90, 91, 92, 93 Mustang GT?

Fox Body · 02-05-2003, 10:05 PM

I am planning on buying a Mustang GT and I need any advice on these years concerning any advantages of one year over the other? Basically, which year is better than the other and why? I am not looking for super power. I just need a decently powered Mustang GT for a daily driver that will last a long time. I am looking to spend at the most $4500 (think that'd be too little or just right?) Let me know what you think.

Thanks.

DemonGT · 02-05-2003, 10:10 PM

mmm 90,91,92 were the same engine wise ...but the 93's had hypo pistons which arnt as good as the forged pistons in the other years...and the 91,92,93 years had the five spoke pony wheels and the 90 had the turbines

HiFlow5 0 · 02-06-2003, 06:24 AM

I personaly like 89's myself. But here's a site with info by year so you can decide what best suits you! Mustang GT registry

VeNuM · 02-06-2003, 12:06 PM

I like the 89's as well. First year for Mass air, no airbags, in 1990 they started putting them in. 140 speedo, another first for the year. I love mine! ~Brian

Ackbar00 · 02-06-2003, 12:49 PM

It breaks down like this

87-88 are Speed Density, Tilt Steering, Turbine Wheels
89 is Mass air, Tilt Streering, Turbine Wheels
90 is Mass AIr, AIR BAG Does not tilt, Turbine Wheels
91-92 is Mass Air, Air Bag does not tilt, Pony Rims
93 is Mass Air, Air Bag does not tilt, pony rims. Also has Hypo Pistons.

For a daily driver, Hypo pistons are not a big deal. Mine has them and the car has just shy of 100K and runs 109 MPH in the 1/4, and make 300 RWHP. Just remember about the about the steering and get the one that you will be comfortable with.

lx5091 · 02-06-2003, 03:15 PM

my personal opinion is 90-92, that's not bias or anything!!!

Stang_Crazy · 02-06-2003, 04:22 PM

I had a 91 before I bought my 89 and I like the tilt wheel and no air bags in the 89. [B]However[/B, if I were buying a daily driver, I think air bags would be VERY important in my decision. Good luck on finding what year you want!

Kamaro Killer · 02-06-2003, 04:33 PM

with hypo pistons, and a 6lb s/c and no problems. I have 101,000 on my car and I got it with 97,000 on it. So far, the hypo pistons havn't been a big deal. There's some good info on that site.

Fox Body · 02-06-2003, 06:41 PM

Hey, thanks a bunch guys. I guess that narrows it down to '91-92 for me. I don't mind the '93 except I don't think I'd be able to get one for under $5000 and didn't they lower the hp from 225 to 215 from '92 to '93?

LayanRubr · 02-06-2003, 06:56 PM

I use to be concerned about it too when my buddy was looking for a GT, but it seems most 5.0's out there are not near stock form. He was looking for a 87 for the extra hp rating it had but in the end those power adders werent even on the ones we looked at. Considering how much they had been tampered with. But it was a good thing you could say, with new mass air ect. But I'm sure my opinion on many 5.0's being modded is differed from region to region. hope this helps! Just dont get too set on a year from my expierence.

Old Guy with 87 GT · 02-07-2003, 07:02 AM

surprized nobody mentioned this ,....if your looking into getter a manual trans car then go with 90-92...........they started using the world class t-5 in late 89 and up models ......better transmision in them definatly

i would still steer clear of the hyperutectic pistons ......i haven't ever heard of anybody experiencing any catistrofic failures from modifieing the hyper moters ,but i have heard of the hyper moters not holding there ring seat and bore quality as well ,or as long as the forged ones........... i also have never seen any of the hyper-5.0s last for 200,000 miles like the forged piston moters do
.............if your planning on using any nitrouse then the hyperutectic pistons aren't supossed to hold up to spray as well either

i'm not trying to flame the hyperutictic guys, just stating what i was lead to believe ,no disrespect meant

Kamaro Killer · 02-07-2003, 12:43 PM

to tell you the truth, before reading this post, I was unaware that I had hypo pistons. It makes me think a little harder about getting a built shortblock really soon.

Nixon1 · 02-07-2003, 02:02 PM

I didn't know mine has factory forged pistons!! Hmm..in another year, nitrous ahoy!

Fox Body · 02-07-2003, 04:54 PM

Ha, I knew you guys were gonna start getting into performance mods....

...but I already have a project car so I need a good daily driver. I won't be putting in lower gears, or anything that'll subtract from gas mileage. BTW, I want an auto not a manual. The GT has tons of space b/c of the hatch, a decent amount of power, looks great, and I can work on it myself with no major problems cause it's a stang. Thanks again for all the info, I appreciate it.

chatcher · 02-07-2003, 11:09 PM

92

jmo

Ackbar00 · 02-08-2003, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fox Body
didn't they lower the hp from 225 to 215 from '92 to '93?

