair prices. The prices on everything have gone completely insane over the past 25 years. He put over 600,000 miles on the Ram hauling a 40’ gooseneck and it pretty much just needed oil changes. That thing paid for itself about 100x over. The GN prices have gone insane over the past 5-10 years. Good condition ones are probably worth now that when they were new
@@RobertSmith-le8wp much more on the GN's😉
These cars only looked good when they were built like this. Pretty sad that it took a tuner company to get it to run 14.0. My 86 GT ran a 14.0 bone stock.
All that cash to make it perform almost as good as a stock 93 Z28 (0-60 in 5.7 and 1/4 mile in the mid to high 13s) and the z28 cost less then half the price.
@@CamaroAmx
I agree. At least they figured it out a few years later.
@@CamaroAmx of course chevy was faster... you had 4 bolts holding the water pump and valve covers and what 12 for the entire oil pan? those piles of junk leaked oil like Harley's ... Fords back then were built for abuse with sky high oil pressure and bolts galore
Agreed never keen on the standard look. But when tuned and subtle body kit they look so much better.
@@CamaroAmx z28 did not run high 13 in 93 they were low 14 second cars on their best day. This thing has very minor upgrades yall acting like it's got a built high compression stroker motor in it or somethin "all that money".
Now THIS is the way SVT should've modified the 5.0 for the cobra.
The cobra should have just had a 351 similar to the cobra r. This has gt40 heads and intake that is basically the same as what the cobra got these just had a better cam and factory headers and stuff plus the cobra was underrated they had more like 280 hp not 240 hp. They would dyno 230+ bone stock many times. I do think it should have had a 351 from the r and the gt should have got the engine the cobra got.
Double the base price just because of a sport package , WTF
Lol yup, all they did was tune, Koni shocks and struts, and tower brace. You can do those mods yourself for way under 1k, it was overpriced for sure.
@@angelgjr1999 although i agree with being expensive, you realize it has different cylinder heads, intake manifold, camshaft, and a whole host of changes to the engine, right? The SN95s made 215hp stock. This was not a "tune" for under $1000 as you incorrectly assume. These cars were also OBD1, not the OBD2 that unleashed the "tuning" capabilities you speak of. These require custom PCM changes/chips with the stock PCMs in the passenger footwell. No plug in tuners like we enjoy today aside from some weird one off plug in's that didnt do much.
To get 320hp out of 5.0l is very good for being 1995
What's he throwing out the window at @3:25
42k was Corvette money back then. There is no way I would have paid 42k for a Mustang back then! It’s a really cool car, but not 42k cool.
My boy Kenny
Whats worse than spending your hard earned cash on a 95 Mustang? Spending twice that money and still having a 95 Mustang :(
Yet 3 years earlier you did a story on the 92 SLP Pontiac Firehawk. It would spank this thing at literally everything!! It was a FULL second or more faster than this 0-60 and quarter mile 😂. Plus handled wayyyyyy better. Yeah great story lol
And it looked so much cooler
Mustang still outsold all GM muscle cars 2 to 1. LMFAO. Get those ugly wife beater cars outta here.
Am I the only one who thinks it EFFIN hilarious how in retro reviews they believed the viewers to be SO clueless that if they just touch, jiggle and grab random $h!t under the hood we'll think "Wow they really know what their doing and that car has GOT to be good, cause they wiggled everything for Gods sakes)!😅😂🤣😝
Book smart and calm in front of a camera are 2 different things
I wonder, did they hit any crowd when filming this clip.
Watch out for that mustang!!!!!
almost as much power as a v6
And double the torque, this was 25 years ago bud.
It beautiful the best looking mustang ever
I work at FORD as a technician.
Todays Mustang GT is so fast compared to this 1995.
My coworkers 1989 GT foxbody, with mild tune and custom exhaust system, is faster than this 95
It traps more than 100 mph with an exhaust and tune? Don't tell me it runs 13.7 at 97 and it's "faster" because if it didn't trap over 100 it's not "faster".
Good car good built but I would prefer next year cobra with a 32 valve a lot more capable than this!!!
I wouldn't say it's alot more capable they're not far off from one another stock vs stock and this is a better handler. I prefer the 4v too but I speak facts.
Crazy that my accord runs that same quarter mile time, albeit with a higher trap speed. Technology improves.
To a point. Then it removes.
Not really surprising. Look at cell phones from 1995 to now. And cell phones are somewhat new. Gas engines are from the late 1800s. So if they can't improve on technology in 100 years they're doing something wrong. And the 90s cars were just getting over the strict emissions that plagued the late 70s and 80s.
@@sirbader1 Keep in mind, the rwd mustang has a big advantage at launch so the matched time and higher trap means it would only get worse for the mustang.
@@one7decimal2eight just an observation lol.. it's interesting to see that a fwd, 3.5L honda can now take out a 5.0L sports car.
@@muscleandimports Oh I know, im just referring to the loss of interaction. You'll never catch me in a Tesla.
Cool ride!
Awesome car.
WAS it just me or did kenny brown resemble Nascar's Bill France?
This era of Mustang is the last of the classic Mustangs, because it's the last one not to be retro styled. Retro styling is a dead-end
You must not have heard of the s550 that has been out since 2014.
@@midnight347 that Mustang"s got loads of interior / exterior retro features
Still cheaper than a modern 5.0. Wages in 1995 were about the same!!
-"WHEW!"-
42k in 1995 is 75k in today’s money
How bad would a pp1 mustang gt beat on this mustang 🤔
Slaughters this car.
$42,000. Yeah, that made my butt hurt.
Best looking mustang is from 2013 especially the Shelby GT500
Nah. They look cheaply made. Best looking modern Mustangs are the new edge and S550. Just my opinion.
I miss mohtohr week
That would of killed the z28. This is what ford should of built
That poor little T5
I never quite got into the mid 90s mustang! It was just bland for some reason.
If I wanna go fast I'll get a Corvette thanks
Crazy!
that thing looks so unstable around the corner LOL.
That suspension was too choppy and the car had terrible understeer. I see why nobody knows Kenny Brown
Those fox bodies had an oversteer problem.
Had a fairly stock 94 mustang gt with lowering springs and kyb adjustable shocks and slightly stiffer control arms compared to the flimsy factory units in the rear...the understeer issue is easily solved with stickier and wider front tires...mine loved to oversteer but Handled like a go kart as long as you knew the limit before the rear end came out...very cheap to make these sn95 cars handle as well as a newer subaru brz
Crazy to think my new explorer has almost 100 more hp and is faster.
1994 and up mustangs where backwards hp went down from 93s not impressed with these cars
$42k in 1992!!! Buy a Corvette!!!
Stock c4 Corvette is faster and cheaper, O and looks 10x better
A corvette is in a different class
@@cheldosarmiento2733 They are both sports cars.
Stock c4 Corvette compared to a custom tuned mustang! Sounds fair to me. And imagine what you could do to your vette with all the money you saved
my stock 09 300c does the same thing lol
Rad.
"Whew"
opens hood and checks nothing is loose.... yeah thats confidence inspiring 🤣.... thinks his company is similar to an AMG 😂🤣😅
👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👏👏👏
There just isnt anything you can do to make an SN95 good. I find it especially funny talking about the quality chassis even tho at this point the Mustang was an underpowered laughing stock with a 40+ year old solid axle design and some of the worst interior quality ever.
LOL Kenny Brown.
Hey...get on the hood and start wiggling stuff for the camera