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?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 04-18-2008, 07:08 PM
  #1  
LX 5.0
3rd Gear Member
Thread Starter
 
LX 5.0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: FL
Posts: 921
Default 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?
LX 5.0 is offline  
Old 04-18-2008, 07:16 PM
  #2  
OneFine89Mustang
4th Gear Member
 
OneFine89Mustang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location:
Posts: 1,410
Default RE: 92 vs 93?

92 would be better but its not like the 93 would fall apart or anything..if you plan on superchargering it i would only used forged internals...just my 2 cents
OneFine89Mustang is offline  
Old 04-18-2008, 07:19 PM
  #3  
my little red 90
2nd Gear Member
 
my little red 90's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 169
Default RE: 92 vs 93?

i would think forged will take more cyllinder pressure. so probably not as long lived if blown or juiced. the 90 has forged pistons.
my little red 90 is offline  
Old 04-18-2008, 07:21 PM
  #4  
LX 5.0
3rd Gear Member
Thread Starter
 
LX 5.0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: FL
Posts: 921
Default 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?
LX 5.0 is offline  
Old 04-18-2008, 07:28 PM
  #5  
TRexGAWD
4th Gear Member
 
TRexGAWD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Georgia
Posts: 1,761
Default 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.
TRexGAWD is offline  
Old 04-18-2008, 07:35 PM
  #6  
LX 5.0
3rd Gear Member
Thread Starter
 
LX 5.0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: FL
Posts: 921
Default RE: 92 vs 93?

Original miles?
LX 5.0 is offline  
Old 04-18-2008, 07:38 PM
  #7  
TRexGAWD
4th Gear Member
 
TRexGAWD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Georgia
Posts: 1,761
Default RE: 92 vs 93?

ORIGINAL: LX 5.0

Original miles?
You want to know how many miles it can go while boosted. It depends on how well you take care of it and how conservative you are. I have many friends that have well over 200K and are running 9-10psi with their SC's.
TRexGAWD is offline  
Old 04-18-2008, 07:40 PM
  #8  
nitrous_bob
6th Gear Member
 
nitrous_bob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: st clair shores MI
Posts: 6,028
Default 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

nitrous_bob is offline  
Old 04-18-2008, 07:57 PM
  #9  
LX 5.0
3rd Gear Member
Thread Starter
 
LX 5.0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: FL
Posts: 921
Default 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?
LX 5.0 is offline  
Old 04-18-2008, 08:27 PM
  #10  
TRexGAWD
4th Gear Member
 
TRexGAWD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Georgia
Posts: 1,761
Default RE: 92 vs 93?

'89 was a good year man, unexplainable why but iw just seemed better.
TRexGAWD is offline  



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:40 PM.