best year mustang
2nd Gear Member
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 411
From: Sacramento, California
RE: best year mustang
Each year has its own high points. The 89's were the last year without airbags. Coincedentally the lightest, they got a little heavier in 90 up to 93. In 94 they got heavier with the newer body style. But they look cooler to most. In 96 they switched to a 4.6 modular engine which is more efficient. In 2000 I think, they got a hp increase to 260, even though the old fox body mustangs are supposedly udner rated and were closer to this number too. In 2003, the mach 1 came out with 300. And at any point and time there were cobras or saleens available for an additional premium. The only real iron-clad reason to get one of those is the larger engines, supercharger or the switch to a dohc. Then in 2005, you have a 3 valve engine and the first chassis change since 1979 with the fox body. They are much stronger, comparitively light for all the safety crap and luxury stuff in it. Then came the GT500...550 hp. Sweetness. Mainly I would say this. 1987-1989 for lightness, cheapness, and power. 1994-1995 for looks, power, and relative affordability. 1996 for technology...looks again and still affordable. I wouldnt reccomend another year up until the 2005 which has big power,newer technology and killer looks. Personally I would go for a 1996-98 Cobra. They are still affordable, you can get one for 6-7k, look good, newer engine and nice looks.
4th Gear Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,581
From: Terre Haute, Indiana
RE: best year mustang
ORIGINAL: rwdfan
Each year has its own high points. The 89's were the last year without airbags. Coincedentally the lightest, they got a little heavier in 90 up to 93. In 94 they got heavier with the newer body style. But they look cooler to most. In 96 they switched to a 4.6 modular engine which is more efficient. In 2000 I think, they got a hp increase to 260, even though the old fox body mustangs are supposedly udner rated and were closer to this number too. In 2003, the mach 1 came out with 300. And at any point and time there were cobras or saleens available for an additional premium. The only real iron-clad reason to get one of those is the larger engines, supercharger or the switch to a dohc. Then in 2005, you have a 3 valve engine and the first chassis change since 1979 with the fox body. They are much stronger, comparitively light for all the safety crap and luxury stuff in it. Then came the GT500...550 hp. Sweetness. Mainly I would say this. 1987-1989 for lightness, cheapness, and power. 1994-1995 for looks, power, and relative affordability. 1996 for technology...looks again and still affordable. I wouldnt reccomend another year up until the 2005 which has big power,newer technology and killer looks. Personally I would go for a 1996-98 Cobra. They are still affordable, you can get one for 6-7k, look good, newer engine and nice looks.
Each year has its own high points. The 89's were the last year without airbags. Coincedentally the lightest, they got a little heavier in 90 up to 93. In 94 they got heavier with the newer body style. But they look cooler to most. In 96 they switched to a 4.6 modular engine which is more efficient. In 2000 I think, they got a hp increase to 260, even though the old fox body mustangs are supposedly udner rated and were closer to this number too. In 2003, the mach 1 came out with 300. And at any point and time there were cobras or saleens available for an additional premium. The only real iron-clad reason to get one of those is the larger engines, supercharger or the switch to a dohc. Then in 2005, you have a 3 valve engine and the first chassis change since 1979 with the fox body. They are much stronger, comparitively light for all the safety crap and luxury stuff in it. Then came the GT500...550 hp. Sweetness. Mainly I would say this. 1987-1989 for lightness, cheapness, and power. 1994-1995 for looks, power, and relative affordability. 1996 for technology...looks again and still affordable. I wouldnt reccomend another year up until the 2005 which has big power,newer technology and killer looks. Personally I would go for a 1996-98 Cobra. They are still affordable, you can get one for 6-7k, look good, newer engine and nice looks.
Second:The GT got an increase in horsepower in 99, it was brought to 260hp from the 225 hp of the 98's.
Third: I have never heard of the fox bodies being under-rated 40hp. lol If they had 260 crank horsepower how come they didn't run low 14 high 13 second 1/4's?
Fourth: I haven't heard that the GT500 is under-rated either. If it were making 550 crank hp it should be putting down 450-470 rwhp. I have not seen rwhp #'s like that on any dyno sheets for the GT500's, stockwise.
What exactly would you consider the 03-04 Termie's? lol They have much more power than any stock 05-08 GT and they also have more potential in terms of big power in stock form.
You are right about the light-ness of the fox-bodies. I would get a 96-98 Cobra. You can find good deals on them and they have 300hp and they aren't as heavy as the newer Cobra's either. I am actually thinking about getting a 98 Cobra myself. lol
2nd Gear Member
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 390
RE: best year mustang
ORIGINAL: sweet
what is your guys opinion what year was the mustang made the best as far as performance goes.
what is your guys opinion what year was the mustang made the best as far as performance goes.
For performance? I'd say the brand new ones. 2005+
For overall looks, performance, and just flat-out awesomness.... 1967
4th Gear Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,999
From:
RE: best year mustang
ORIGINAL: indisposible_teens
Third: I have never heard of the fox bodies being under-rated 40hp. lol If they had 260 crank horsepower how come they didn't run low 14 high 13 second 1/4's?
Third: I have never heard of the fox bodies being under-rated 40hp. lol If they had 260 crank horsepower how come they didn't run low 14 high 13 second 1/4's?
The 93 coupe I have now is not dead stock but some external bolts ons net me 13.6@102.
Alum driveshaft, underdrives, long tubes, Flowmasters, elec fan and 3.73's.
I'm way less than 260 at the crank.
An 88LX hatch, which is long gone but it was dead stock. Paper air filter, silencer, 3.08's on a stock size regular radial. 13.9@99
4th Gear Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,581
From: Terre Haute, Indiana
RE: best year mustang
ORIGINAL: Jfsram
Some do. I've had 2 stock foxes run in the 13's.
The 93 coupe I have now is not dead stock but some external bolts ons net me 13.6@102.
Alum driveshaft, underdrives, long tubes, Flowmasters, elec fan and 3.73's.
I'm way less than 260 at the crank.
An 88LX hatch, which is long gone but it was dead stock. Paper air filter, silencer, 3.08's on a stock size regular radial. 13.9@99
ORIGINAL: indisposible_teens
Third: I have never heard of the fox bodies being under-rated 40hp. lol If they had 260 crank horsepower how come they didn't run low 14 high 13 second 1/4's?
Third: I have never heard of the fox bodies being under-rated 40hp. lol If they had 260 crank horsepower how come they didn't run low 14 high 13 second 1/4's?
The 93 coupe I have now is not dead stock but some external bolts ons net me 13.6@102.
Alum driveshaft, underdrives, long tubes, Flowmasters, elec fan and 3.73's.
I'm way less than 260 at the crank.
An 88LX hatch, which is long gone but it was dead stock. Paper air filter, silencer, 3.08's on a stock size regular radial. 13.9@99
Those are someawesome times though. 5.0's respond really well to exhaust mods and the gearing helps them out too.
I can also pull up times about any other car that has some rediculous quarter mile time for its power and weight. They are factory freaks though, you can't go out and buy a stock car and expect to hit the best time that has ever been recorded with it. It just isn't realistic.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Diode Dynamics
Vendor For Sale / Group Buy Classifieds
28
May 26, 2022 12:02 PM
MustangForums Editor
Mustang News, Concepts, Rumors & Discussion
8
Jan 6, 2016 07:03 PM
robjh22
S197 Handling Section
9
Aug 17, 2015 07:35 AM
