1. Home
  2. Ford Mustang Forum
  3. Question when buying a mustang do I go 5.0 or 4.6?
  4. Page 2

Question when buying a mustang do I go 5.0 or 4.6?

Man, is that a loaded question. You'll get opinions out the wazoo. So here's a bit of mine as well :)

I have a '93 5.0 LX. When I first bought it, I loved it. Now, it's got a few years and a few miles on it, and it's starting to show it's age. But it still feels tight, and runs out really nicely, and every time I get a new set of tires on it, it's like I got a new car. Right now it could use a coat of paint, and some seat covers, and maybe some headlights that are a bit more transparent (deterioration of the lens, I think; plastic, what can ya do?). I still like the car, like the lines, like the push of the wheels out back. Fox-bodied Mustangs are are sort of plain, but almost infinitely moddable (if thats even a word).

I also own a '01 Bullitt. I currently love this car (it's still new to me). It has amenities that it shares with other GT's of the same year, such as air bags on both sides, and abs discs all the way around, but it also has quite a bit more horsepower in stock trim over the '93 in stock trim. Being a Bullitt, it also has a few amenities that add to it, such as subframe connectors, revalved Tokico shocks and struts, a slightly lower stance, a nice leather interior, fancy wheels, and a limited build, just to list a bit. It's a blast to drive. I suppose in a few years, it might be less fun, but that's then.

So if I were to have to choose between the two, it'd be the Bullitt. Or if I couldn't have it, then a '99 and up GT. The '93 is still fun, but dated, and the newer GT's are simply further up the evolutionary ladder. Brakes are probably one of the biggest downfalls of a stock Fox bodied Mustang, imo. Well, the handling isn't exactly crisp, either. If money isn't a problem, and you're looking for a good daily driver that you can have fun with, then get a newer model GT. It's not a big block, but it'll have you grinning.

Reply to
ray
Loading thread data ...

Boy did I ask a loaded question here. I want to thank all that did take the time out to reply Thank you and I still can't make up my mind. I have looked and its a tough one.

Reply to
69GT4spdTrac-loc

Part of that 215 horsepower rating comes from a refactoring of Ford's rating methods. Read the Road & Track Mustang GT review from the January 1994 issue. The 1993 model was rated at 205 horsepower, but Ford claimed the difference was really only "on paper" and there was no real horsepower difference from the 1992's 225 rating. The 1994 engine got a 10-horsepower increase to 215, due to a new intake manifold, air filter, and stainless headers. So if you go by the 1992 Ford horsepower ratings, the 1994-95 really has 235 horsepower...

One advantage to buying a 94-95 over the 87-93 is the more unified body structure. I've owned a 1987 and a 1995 GT, and the 95 handles much better, has less squeaks and rattles, and simply feels like a much more solid car.

A second advantage for the 94-95 model is the improved clutch - 20% less pedal effort and reduced pedal travel.

Figure you'll get low 15 second quarter mile times for a stock 94-95 5.0 with the 5-speed and 3.08 axle ratio.

Bill J.

95 GT
Reply to
Bill Jones

According to Ford. But there were changes to the 5.0 motor over the years that did in fact lower the output. The cam change in '89 and the switch to mass air were the most notable. I think there were probably some emissions tinkering that also had some affect. There is an accepted fact that the later 5.0s didn't run as hard as the earlier cars.

It is a more solid car and of course a slightly heavier one.

In '87, with that same combo, you were getting low 14's, and in the flyweight cars (stripped LXs) dipping into the 13's.

Patrick '93 Cobra '83 LTD

Reply to
Patrick

Reply to
The Inquisotor

Reply to
cobra boy

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.