I'd like an opinion

I'm 17 years old and have always been a car guy. I am currently driving a '96 Sebring LXi with a 168hp V6. This car is fun to drive...but I'd like to get something more fun, with more power, acceleration, and something that doesn't blend in on the road. I think a vintage muscle car is the perfect thing for me. However...I have a price cap of $5,000. I'd like to know what I can expect to find for under this price, and it still be in good condition and ready to burn imports at the light. Any suggestions?

I think it is going to be tough to find a ready to go Muscle car for $5000. If it were me I would either hold out for a real good deal on a Muscle car or I would buy a Fox body Mustang 5.0 FI with mass air. I have owned several Fox Mustangs and they give great bang for the buck, are easy to work on, and fairly cheap to buy and modify. If I was dead set on a muscle car I would probably buy the first clean one that came along.

Good advice!!

I would buy a Fox body Mustang 5.0 FI with mass air.

Thanks for the advice, but I'm not entirely sure about mass air. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the "Fox body" refers to the '79-'82 Mustang, the 5.0 refers to the V8 engine, and the FI refers to fuel injected. But, what exactly is mass air? I understand that it is some kind of conversion, but what are the benefits and how do I make the car "mass air"?

Any other suggestions on possible cars is still appreciated.

I would try to find an "A" body car, like a Dart, or a Duster. They are lightweight (relativly, anyway), and can have alot of power. Since you're 17, I suggest you start out with something small, like a 340, or a 383, tops.

I don't know about Ford's specifics, but I've seen early '90s Rustangs with the "fox body" moniker attached. I agree with MagicRat. That's the only place you're going to find something that can really GO, for under $5K.
I have a current customer building a '71 Duster with a small block (360). After paying $1,000 for the body (pretty nice, which in this era is unusual), he has tied up about $9K in the rest of it. The point here, is that one cannot build a car of that era as cheaply as a more modern one, due to all the repairs necessary, and availability of certain parts.
While, ultimately, the GM F-bodies (Firebird/Camaro) are far superior chassis and basis for a "hot rod", the Mustang foots the bill nicely, especially in the "bang for the buck" department. Just don't think you're gonna go out there and beat up on everything with it. Regardless of what you read in magazines, Mustang is only a good performer once extensively (equals expensively) modified.
Lastly, since your needs are hampered by your budget (aren't they all?), avoid the OHC V8 Mustangs. Good runners, but mega-bucks to repair and/or pump up. The 302 (5.0) is much more "wallet friendly".

Thanks again for the advice everyone. And yes, the Fox platform was in fact used well into the 90's. My mistake. However, the 5.0 was dropped in 1996. So my year frame is 1979-1995? Is there any year, or set of years, that is better than others?

Keep the suggestions coming, please.

Ok you don't even need that much. First off buy yourself a 240z (like me) from 1969-73 you should be able to find one for about 2,500 if you just look hard enough (thats how mine was and is in decent condition.

2. Second in the process of this find your self a caddy 500 from 70' - 76 i believe eldarado DO NOT PAY MORE THAN 300 for this it is not worth it. Make sure you get the crossmember with the motor mounts on them with the motor and if you don't look for one.

3. then find yourself a turbo 350 transmition this should be about 300 bucks for a rebuilt one.

4. Now that you have all this stuff time to buy your self a mig welder.

you should not spend more than abou 3,500 that is after the tools and buying the car and extras and lastly the engine and tranny.
---------
Here is how to do the swap. take EVERYTHING out of that 240z engine bay and then cut out the ould x-memeber measure the new one to be as close to that firewall as you can with clearence for that motor. now weld her back and low. drop the motor in get a big alminum radiartor to handle the new motor and put everything back in.

Now buy yourself a 150 dollar aluminum intake from the "cad company" this makes the 500 only 40 pounds heavier than the sbc.

also you will need custom exahust, tranny mounting, and that thing that goes from your trany to spin those wheels of yours. then for a rear end get a r200 from a 280z of the 70's it should handle about 500hp. you will also need a new rear sway bar and better front shocks for that 500 cubic inch motor.

(note: the 500 at the crank makes 425h@5000 and 575 torque@3000 ONLY IF YOU HAVE 70 HEADS!!!!!!)

