General Tech Ask model specific questions in the appropriate category below. All other general questions within.

wahoo

Old Jul 31, 2005 | 11:23 AM
  #1  
captcaveman69's Avatar
captcaveman69
Thread Starter
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 4
From:
Default wahoo


I don't have a stang yet but i will.I need some help picking a year.I like the 94 or 95 becouse i like the body styles and i like the fact of the 5.0.I have ?'s before i buy.I am a ford man and always will be.I own a eddie baur explorer 2000 with the 5.0.
Is the 5.0 better than the 4.6.I hear that the 4.6 is a bad idea becouse of limeted mods.Please help me decide.My bro has the fox body stang.I forgot the year of his.I know what ever i get iwant it to beet his on the track and the street.He has a dyno test of 425 rwhp and 405 fpt.I need to beet him with the stang i get.I have time to decide and want the best info for my decision.Please help.
Old Jul 31, 2005 | 06:13 PM
  #2  
v8stang05's Avatar
v8stang05
4th Gear Member
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,153
From: Detroit, Michigan
Default RE: wahoo

welcome to the forums, 5.0 isn't necesarely better but they are both good engines, theres a lot of mods that can be done to the 4.6's.
Old Jul 31, 2005 | 10:43 PM
  #3  
sandcracker21's Avatar
sandcracker21
4th Gear Member
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,957
From:
Default RE: wahoo

personaly, i dont like the look of the fox body stang, but its ur car so have fun wiht it!

the 5.0 engine isnt used anymore for a reason though, and you havta take that into consideration


there are definatly more (cheaper) mods for the fox body stang then the 4.6, but the

4.6 has its fair share of an aftermarket, so dont be shy on that regard


wut ever you choose, im sure you will b happy and good luck!
Old Jul 31, 2005 | 10:52 PM
  #4  
Guest
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default RE: wahoo

^^ The 94 isn't a foxbody, 93 was the last year of the foxes. The 94 and 95 GT's have the same look as a 1998 stang, but witha 5.0

From a professional standpoint (i work on cars) The 5.0 is a much stronger engine than the 4.6. The 4.6 isn't bad, I'm just comparing. They're more durable, and can hold a ****load of power. Not to mention all the mods that are offered. I say get a 94-95...you get the 5.0 and the nicer body style. It's a win win situation.
Old Aug 6, 2005 | 12:24 PM
  #5  
captcaveman69's Avatar
captcaveman69
Thread Starter
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 4
From:
Default RE: wahoo

I cant' find one with decent miles.What would you guys consider decent milage.Also why don't i see to many post concerning the 94 and 95 stang.Not too many people are hooking them up>why not.
Old Aug 6, 2005 | 12:36 PM
  #6  
JD1969's Avatar
JD1969
Pro. B.S. caller outer
 
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 9,644
From: IL
Default RE: wahoo

There are not that many 94/95 cars around, only being made for two years. For a 10 year old car anything under 1000k miles is great but hard to find. I have a 94 Gt 5 speed with 94000 miles that I will sell for $6000, It's all stock and in very good shape.
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
AZAlloy
5.0L V8 Technical Discussions
25
Feb 21, 2013 12:52 AM
Shag
5.0L General Discussion
26
Jan 31, 2011 08:07 AM
Shag
Classic Mustangs (Tech)
26
Jan 26, 2011 07:34 PM
Jrodmaster
GT S197 General Discussion
28
May 16, 2005 08:04 PM


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:37 PM.