-
Grand Future Air Dried Fresh Beef Dog Food
Air Dried Dog Food | Fresh Beef

Carnivore Diet for Dogs

Go Back   Automotive Forums Car Chat > Ford > Mustang > Mustang Talk
Register FAQ Community
Reply Show Printable Version Show Printable Version | Subscription Subscribe to this Thread
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 05-30-2005, 11:09 PM
UnderEstimate Me's Avatar
UnderEstimate Me UnderEstimate Me is offline
AF Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 538
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Lightbulb Question about the Mustang 5.0s

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.
__________________

2005 Neon

Stage 1 PCM l K&N CAI l Mopar rice plate l 3'' TBE l Spring mod l PB shift knob l Mopar strut bars F&R l ACR sways l Tokico Shocks/ Tein Springs l Ricey wing removal l JMB Catch Can l QW FMIC l Autometer WB l Diablosport Predator
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-30-2005, 11:20 PM
TheStang00's Avatar
TheStang00 TheStang00 is offline
AF Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 3,958
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: Question about the Mustang 5.0s

the 94 ones are heavier, and they dont look as good IMO
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-31-2005, 01:49 AM
stang805's Avatar
stang805 stang805 is offline
AF Regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 264
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via Yahoo to stang805
Re: Question about the Mustang 5.0s

i think the 87 lx 5.0 was actually the fastest stock, but who wants stock
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-31-2005, 02:33 AM
stang_racer20's Avatar
stang_racer20 stang_racer20 is offline
AF Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 780
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via Yahoo to stang_racer20
Re: Re: Question about the Mustang 5.0s

Quote:
Originally Posted by stang805
i think the 87 lx 5.0 was actually the fastest stock, but who wants stock
Actually the base version of the 89 LX 5.0 is said to be the fastest stock. 87's did not yet have mass air.
__________________
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.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-31-2005, 05:08 AM
Future303 Future303 is offline
AF Regular
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 277
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: Question about the Mustang 5.0s

Quote:
the 94 ones are heavier, and they dont look as good IMO
I supposed that all subject to personal preference, as I like the Foxes, but think the SN95's are more stylish. I hate the way the second generation SN95 looks like though. 94-95 was the perfect year as it has the first generation SN95 body coupled with the 5.0L Pushrod Engine

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.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-31-2005, 10:41 AM
HiFlow5 0's Avatar
HiFlow5 0 HiFlow5 0 is offline
Stanger
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,171
Thanks: 1
Thanked 10 Times in 8 Posts
Send a message via AIM to HiFlow5 0
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

Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-31-2005, 11:50 AM
TheStang00's Avatar
TheStang00 TheStang00 is offline
AF Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 3,958
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
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
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-01-2005, 12:35 PM
fordtrucksonly's Avatar
fordtrucksonly fordtrucksonly is offline
AF Regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 456
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
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
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-01-2005, 04:53 PM
Muscletang's Avatar
Muscletang Muscletang is offline
AF Premium User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,465
Thanks: 0
Thanked 17 Times in 11 Posts
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:
Originally Posted by Lars Ulrich
What?! Record sales are slumping? Must be from all those pirates. Can't be because we started sucking 10 years ago.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-01-2005, 10:25 PM
GTStang's Avatar
GTStang GTStang is offline
Stang Guy
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,189
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via AIM to GTStang
Re: Question about the Mustang 5.0s

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderEstimate Me
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.

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...

Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 06-02-2005, 06:38 PM
PowerJunkie PowerJunkie is offline
AF Newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
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
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-05-2005, 01:19 AM
97MUSTANGGT 97MUSTANGGT is offline
AF Newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 37
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
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.
Reply With Quote
 
Reply

POST REPLY TO THIS THREAD

Go Back   Automotive Forums Car Chat > Ford > Mustang > Mustang Talk


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:10 PM.

Community Participation Guidelines | How to use your User Control Panel

Powered by: vBulletin | Copyright Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
 
 
no new posts