New Edge vs. Fox Body style opinions please!

[drivesideways46]

I've been participating in HPDE's for the better part of two years now in my 2000 GT and I've decided I want something just a bit more dedicated.

While I love the looks and power of my current GT, I'm pretty afraid of stuffing it at the track when I'm still making payments on it. The fact that I really can't afford to modify the car also is a little frustrating.

There's a guy selling a 1993 GT a few hours away from me that seems nearly perfect. It has a fairly new WC T-5 with newer clutch and a 5-lug conversion with Cobra brakes all around. It also has an Autopower roll-bar and Cobra front and rear bumpers and decent looking blue paint. The guy is asking around 6k for this GT with approximately 93k on the clock.

I've got a little bit of a soft spot for the older hatchbacks, plus it would be a bit more practical for hauling my stuff to and from the track. Plus I think they're a bit more spacious for rear passengers than my 2000.

Should I sell off the 2000 and go for an older Fox body? Or should I stick it out until I'm through paying on the 2000 and go from there.

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Thanks, Matt.

 

[TroyV]

Do you have a regular street car aside from the GT? If so, then the fox seems like a good idea, the parts are so cheap. If not then the next question I'd ask is if you can tolerate driving a dedicated open track car on the street? Having had both a 90 fox and a 99 gt, I can add that the 99 was infinitely more comfortable, but got more and more annoying to drive on the street once I got to modding it for open track. Just something to think about...

 

[drivesideways46]

Yeah, I guess it would've helped if I could've provided a bit more info about my situation. I've got a beater honda that I drive around to work and run errands in. (35 mpg ownz! :rockon: )

I could tolerate the noise and most of what comes along with a more "dedicated" track car. Your reasoning is kind of similar to mine, I look at the 5.0 parts compared to the 4.6 parts and think of how much I could save if I just went with a pushrod motor. The American Iron guys seem to do ok with them. Plus the idea of a 347 motor makes me think :burnout:!

At this point, I think the best thing to do is to go out and test drive the car to see just what the mods have done to the car. The suspension stuff he's done seems pretty mild (bullitt shocks, eibach springs, and hotchkis upper and lower control arms.) and the motor is stone stock. The only real "power" mod is the prerequisite flowmaster catback on it.

My biggest question is if the 1993 GT is a better/worse platform to start with than a 2000 GT.

Anyone else care to weigh in? :shrug:

 

[Floof]

While I don't know too much about car internals, I'll just base what I'm saying on logic, as it hasn't failed me yet.

Logically, the 93 has more miles, is older, and is going to be breaking down more than a 2000gt if they are kept and treated the same. I would guess that as far as durability, the 2000 will last longer than the 93 aside from mods.

Let me put it this way: the 93 has almost 100k on the motor, which is stock. It's a mustang, and I'd put money on sayin it's been driven to it's limit for more than quite a few of those miles. Whereas the 2000, if you are the first or 2nd owner, you know how it's been treated, and you know what it can and cannot do at the point it is right now.

So from my point of view of just pure basic logic w/out any input on engine/chasis/etc mods, I'd say the 2000gt. You mentioned that the American Iron guys do good with them. I'm sure they do, but there are also a lot of new-edge mustangs doing great in open course as well. Steeda for one, and many of the guys on this forum.

Just my 2c, and if I had any say in anything, I'd take what I just said w/ a grain of salt.

 

[drivesideways46]

I understand your reasoning Floof, and frankly, you have a good argument.

My GT was purchased used from my local stealership, where after buying it I learned it was a mechanic's car who worked there. I found out a friend of mine's uncle owned the dealership, and she informed me that the car I had purchased at around 50k miles had the ever-loving crap beaten out of it. Not that the car seems any worse for the wear, as far as I have been told it still has the stock clutch in it and it still grabs great at 79k miles!

While all of the maintenance items had been taken care of on it, I had to replace all of the "modifications" he had made to the car. (Most notably, the custom catback he made that constantly hit the axle and eventually broke in half!) Needless to say, I have NEVER taken the car to the dealership for anything it may have needed.

Anyway, I'm kind of rambling now. I realize if I buy the 93 I'm setting myself up for a few more maintenance issues, but there's something about the fox-bodies I like that I can't quite put my finger on. I definitely like the lower curb weight of the 93, but I do like the looks of my silver 2000. (I'd like the Cobra R front splitter and rear wing and have the Cirvini 95 style Cobra R hood put on my car.

The test drive will probably decide things for me, I just wish I didn't have to drive 4 hours each way to see if this car is something I'd like to buy.

Ah well, the Honda is up to it! ;-)

 

[BlackBolt9]

My Metro get 40mpg when I drive it hard, owned :rockon: :-D Let me know what you come up with I have been going over the same debate in my head as well. I see alot of the same things as you but I think I am going to go with the older car because the maintainence issuses being spoke of will be gone once you replace everything with race specific parts. From when I have researched so far it seems to me the only thing that you would have to replace on a older on that you wouldn't on the newer one is the spindles. Remember too though that the newer cars have a wider track width, the older ones can be converted to the wider witdth but then you tire width will be more limited. Just a thought. Good luck :beer: