|
|
| Search | Car Forums | Gallery | Articles | Helper | Air Dried Fresh Beef Dog Food | IgorSushko.com | Corporate |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
As I go around looking for a new I car a see a lot of Foxbody 5.0s for sale going for about 3900 to 5500. I know these are fast cheap all around great cars, but then I see the next generation (93+) 5.0s going for really cheap. I was just wondering the major differences between the two if any? Dont all the Mustangs share the same suspension and stuff until 05? Does anyone know what the stock ET for one of these mustangs is? I dont know it just seemed odd to me that you dont really see that many 94 mustang 5.0s really built up or anything.
|
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Question about the Mustang 5.0s
the 94 ones are heavier, and they dont look as good IMO
|
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Question about the Mustang 5.0s
i think the 87 lx 5.0 was actually the fastest stock, but who wants stock
|
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Re: Question about the Mustang 5.0s
Quote:
__________________
92 Mustang GT, 347 Stroker(Forged Steel Crank/Rods-Balanced, Forged Alum Dished Pistons), B50 Block, Track Heat Intake, Twisted Wedge Heads w/ Stage 3 port/polish, 80mm C&L MAF, FMS 30# Inj., BBK AFPR, Trick Flow Stage 2 Cam, Trick Flow 1.6R Rockers, BBK EL-CC Headers, MAC O.R. H-Pipe, Flowmaster Cat-Back, Accufab 75mm TB, MAC CAI, BBK Pulleys, Griffin Alum Radiator, Mark 8 Fan, MSD Pro-Billet Distributor; AOD, Dynamic 3300 L-U Converter, B&M Trans Cooler; 3:73 gears. |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Question about the Mustang 5.0s
Quote:
![]() While it is true that the SN95 is a bit heavier, it makes up for it with a much stiffer chassis that rolls less than the Fox Chassis.
__________________
95 GT AKA "The Purple Hippo". Stock 302 bottom end. Edelbrock Heads. Performer 5.0 Intake, 1.7 RR's on stock Cam, Stock T5, 3.27 gears, UD Pullies, K&N Filter, rubber boot deleted, A/C deleted, BBK Catted X-Pipe, 180º TStat, EEC Tuner running J4J1 stock BIN. AEM WB02, Minor tunes, running pig rich. No clue as to RWHP feels a tad faster than a stock 05 GT. |
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Question about the Mustang 5.0s
Basically 87-93 FOX Mustang's are highly desirable and sought after for many reason. Looks, performance, and very VERY easy to modify and make fast for little to nothing.
94-95 Mustangs use almost the same motor as the previous FOX's, but the SN95 chassis is much heavier, and it's looks didn't seem to catch on as well. 96 is when the 4.6L SOHC V8 was introduced in the Mustang. This motor was in it's early stages and would not perfected till 99.
__________________
[size=1]-1950 Ford Custom, flathead V8
-2013 Ford Flex -1999 Ford F150 |
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Question about the Mustang 5.0s
i do want to clarify tho that i liked the restyling of the SN95 in 99, i think that looks great but that 94-98 period i dont like that body much at all. looks to girly
|
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Question about the Mustang 5.0s
I'm a fan of the 91 lx 5.0, not just because I own one, but because i like the styling on the interior. They are also fast stock, but more than likely if your in it for the power and speed, it wont be stock long.
__________________
"When Lightning Strikes the Heartbeat Stops!" '91 Mustang LX 347 StRoKeD & BlOwN '04 Ford F-250 6L PS FX4 '95 Ford F-150 Ford Racing Pride General Motors who? ![]() 2004-2008 Ford Master Certified Technician |
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
|
I think the engines were a little better tuned in the '87-'93 5.0s. In '94 there was some trouble and the engines were the same but not as powerful. If I remember right they had trouble fitting the engines into the bay.
__________________
For a long time it gave me nightmares... witnessing an injustice like that... it's a constant reminder of just how unfair this world can be... I can still hear them taunting him....... silly rabbit, tricks are for kids... I mean, WHY COULDN'T THEY JUST GIVE HIM SOME CEREAL? Quote:
|
|
#10
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Question about the Mustang 5.0s
Quote:
Well the first gen SN-95 cars 94-98 only had 5.0's for 94 and 95 then the move to the modular 4.6 happened. The non-PI headed 4.6 were not that impressive and like all Mod motors not cheap to mod. So pair that up wit the heavier weight of the SN-95 cars and your not dealing wit a very good starting point to build up a fast car. Now the 94/95 wit the 5.0 only went for 2 years and while very similiar there are differences which make some parts cost more and not all parts the same. Also add in since this car only is a two year run wit the 5.0, the desire for companies to make parts for it is less cause there market share is automatically smaller. Finally the 94-98 cars will never have the History of the original FI 5.0's. The 87-93 5.0's started the fuel injection performance revolution. The 87-93 5.0's has widely been though of as the 57 Chevy or the 60's Chevelle of it's era. This is just something the SN-95 cars don't have.
__________________
R.I.P. Hypsi- Andy your one of the best people I ever had the priviledge to know. AF and the world has lost one of the truly wonderful people...
|
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Question about the Mustang 5.0s
As was said..the Fox bodies are cheap, cheap, cheap (in both buying one and modding it). Besides, I think they look downright mean with a cowl. That's it the car I'm looking to build up next.
__________________
2000 WS6 Sponsored by Dynamic Motorsports (DMS) www.dynamicmotorsports.com - Forged 402 LS2 / DMS Lowering Springs / DMS LCAs / DMS Adj Panhard / DMS SFCs / DMS Brackets / DMS STB / DMS K-members / DMS Driveshaft Loop / STG II Heads / Custom Monster Cam / NX Wet Kit / Moser Rear w/ 4.10s / DMS Shaft Mount Rockers / FAST 90mm LSX Intake / FAST 90mm TB / Meziere Electric Water Pump / DMS MAF / DMS Lid / Custom True Dual Exhaust |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Question about the Mustang 5.0s
I had a 91 5.0 and it kicked ass it is a pretty good 5.0 car that is stock.
|
|
![]() |
POST REPLY TO THIS THREAD |
![]() |
|
|