Now that car should weigh about 2,500 pounds or so. Mine pulls between 11.4s and 11.7s (something is wrong with my tranny i think i will drop in a new one with and adapter plate so it will fit that six speed chevy bellhouseing off that tranny they use in the C6s)





------------------------------
and now you have a car that pulls 11s for under 5gs!

Thanks for the advice Blight, but...1.) I'd really like to get an American car and 2.) that seems like more work than I'd want to do.

Anything you do is going to require a hole butt load of work so in the end you just pick the cheapest thing YOU like. Personaly I don't care about how it looks I just want to be able to rape my bosses viper with a 3,500 dollar car.

Also like I said I have been looking into this for a few years and have posted about this here and a absolute insane amount of other forums to try and figure out which car is the best project muscle car to to start with for the cheapest price. Then best motor, then tranny, ect.

-------------

So you either do it the cheap way or you can be slow and have a decent looking car no skin off my back.

A Datsun? The problem with that is more that you must be seen in public driving such a POS, no matter how fast it is. It's like having sex with a fat woman... It can be GREAT, but don't let your friends know!

If you are going with a Mustang the 94-95 sn95 body style is still a little costly. For the extra money you do end up with 5 bolt wheels and 4 wheel dics brakes. The 5.0 Mustang got Mass air in 1989 or 1990. Cars prior to that used a speed density system ( a map sensor instead of a mass air flow sensor). The problem with older speed density systems is that the computer will need replaced/ reprogrammed when the engine is modified. The mass air flow system adjusts itself for most modifications. If you supercharge or turbocharge one you will need to upgrade the fuel delivery at that time. Also the first year for the fuel injected mustang was 1986. This was also the last year of the " 4 eyed" Mustang before they got composite headlights.

Thanks 4speedsupreme for the plethora of information. So I assume my target window is 1990-1995 Mustang GTs. I know that the 1994-1995 Mustangs are heavier than the 1990-1993 Mustangs. But, would I rather have the improved brakes?

Thanks 4speedsupreme for the plethora of information. So I assume my target window is 1990-1995 Mustang GTs. I know that the 1994-1995 Mustangs are heavier than the 1990-1993 Mustangs. But, would I rather have the improved brakes?

Consider an LX coupe (with the 5.0 package) instead of a hatchback. The coupe version is 80 to 200 lbs lighter, depending on the model and has a more rigid structure.


For the record the Fox chassis was introduced in the 1978 Ford Fairmount........not the stuff of performance cars. The Fox platform was used in mustangs from '79 to last year. It was also used for Lincoln Mk VII and Continental, T-Bird, Cougar, all from about '82 to 88

That means if you roll a '78 Fairmont and last years Mustang, upside down, they will look remarkably similar.

However, the mustangs got better year after year, so go for the latest one you can find, which still has the 5.0 pushrod engine.

Consider an LX coupe (with the 5.0 package) instead of a hatchback.

Are there any performance differences between an LX 5.0 and a GT? I'm basically trying to find the best possible Mustang (assuming that a Mustang is the best car I can expect to find) for under $5,000. How does a 1992 Mustang LX 5.0 stand up against a 1995 Mustang GT, for example? I'm still torn between generations.

Are there any performance differences between an LX 5.0 and a GT? I'm basically trying to find the best possible Mustang (assuming that a Mustang is the best car I can expect to find) for under $5,000. How does a 1992 Mustang LX 5.0 stand up against a 1995 Mustang GT, for example? I'm still torn between generations.

The performance between these 2 is probably a matter of 1 or 2 10ths of a second in the 1/4 mile. I would look for a 5 speed in either body style. They are way more fun to drive and usually quicker. I would personally be torn between the 2 of them. I like the 94 and up body as well as the LX coupe.

I'd say go with a 67-71 dart and drop a 360 in it, real easy muscle for under five grand. I do'nt know if I'd trust some 30 year old 300 dollar caddy motor.

I'd say go with a 67-71 dart and drop a 360 in it.

I wouldn't mind doing that...but finding a good quality car and engine could prove to be rather difficult.

If I didn't want to go the Mustang 5.0 route, what about a Thunderbird SC? Would you recommend I try for an SC?

Are there any performance differences between an LX 5.0 and a GT? I'm basically trying to find the best possible Mustang (assuming that a Mustang is the best car I can expect to find) for under $5,000. How does a 1992 Mustang LX 5.0 stand up against a 1995 Mustang GT, for example? I'm still torn between generations.
A Mustang LX hatchback and the GT had identical drivelines, suspension etc. The GT had extra luxury items and more sound deadening, standard, which adds up to 140 lbs.
Therefore, the LX is faster just because it's lighter. Also the coupe body style saves an additional 80 lbs over an identically equipped hatchback.

