What year mustang should I buy?

[desertvet007]

I guess the question says it all. I am only interested in the 5.0. I was thinking about getting one between 87-95. But I don't the weight of these cars or the performance of each. I want the fastest stock or the easiest to do mods to. I don't know alot about mustangs so I came to the pros for help. Thanks for the help. By the way depending on the year will determine how fast I am able to get the mustang. I'm really looking to buy next June. Can't wait!!!!:D

[MRigney]

I would go with a fox-body Mustang which would be from 87-93. I have owned 2 fox-body Mustangs and I enjoyed driving and working on them. I never put a new motor or anything like that in them ,but I put many small modifications on them.
You might want to look for a car from 91-93 just because of how old the cars are getting. Try and find something that has not had alot of mods on it. There are still a few out there,but they will be hard to find. As for the weight, 87-93 weigh considerly less then 94-95 Mustangs. Weight is definately a key factor when considering a fast car. Plus they are easier to work on then 94-95 Mustangs. The engine bays of 94-95 Mustangs are very cluttered and hard to work on. The engine bays of 87-93 Mustangs are a little more open and easier to work on. So if speed and work capability is what you want then I would go with something between 91-93.

[desertvet007]

Thats about what I thought. I like the pre 94 bodystyles. But I am surprised to hear that they are lighter. Thats good news all around. This way if I can find a 92 or 93 I won't have to empty my bank account. I should be able to buy one for around 3500 bucks. If its in good shape. I look forward to reading up on the mustang and reading the post in this forum, to increase my knowledge. My heart rate goes up about 100 beats when I see a GT gunning it down the road. Man the mustang is an awesome car. I had a camaro. Hated that car. Very uncomfortable and heavy. I jealous of you guys with the 5.0. But hopefully not for long.

[stangman]

actually a 91-92 would be the best. 93 would be good, but it doesn't have Forged pistions so if you later want power adders it wont be a good thing to have!!

[stangman98]

'89-'92.
'89 was the first year that they had mass-air across the board ('88 in Cal.)
and '92 was the last year with the forged pistons.

[Justang_87]

'89-'92.

89 was the first year that they had mass-air across the board ('88 in Cal.)


thats my vote. also.....also their was some people who say that the speed density car seem to run harder...thats just hearsay though...nothing from FORD

[Justang_87]

'89-'92.

89 was the first year that they had mass-air across the board ('88 in Cal.)


thats my vote. also.....also their was some people who say that the speed density car seem to run harder...thats just hearsay though...nothing from FORD

[1993stang]

id go 89

[Ken Roush]

Another tid bit 91-93 are ther years ford put 16 in. rims factory. The fenders on the 91-93 are have the opening pushed about a 1/2 an in. forward for more clearance. It may never be an issue for you, but I swapped to 17's and I rubbed with 255 40's. Now my 93 is 1 in lower and never ever rubs.

[BagheeraBullitt]

I guess I will be the outcast of the group and say go for 94-95. I don't believe that these engine bays are "more cluttered", but whatever. I like both cars, I had an '89 GT, but for now, I like the looks of the SN95 better than the current models.

[talorp85gt]

I'm parciel(sp) to the four eyed fox's myself.:)

[StangX]

As was said earlier, if going for speed and the ease of modding, my guess would be 89-93(but one member did mention " no forged" pistons in 93),probably 91-92 , but I would go with the Notchback(trunk) for lightest of the Stangs! The less weight the better I would say. Good Luck with whatever U choose !!

Pete "X"

[DRS_LX1]

89' to 92' would be the best if your lookin for a 5.0 liter. those have 225 hp and 300 lbs of torque stock. the 93' doesnt have forged pistons and it only comes with 205 hp.

[StangX]

Originally posted by DRS_LX1
89' to 92' would be the best if your lookin for a 5.0 liter. those have 225 hp and 300 lbs of torque stock. the 93' doesnt have forged pistons and it only comes with 205 hp.

I am not positive so I can't guarantee this but I believe the lower hp rating was bcuz of a change in the rated location. I believe Ford started rating the hp at the wheels about this time rather than at the engine. As I said , I am not certain, but I am sure someone on here with more Stang spec experience can shed some light on the answer.

[Fordgasm]

I have both and I would get a 94/95.

some reasons why:
4 wheel disc brakes
ABS
5 lug
electric radiator fan
tilt steering wheel unlike the 90-93 stangs

stock vs stock the sn95 brakes and handles better than a foxbody. And I personally think they are more comfortable to drive, ie better seats, dash layout, etc.

[GTinMS]

Originally posted by StangX


I am not positive so I can't guarantee this but I believe the lower hp rating was bcuz of a change in the rated location. I believe Ford started rating the hp at the wheels about this time rather than at the engine. As I said , I am not certain, but I am sure someone on here with more Stang spec experience can shed some light on the answer.

Ive heard two other possible reasons in power difference. One, which isnt that beleivable, was a slight cam change. Two was something to do with the testing process. The source said that in '93 Ford began testing with all accessories on the engine and that parasitic drag was to blame. That kinda makes sense when you look at dyno results after adding pullies.

[5obwan]

I vote for 94-95's because of the way they look. IMO

The weight and power issues are easy to deal with. (we are all most likely to do mods anyway)