The advertised HP was lowered, Just the way FORD decided to measure HP. It is the same as the other engines.

Mach 1 · 02-08-2003, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Old Guy with 87 GT
but i have heard of the hyper moters not holding there ring seat and bore quality as well ,or as long as the forged ones...........

In my experience, exactly the opposite is true, and in theory it should be exactly the opposite.

My forge pistoned 5.0 starting burning oil after around 105K, and my hyper pistoned 5.0 never used a drop extra.

The hyper have tighter tolerances, so they should hold thier ring seat longer. The hyper pistons dont expand as much as forged pistons when hot, so they can be made to run tighter clearances.

FireFinder20 · 02-08-2003, 10:10 PM

For the T-5 guys, the 92 was the first year wth a synchronizer for reverse. Any Fox body guy before that knows about putting the car in a forgear before backing up...what a pain!

GhettoPop · 02-08-2003, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by FireFinder20
For the T-5 guys, the 92 was the first year wth a synchronizer for reverse. Any Fox body guy before that knows about putting the car in a forgear before backing up...what a pain!

Tell me about it! Pain is the @ss in my 90 GT, getting into 1st is a lil tricky sometimes too, how expensive to fix?

Old Guy with 87 GT · 02-08-2003, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mach 1
In my experience, exactly the opposite is true, and in theory it should be exactly the opposite.

My forge pistoned 5.0 starting burning oil after around 105K, and my hyper pistoned 5.0 never used a drop extra.

The hyper have tighter tolerances, so they should hold thier ring seat longer. The hyper pistons dont expand as much as forged pistons when hot, so they can be made to run tighter clearances.

you may be intirely correct ,i'm by far not an expert , i based my opinion on heresay and what i've been told from engine guru's

from what i was lead to believe ,the forged moters will start burning oil earlier ,looser claerances ....more dependant on the rings ,but the rings stay seated longer cause the bore quality lasts longer
the hyper motors won't hold there bore quality as well ,the tighter clearances wear the bores shape and hone faster causing the rings to loose there seating eventually

i could be wrong ,i don't have a massive amount of experence with both moters .......,maybe some body else with more experience running both moters can chime in and correct me if i'm wrong

02-05-2003, 10:05 PM	#1
Fox Body Mustang Maniac Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: GA, U.S.A Posts: 2,266	90, 91, 92, 93 Mustang GT? I am planning on buying a Mustang GT and I need any advice on these years concerning any advantages of one year over the other? Basically, which year is better than the other and why? I am not looking for super power. I just need a decently powered Mustang GT for a daily driver that will last a long time. I am looking to spend at the most $4500 (think that'd be too little or just right?) Let me know what you think. Thanks. __________________ 351W-powered 1979 Ford Mustang Ghia notchback '79 Video @ Idle Stock 5.8L under 4" cowl 'glass hood, C4 w/ Transgo shift kit, Holley 750 cfm, Edelbrock Performer RPM intake; Fluidyne Al radiator, Flexalite 175 electric fan, 1 5/8" MAC shorty headers, FRPP Al driveshaft; S&W 6-point cage; 2.5" Off road H-pipe, 2-chamber Flowmasters, 8.8" Rear w/ 3.55s; Weld wheels (15x6;15x8), Front: 225/60/15, Rear: 275/50/15 Nitto NT 555R Drag Radials; 14 x 4” K&N X-stream air filter. '92 GT (5-speed) Small In Car Video Stock 5.0L, 2-chamber Flowmasters, MAC CAI, Tri-Ax, Al pedals... "Red, thou art my companion. Hasten now your quickened metamorphosis to Green that I may conquer all who dare abide there beside me. May they be left thither behind burnt black." ---Fox Body

02-05-2003, 10:10 PM	#2
DemonGT Registered Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Wisconsin Posts: 879	mmm 90,91,92 were the same engine wise ...but the 93's had hypo pistons which arnt as good as the forged pistons in the other years...and the 91,92,93 years had the five spoke pony wheels and the 90 had the turbines __________________ '91 GT,410W,10.5 to 1 comp,Victor Jr. heads,Victor 5.8 intake,FTI cam,Crane retro fit lifters,Scorpian 1.6 RR's,Melling HV oil pump,MSD distro.,Canton oil pan,FMS flywheel,Romac balancer,FMS timing chain,Accufab 90mm TB,C&L 76mm maf, 42lbers,HD clutch,K&N air filter,Mac long tubes,Pro dumps,powerchamber,FMS 9mm wires,180 thermostat,Ford Racing gauges,5inch Tach,centerline convo pro's,nitto DR's,Pro3i lower control arms,50/50 shocks,3.55 gears,TFS HD diff. cover Next year: Tremec TKO,Spec stage 3 clutch,alum driveshaft,complete fuel system www.angelfire.com/linux/demondan

