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?

 

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

 

i would think forged will take more cyllinder pressure. so probably not as long lived if blown or juiced. the 90 has forged pistons.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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?

 

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