The T-bird SC was a nice car, and decently fast. They are more of a luxury performance car, instead of a sporting performance car (like the Mustang). They are also several hundred lbs heavier and IMHO more complex and expensive to repair and modify.

IMHO the mustang is faster, more fun to drive and has more modification potential.

If I didn't want to go the Mustang 5.0 route, what about a Thunderbird SC? Would you recommend I try for an SC?
The 2 things I don't like about Thunderbird SC's are #1. 3.8 engines seem to have headgasket problems. A supercharger can only make it worse. #2. I don't care for the independent rear suspension. I do like the body style of them. Have you considered a 87 or 88 T bird V-8 or turbo coupe. I have built 2 2.3 turbo coupes. They are pricey to build, but different. An EEC4 EFI V8 could be modified fairly cheap also.

Hey man,
i would highly suggest if you are in the 5k range to buy a chevrolet. I would turn you toward a mid 80's camaro. the body is cheap to buy. plus chevy parts are cheaper and more interchangeable. you could buy a lets say 83 camaro and have a good engine built for under 5k. I would definately go that route. now if you would be willing to buy one and take time to fix it up. the sky is the limit that way. but if you want to buy one and drive it right away you could for 5k easy. but one good thing about a 5.0 stang is they were alot quicker than the camaros of the same mid 80's to early 90's era. I am a hard core chevy guy but that is the truth. but that is why we have jegs and summit and dad and his car buddies. talk to an older gentleman and get some roots junkyard dog tricks for a small block chevy and that is the way to go...

Thanks for the advice everyone. I would rather not have to fix it up; I'd like something I could just drive as is.

Also...I've noticed that Thunderbird SCs are very rare around here, yet there are several Thunderbird LXs with V8s. Would a V8 Thunderbird be a good decision? I like the Mustangs, but I also like the luxury features of the Thunderbirds.

No performance diffs...But the GT did have better seats...
I say, go out & drive many cars & see what you like...

You can also drive F-body's (Camaro's & Firebirds/Trans Am's) that offer the same performance & value in a V8 chassis...
If your going to go for a daily driver, get as new of one as possible...
Good luck/skill

Seems like eveybody agrees that for $5K you're not getting a "Muscle Car".... But most are pushing the Mustangs here.. How about something different.

84-87 Grand National or T type regal. Those things were very quick in stock trim & respond very well to a few mods. Can probably get into the low 13's high 12's easiely.

Have seen a some go for $5k range... good running & condition.

Not to sound like your Dad, but I would suggest taking only $3000 of your budget and buy a '91-'96 Escort GT or a '95-'98 Dodge/Plymouth Neon. At your age, the first thing to consider is insurance. Any kind of high performance car will suck the money out of your wallet faster than you can imagine. Get a nice cheap, economical car.

Use the rest of the money for college. Once you graduate from college and get that engineering (or IT,etc.) job, get a nice place to live with a nice garage and buy yourself a new Mustang GT to get back and forth to work. Get a nice older car as a toy.

The most important thing you can do at your age (17) is to invest in yourself, not your car. If you can find a nice, clean six cylinder car like a Dart, Nova, or maybe a Buick special or Olds F-85. If you live in the rustbelt, stick with an Escort or Neon. Study, get good grades and reap the rewards at age 25.

Swifster's advice is well appreciated. I already have 4.0 in high school, and have all my life. I will most certainly go to college. In the meantime, however, I'd like a car to make the trip from A to B as enjoyable as possible. That's why I was thinking of the 5.0 Mustang, or a V8 Thunderbird (or an SC if I'm lucky enough to find one).

Swifster's advice is well appreciated. I already have 4.0 in high school, and have all my life. I will most certainly go to college. In the meantime, however, I'd like a car to make the trip from A to B as enjoyable as possible. That's why I was thinking of the 5.0 Mustang, or a V8 Thunderbird (or an SC if I'm lucky enough to find one).

I had this delema in 1989. And I choose.....

A Taurus SHO. Even at age 25, I couldn't afford the insurance on one of those cars. The SHO at the time was just as fast as either the Mustang or T-Bird. Traction was the only issue.

