Mn-12 Reply #60 – May 18, 2007, 08:54:31 PM I've had Fox body cars............and not one can ride, corner or accelerate like my 92' Super Coupe stock. A fox body rides like a dump truck. Sorry, a fox body is a nice car...........just not as nice as an MN-12. Quote Selected
MN12 cars... Reply #61 – May 19, 2007, 02:37:07 AM $20 says a stock TC will lay a whoopin on a SC in any handling test. Of course the base cars ride like trucks, use the fox that actually came with a suspension! Quote Selected
MN12 cars... Reply #62 – May 19, 2007, 04:30:26 AM I have to agree with CougarXR/7. The mn12's handle allot nicer than our cars, and I've got two XR7's. They feel like a mustang with a little weight. I've had 2 mn12's, and a 94' GT, and an 04' mach1. Ok, maybe they don't handle like my mach1 did, but they feel allot like the 90's stangs on the road. Quote Selected
Fox Reply #63 – May 19, 2007, 12:17:35 PM I've had a Fox body T-Bird, two Fairmont Futuras and one four door Fairmont. They are a nice car no doubt about it. However........for ride comfort, quiet, handling , options and fit and finish.....the MN-12 gets the nod. Not a snub to the Fox body, it's just that the MN-12 is a better car to me. Quote Selected
MN12 cars... Reply #64 – May 20, 2007, 09:56:38 AM i agree they are nice and mechanically sound. the interior on the other hand is junk. they literally fall apart inside. where my foxes have wear and tear but still look better after 20 yrs than a 10 yo mn-12 interior. the plastic cracks and breaks too easily. but they are a good looking car. Quote Selected
MN12 cars... Reply #65 – May 20, 2007, 12:49:56 PM Must be just the American cars that are junk inside. I have never had any parts break in any of my mn12's Quote Selected
Mn-12 Reply #66 – May 20, 2007, 03:01:02 PM I have to say I have never seen the interior of ANY MN-12 fall apart. The cheap door panels in a Fox body pull loose or tear, stitching on sun visors or carpet wear our fast yes.My Super Coupe is a 92' and has no damage to the interior, except the shift is worn (it's a five speed). I've been driving, racing and rebuilding Fords since 1968. Poor quality MN-12 interiors?, never seen one. If you treat any car like , that's what you'll see. Quote Selected
MN12 cars... Reply #67 – May 20, 2007, 07:29:44 PM Missed the recalls and TSB's then huh? Ever ridden in a car with a real interior? The MN12's weak point (other then being a hevey, heavy hippo) is the absolutely disgraceful interior. Maybe it's only the later ones as I only have experience with 96/97's, but they were . We had the 97 brand new and it rattled like a dozen pebbles and one 1/2" bolt in a coffee can.The RIDE is good, but the HANDLING is sub-par. WAY too cushy to be "performance oriented" for me (I'm talking V8 96/97's, never ridden in a SC because I've never seen a running one in my life). Very comfortable cruiser. If you could put a decent interior in it they'd make a good road-trip car. Quote Selected
MN12 cars... Reply #68 – May 20, 2007, 08:38:40 PM I see SC's roaming the streets of Ohio every single day. Quote Selected
MN12 cars... Reply #69 – May 20, 2007, 10:23:46 PM The interior in my '91 fell apart, and I babied that car. The inner door panel actually came right off once while pulling the door closed, then got jammed in between the door and the jamb. The shifter looked like hell because the little things in the shifter slot all broke and fell out. The driver's seat wore through (granted this is a big problem in Foxes, indeed any Ford). The tabs that hold the knee bolster in place broke, so I had to replace it. The panels covering the rear seat speakers constantly fell out on both sides. Luckily MN12's were easy to find parts for.One thing I will give the MN12's is that their body structure is light years ahead of the Fox platform. Rust problems aside, the MN12 unibody is much, much stiffer than the Fox (probably why it weighed so much more), and combined with the IRS and superior front suspension design I did find that my '91 MN12 handled better than the '85 'Bird I traded in on it. The best handling Fox car I had up until my much-modded (suspension wise) '88, was the '87 Sport. It felt more nimble than the '91, but it also felt like it wouldn't take much to upset it. The only real handling problem the '91 had, other than wearing out very expensive suspension parts, was that with its open differential it had absolutely no traction. I could spin that one wheel on a whim :hick:It's too bad Ford didn't develop a platform with the best traits of both the Fox (relatively light weight) with the stiffness and better suspension of the MN12... Quote Selected
MN12 cars... Reply #70 – May 20, 2007, 10:35:16 PM Quote from: Thunder Chicken;148602It's too bad Ford didn't develop a platform with the best traits of both the Fox (relatively light weight) with the stiffness and better suspension of the MN12...We just have to make it ourselves:hick: Quote Selected
MN12 cars... Reply #71 – May 21, 2007, 02:39:50 PM Both mn12's we had were both used, and both were excellent cars. Inside and out. Of course not every car is made as it was originaly intended. Quote Selected
MN12 cars... Reply #72 – May 21, 2007, 06:49:22 PM It's too bad Ford didn't develop a platform with the best traits of both the Fox (relatively light weight) with the stiffness and better suspension of the MN12...[/QUOTE]they did its called the 03-04 cobra Quote Selected
MN12 cars... Reply #73 – May 21, 2007, 07:22:16 PM 03 Cobra has just as much cowl shake as a 79 Mustang. Quote Selected
MN12 cars... Reply #74 – May 21, 2007, 08:16:36 PM Quote from: Aerobird Motorsports;14883803 Cobra has just as much cowl shake as a 79 Mustang.yeah but they look better doing it. Quote Selected
Topic: MN12 cars... (Read 11659 times)
previous topic - next topic
