1997
#12
RE: 1997
It looks good from the 2 pictures. Are you going to go look at it before you buy? Carfax it first and take it to a tech if you are unfamiliar with the car. Also, just so you know, these are among the slowest Mustang's ever made. Since you are paying such a low price I would suggest swapping the motor for a new '99 or higher motor. It will give you 40 more hp and a new motor for like 2-3K. Of course if you just want it to have a stang, it looks decent.
#13
RE: 1997
Not bad for a 97.. My previous mustang was a 97 GT. the car had 130k miles on the original motor before it was destroyed by someone who ran a red light.
Check the service history (recall history). The only major issue I can think of with the '97, was that there were some issues with the plastic intake manifold cracking and causing an oil leak, but if they had all the service bulletin / recall work done that shouldn't be an issue...
Check the service history (recall history). The only major issue I can think of with the '97, was that there were some issues with the plastic intake manifold cracking and causing an oil leak, but if they had all the service bulletin / recall work done that shouldn't be an issue...
#14
RE: 1997
what ones are slow...just 97 or from 96-98?
ORIGINAL: bsteen81
It looks good from the 2 pictures. Are you going to go look at it before you buy? Carfax it first and take it to a tech if you are unfamiliar with the car. Also, just so you know, these are among the slowest Mustang's ever made. Since you are paying such a low price I would suggest swapping the motor for a new '99 or higher motor. It will give you 40 more hp and a new motor for like 2-3K. Of course if you just want it to have a stang, it looks decent.
It looks good from the 2 pictures. Are you going to go look at it before you buy? Carfax it first and take it to a tech if you are unfamiliar with the car. Also, just so you know, these are among the slowest Mustang's ever made. Since you are paying such a low price I would suggest swapping the motor for a new '99 or higher motor. It will give you 40 more hp and a new motor for like 2-3K. Of course if you just want it to have a stang, it looks decent.
#15
RE: 1997
ORIGINAL: chirp_5957
what ones are slow...just 97 or from 96-98?
what ones are slow...just 97 or from 96-98?
ORIGINAL: bsteen81
It looks good from the 2 pictures. Are you going to go look at it before you buy? Carfax it first and take it to a tech if you are unfamiliar with the car. Also, just so you know, these are among the slowest Mustang's ever made. Since you are paying such a low price I would suggest swapping the motor for a new '99 or higher motor. It will give you 40 more hp and a new motor for like 2-3K. Of course if you just want it to have a stang, it looks decent.
It looks good from the 2 pictures. Are you going to go look at it before you buy? Carfax it first and take it to a tech if you are unfamiliar with the car. Also, just so you know, these are among the slowest Mustang's ever made. Since you are paying such a low price I would suggest swapping the motor for a new '99 or higher motor. It will give you 40 more hp and a new motor for like 2-3K. Of course if you just want it to have a stang, it looks decent.
#17
RE: 1997
ORIGINAL: chirp_5957
so hard to find a 94-95 around me thats in my price range tho...its annoying[:@]
so hard to find a 94-95 around me thats in my price range tho...its annoying[:@]
#20
RE: 1997
check the numbers the 94-95 ARE the lowest hp rated GT since like 79 i have a 98gt and with a few mods the 5.0 cant even pull on me so get the 97 and swap the heads LS-1 Killer after that(and other mods of course)