I am looking at a couple different cars, let me know your opinion and any pros and cons of each.

1. 1994 MUSTANG GT CONVERTIBLE, 5.0 ENGINE,5 SPEED TRANSMISSION,NEW TOP, TIRES, BATTERY AND RADIATOR. RUNS VERY GOOD, SMOOTH, NO LEAKS, HIGH MILEAGE,AC INOP, NO AIR BAGS.

2.1996 Mustang GT, 2nd owner, Pioneer CD, 4.6 V8 5-speed, Cold AC, 24mpg 151k miles

 

IMO if they both have high miles, go with the 5.0. Ask if he has replaced the clutch lately, resurfaced the flywheel, TO bearing etc. Also ask if anything else has been replaced, altenator, water pump, etc. If so ask if he has the reciepts. 5.0's will last a while if they have been taken care of and regular maintenance performed. If the airbags were removed was the car in an accident? you can always CARFAX. 4.6 is a good motor too, but on the same token 1996 was the first year it was offered in the mustang. general rule is first year models, motors, convertables etc. sometimes didnt have all the quarks worked out. My mom had 2 thunderbirds with the 4.6 motors in them i believe they were 97, and 98. both ran good, but both also had the intakes crack on them. The 4.6 intake is a composite plastic and a real B**ch to replace, not metal like the 5.0. ive heard they tend to be a problem with age. All and all its up to you, but i like the 5.0's better.

 

Ive worked on both motors so if you want PM with any more questions.

 

imo go with the vert, that's always fun when the weather is right

 

You'd better check with your insurance company, and state regulations. That could invalidate a insurance claim if you wrecked, and in some cases it could be an inspection issue.

 

I thought every 94 and newer Mustang came standard with dual front air bags.

 

i'll get the pushrod, post some pictures also.

nothing like a little eye candy.

 

Go for choice number 2. The 4.6L is one of the best engines Ford has ever built.

Choice number 1 is probably one of the slowest Mustangs ever built.

5L's are excellent engines for Foxes since the pre 93's are so light. In stock form they are weak and the heavier 94's prove it.

 

Thanks for all the input. In the end I found a guy with an all original 92 GT 5speed with only 102k mi. Runs like a top, passes emissions, just needs some cosmetic TLC. Thanks again.