5.0L (1979-1995) Mustang Technical discussions on 5.0 Liter Mustangs within. This does not include the 5.0 from the 2011 Mustang GT. That information is in the 2005-1011 section.

92 vs 93?

Old 04-18-2008, 09:23 PM
  #11  
Boss_Hotrod
5th Gear Member
 
Boss_Hotrod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: NC
Posts: 2,166
Default RE: 92 vs 93?

I personally dont think they pistons matter much. Most new cars are hypereutectic pistons and they are turboing and supercharging them with no problems.
Boss_Hotrod is offline  
Old 04-18-2008, 09:29 PM
  #12  
mjr46
D.R. THE PATHETIC DORK
 
mjr46's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 30,863
Default RE: 92 vs 93?

93 are okay but a few changes to them can make them just as good..just takes a little dough and tlc
mjr46 is offline  
Old 04-19-2008, 12:48 AM
  #13  
5spd GT
3rd Gear Member
 
5spd GT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location:
Posts: 798
Default RE: 92 vs 93?

1993 were the best year in my opinion, overall. I am not talking about power. Standard options, and getting things right after a few years. One of the reasons I bought a '93 way back when.

The pistons were actually lighter, and have a better cold start feature over forged. Less piston slap, which tends to show its self over time and mileage.
5spd GT is offline  
Old 04-20-2008, 02:57 AM
  #14  
Jfsram
4th Gear Member
 
Jfsram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location:
Posts: 1,999
Default RE: 92 vs 93?

I don't have technical proof but my 93 uses almost no oil between oil change intervals.

I can drive 6000kms and the oil level is still above add, almost at full. This is on a 164,000km engine with 3.73 gears.


Jfsram is offline  


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:53 PM.