92 vs 93?
#1
92 vs 93?
I have almost saved enought for another fox. I know that 93's arn't as reliable because of "can't spell, " pistons are hypertonic not fogged" should I stay away from 93's or is this difference insignificant?
#4
RE: 92 vs 93?
Thats the plan but I'm not suredepends on how fresh the motor is. My last 5.0 I baught with 65,000 original miles which sat unregistered for 11 years. I got 100% screwed from my insurence compay after my crash. I had a 1300 toe bill from my crash that they wouldn't pay. ect... What would you say the cut of point is in a 5.0's life when talking supercharging?
#5
RE: 92 vs 93?
What do you mean cut point? Boost wise or what? Oh, and forged internals are better for a number of reasons but don't run the motor hard before it has properly warmed up. That's the beauty of hypereutectic pistons, they are so tightly fit that they can be ran a lot harder than something like 4032 forged pistons while still cold. But they are very weak in terms and fall apart quite easily.
#7
RE: 92 vs 93?
ORIGINAL: LX 5.0
Original miles?
Original miles?
#8
RE: 92 vs 93?
i can say my current '93 is slower is all my other cars were. i liked my '89 best
but don't sweat it too much especially the pistons, it's a widely overexaggerated , i have 150k and i squirt 80 on mine. no probs
but don't sweat it too much especially the pistons, it's a widely overexaggerated , i have 150k and i squirt 80 on mine. no probs
#9
RE: 92 vs 93?
My stang was a 89. I used to say I was happy that it didn't have airbags but now that I have been in a near tragic accident with it I defentally would go with the air bags. why did you like your 89 the most?