Dan9687

I heard that the 96GT's sucked because that was the 1st year from going to the 5.0L to the new 4.6L and there was a few bugs....anyone else heard this, or is it true?

DR8907

It was the first year of the 4.6 - they didn't really produce anymore power than a 5.0 untill a couple years later - unless its a Cobra.

Dan04COBRA

Not any bugs really, the heads, cams & intake were poorly designed, making it no faster than a stock Fox.

BraMas

I belive Ford started using the 4.6L in there bigger cars in 1993(crown vic,town car). So bugs where worked out by the time they put it in the Mustang. Like Dan04 said they were poorly designed. Seems like after 3 years of production they would have made better heads and cams.

PipsBlackStang

Like he said, the engine doesnt have any bugs but it is slower than the 99+ 4.6's. Nothing a little Pi swap couldnt take care of.

And I almost forgot. Those T-45's can be a little touchy.

silvergt

they may have less hp but i really like the way they look with the wheels like pipsblackstangs white gt i like that look

PipsBlackStang

The 17inch premium rims look awesome on the 96-98 GT's

*Blk_96_Stang_GT*

I have a 96 and after i changed the gears, it doesnt seem that slow. Its still the fastest car at my school parking lot and i love it.

Dave2000GT

"no faster than a stock fox" ?!?!?

LOL stock foxes are significantly faster than stock 96-98 gt's.

PipsBlackStang

The foxs are def. faster than a stock 96 gt but about the 3.73's. I have them on my 96 GT and man does it wake it up. My brother has a stock 96 GT without 3.73's and hes always beging to drive mine to college. He said he'll be getting some 3.73's soon