At age 17, might I suggest going to your local insurance agent and getting a quote on either that Mustang or T-Bird? And after more than 10 years, both of those cars will have been rode hard and put away wet. A new less powerful car will most likely be in better condition and will have seen far less abuse.

I checked out a web site for auto insurance quotes (I know they wont give me an incredibly accurate quote, but it's great for sake of comparison.) My current car (1996 Chrysler Sebring LXi) is cheaper to insure than a 1995 Mustang GT. Yet, surprisingly, it'd be cheaper to insure a 1995 Thunderbird SC than my Sebring. The Thunderbird V8 came in just a little below the SC.

In order to be cheaper to insure than the Sebring, the Mustang GT would have to be at most, a '93. To be cheaper than the '95 SC, the GT would have to be a '91...

Drive the Sebring until the wheels fall off.

SOund like a dreamer to me. 5K is nothing when it comes to a muscle car. It is difficult to even get a highpower engine for that. The 5.0 stangs may not be what you are looking for but they were, in their day, hell fast. The mods for them are easily accessible and won't break the bank like some of the more modern mods on the rice burners youth of your generation are in to now.

There is a 1987 Ford Mustang LX 5.0 for sale in my area for $5,000. Do you think I should try to go for this, or pass it up?:

1987 Mustang LX, 5.0L V8 302. Completely restored from the ground up. New equipment includes: Starter, distributor, alternator, battery, wiper motor, Edelbrock Carburetor and Intake, BBK Chrome Headers, Flowmaster mufflers, Carter electric fuel pump, double roller timing chain, polished aluminum vavle covers. Interior and accessories includes new carpet and headliner, weatherstipping, Corbeau racing harnesses, Grant steering wheel, Kenwood CD player, Pioneer 6x9 speakers, clear marker headlights. Other equipment includes 15 inch Eagle Alloy wheels, rear air shocks, sunroof, Chrome exhaust tips, Ram Air hood, and a brand new paint job. 133,000 original miles, but the car has been completely rebuilt. $5000

It sounds nice, but you just can't list what is posted and ask if its a good deal.

You need to see first hand how the car is...

So many of these cars were hot rodded by the owners and many were in crashes...

Check it out VERY well and then let us know what you have found out.

Good luck/skill.

http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?car_id=173414917&dealer_id=55519000&car_year=1987&search_type=used&make=FORD&sponsorModel=&distance=50&model=MUST&address=25560&certified=&advanced=&max_price=5000&min_price=1&end_year=2006&start_year=1981&isp=y&lang=&cardist=6

That is the site for the car, where a few pictures can be found. It looks nice from the pictures, but I will surely have to ask more about it. Also, 133,000 miles is pretty good for an '87 model...but bad period. Do you think that I should still be able to get a lot out of the car with so many miles? Is it worth downgrading myself from my current car (which has 124,000 miles) in this respect? I think the car is perfect for me, but the only thing holding me back is the odometer reading.

I would have to see that car to say. Was it a 4 cyl. originally? There is alot unknown about that car, such how is it put together and wired, ect. I am suprised you can't find anything. I don't know how close you are to Pittsburgh, PA. but here are a few examples from the Autotrader I got today.
83 convertible 5.0 5 spd 65K trophy winner $5900
95 GT 2 of them $6500 each
94 GT convertible $5995
These are all just asking prices. I would imagine they would all come down some. If you want to look them up on the Autotraders website the area codes around here are 412 and 724

Thanks. I think I'll hold out for something else. 133,000 miles is just too much for me...even though the rest of the car seems like exactly what I want.

Are there any performance differences between an LX 5.0 and a GT? I'm basically trying to find the best possible Mustang (assuming that a Mustang is the best car I can expect to find) for under $5,000. How does a 1992 Mustang LX 5.0 stand up against a 1995 Mustang GT, for example? I'm still torn between generations.

pretty much nothing, to be perfectly honest. also, i think they just wanted to ditch the LX with the GT (grand Touring) which sounded cooler. as long as they both have 5.0s in them, theyd run pretty much the same. NOTE: the 95 would be heavier, thus compromising. your best bed is a 90-92 LX 5.0, bud. good luck.

Don't be afraid of the miles...

That 5.0 powertrain was built well.

However, being so old, the main key (to me) was how was it taken care of?

Things like that can only be checked out in person...To know for sure...