I'm looking for an older V8 Mustang for a daily driver but that I can also take to the drag strip on the weekends and modify a little here there. Of the three years listed above, which would be the best for reliability, modability, and just general over all ease of use? I've heard the 96s had a weight gain and the 94/95 had the 5.0 but in a different engine bay so after market parts aren't as plentiful as they would be for a 93 with a 5.0. Also, any suggestions on Cobra vs. GT for those years?
Personally I would try to get an 87-89 5.0. The 93's lost like 10hp over the previous years. The 87-89 motors were also alot stronger than the newer ones (forged pistions).Also a 93 Cobra would be a rare find. I like the Fox body style over the 94/95. I would take an LX over the GT models. Just because the tail lights look better =)
Our 96 GT had a hot running problem -- meaning it ran hot -- there was a TSB on this for hot dry environments but they never fixed it to our satisfaction. Our 98 GT and cobra ran cool as cucumbers.
Go for the 93. The 94 and 95's were ok if you like the body style. And yes, there are not quite as many aftermarket parts for the 94/95 5.0 as for the 93 and earlier. The 96 was the first year for the 4.6L engine. Very disappointing. You are going to pay a premium for a 93 Cobra. You also might not want to mod it too heavily or run up alot of miles on the Cobra. There weren't that many mechanical differences between the GT and the Cobra. Get the GT or LX and mod it to heck:) Claud
Go for the 93. The 4.6 in the 96 is not that great of a drag racing piece, and the 95 is a bastard when it comes to parts (I have one myself). The Fox style would be your best bet for mods and racing.
Get yourself an '89-92 5.0L. I had two of them(well one was a '93) and I loved them both. They are reliable, easy as hell to mod, and cheap to fix. Not to mention they are fun to drive and make some pretty decent numbers. The main difference in the '93 is the different piston(no power loss but weaker than forged). Another thing you could do is what I did and get a '93-95 lightning. I was happy with my mustangs, but I love my truck :). If you want to go fast though, it is easier to do so in a mustang, so maybe that is what you are after. I will have another mustang soon hopefully to pull behind my lightning :). My advice: '89-92 lx, 3.73 or 4.10 gears, subframes, and some boost(turbo or supercharger), and alot of other little odds and ends
5.0s are like an anvil. You beat on 'em and beat on 'em and never phase 'em. The '96's 4.6 SOHC had some intake gasket problems, but otherwise the 4.6s have been pretty reliable. The '96 DOHC (Cobra) had some cooling issues. Edge - 5.0
Second issue, modability. The 5.0s have a huge, huge aftermarket and this makes their prices very cheap. The 4.6's aftermarket is now taking off and prices are reasonable. The 5.0 are as simple to work on as a lawnmower. With a 4.6, things are a bit trickier. Edge 5.0
Third issue, overall ease of use. Compared to more modern designs the
5.0 is a bit rough around the edges, to say the least. The 4.6 is a much smoother power plant. Edge - 4.6
The "weight gain" happened in '94 with the change to the stiffened Fox chassis, the SN95 platform. So the '94s-95s are about the same weight as the '96 cars. The '93 car, with the same options as the '94 and up cars will be lighter. Pick a '93 _LX_ and it'll be lighter yet. (Note: My old '87 no-option 5.0 LX weighed just under 3,000.)
The engine bay is essentailly the same for all three years - '93, 95 & '96 - they all used the Fox (or a version of) chassis. Note: The '94/'95 GTs had a little intake mod (called an elbow) to help them fit under the SN95's lower hood line.
Now onto 5.0 Cobra vs. GT
On the 5.0 Cobras, I'd skip a Cobra if you're going racing. The 5.0 LXs and GTs are better platforms to start with. The 5.0 Cobra parts, while good for factory pieces, are weak by aftermarket standards. Get a GT or 5.0 LX, bolt on some good aftermarket aluminum heads/intake/cam and go racing. With a 5.0 Cobra, if you're going to get serious, the factory cast iron GT-40 heads and cam will have to go. Plus, the '93 Cobra's pistons are _not_ forged like all of the '93 5.0s. Earlier 5.0s had forged pistons.
As for the '96 GT vs 4.6 Cobra. No question, get a Cobra. The '96 GT is weak. You'd have to upgrade to the later '99-up GT heads, and even then the 4.6 Cobra's 4-valve heads are still better, plus the DOHC has much stronger internals.
With this info in-hand go take some test drives. Then you'll know for sure which year car fits you. Good luck.
Agreed, for the most part. From my expirences, speed density only has problems with cam changes. Bolt-ons such as exhaust, roller rockers, intakes, and even heads work on _most_ speed density cars.
That's what Ford claimed. However, from old drag tests, what I've seen from dyno numbers, read in magazines, the '87-'88 speed density cars were the runners. A reported cam change in late '89 and the switch to the more restrictive mass air system are the main culprits of the latter 5.0's power loss. I kinda wonder if there wasn't some computer tweaking going on too to help the 5.0 continue to meet later emmission standards. All in all, I'd say the difference between the speed density and mass-air cars is a few tenths in the 1/4. Patrick '93 Cobra Previously an original owner of a '87 5-liter 5-speed LX (Was only 1 tenth and 1 mph slower than my current '93 Cobra.)
Thanks for all the input. It helps make the decision a little easier. From a money standpoint, I'll have to drive the car pretty stock for a year or two, but it sounds like the 5.0 will out for reliability ease of tweaking. Now I just have to start test driving and get into one. Thanks again for everyone's help in this issue since I wasn't very well versed in the differences from year to year.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.