02-06-2003, 06:24 AM	#3
HiFlow5 0 Registered Member Join Date: Mar 2000 Location: Springfield, Ma, usa Posts: 706	I personaly like 89's myself. But here's a site with info by year so you can decide what best suits you! Mustang GT registry __________________ NewEngland Auto www.baystategearheads.com -91 Mustang Coupe, ex 4cyl (sold) -99 F150, 3" lift, 35" Procomps, Magnaflow exhaust

02-06-2003, 12:06 PM	#4
VeNuM Registered Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Downers Grove, IL Posts: 464	I like the 89's as well. First year for Mass air, no airbags, in 1990 they started putting them in. 140 speedo, another first for the year. I love mine! ~Brian __________________ 1989 Black Mustang GT Hatchback, Underdrive Pulles, Electric Fan, Cold Air Intake, Headers, Offroad H-Pipe, Magnaflow catback, Steeda Tri-Ax, Fluidyne Aluminum Radiator, Timing at 14*, 3.73's Coming not so soon: 408w Ricer Hater's Club Member #59

02-06-2003, 12:49 PM	#5
Ackbar00 Rebel Fleet Commander Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Huber Heights, OH Posts: 1,003	It breaks down like this 87-88 are Speed Density, Tilt Steering, Turbine Wheels 89 is Mass air, Tilt Streering, Turbine Wheels 90 is Mass AIr, AIR BAG Does not tilt, Turbine Wheels 91-92 is Mass Air, Air Bag does not tilt, Pony Rims 93 is Mass Air, Air Bag does not tilt, pony rims. Also has Hypo Pistons. For a daily driver, Hypo pistons are not a big deal. Mine has them and the car has just shy of 100K and runs 109 MPH in the 1/4, and make 300 RWHP. Just remember about the about the steering and get the one that you will be comfortable with. __________________ 1993 Mustang GT, PTK w/ T-64 - My Cardomain Webpage 11.25@123.5 on only 8 psi. 10.84@121 on only 1 headgasket "The Truth is, Your the Weak, and I am the Tyranny of Evil Men!"

02-06-2003, 03:15 PM	#6
lx5091 Registered Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Fall River, MA Posts: 467	my personal opinion is 90-92, that's not bias or anything!!! __________________ '02 Explorer XLT 4.0L --Nice Vehicle '97 Saturn SL1--Soon to be ditched for a Ford!

02-06-2003, 04:22 PM	#7
Stang_Crazy It's never clean enough! Join Date: Jan 1999 Location: Shaler, PA Posts: 1,542	I had a 91 before I bought my 89 and I like the tilt wheel and no air bags in the 89. [B]However[/B, if I were buying a daily driver, I think air bags would be VERY important in my decision. Good luck on finding what year you want! __________________ ~Dan 2001 SVT Lightning 89' GT : Taking up garage space and waiting for a buyer... Rice Hater's Club - Member #11

02-06-2003, 04:33 PM	#8
Kamaro Killer Mustang Enthusiast Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 528	I have a 93 with hypo pistons, and a 6lb s/c and no problems. I have 101,000 on my car and I got it with 97,000 on it. So far, the hypo pistons havn't been a big deal. There's some good info on that site. __________________ 1993 GT 5.0-My Stang Rice Hater's Club Member 22

02-06-2003, 06:41 PM	#9
Fox Body Mustang Maniac Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: GA, U.S.A Posts: 2,266	Useful info Hey, thanks a bunch guys. I guess that narrows it down to '91-92 for me. I don't mind the '93 except I don't think I'd be able to get one for under $5000 and didn't they lower the hp from 225 to 215 from '92 to '93? __________________ 351W-powered 1979 Ford Mustang Ghia notchback '79 Video @ Idle Stock 5.8L under 4" cowl 'glass hood, C4 w/ Transgo shift kit, Holley 750 cfm, Edelbrock Performer RPM intake; Fluidyne Al radiator, Flexalite 175 electric fan, 1 5/8" MAC shorty headers, FRPP Al driveshaft; S&W 6-point cage; 2.5" Off road H-pipe, 2-chamber Flowmasters, 8.8" Rear w/ 3.55s; Weld wheels (15x6;15x8), Front: 225/60/15, Rear: 275/50/15 Nitto NT 555R Drag Radials; 14 x 4” K&N X-stream air filter. '92 GT (5-speed) Small In Car Video Stock 5.0L, 2-chamber Flowmasters, MAC CAI, Tri-Ax, Al pedals... "Red, thou art my companion. Hasten now your quickened metamorphosis to Green that I may conquer all who dare abide there beside me. May they be left thither behind burnt black." ---Fox Body

02-06-2003, 06:56 PM	#10
LayanRubr Registered Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Aggieland, Texas Posts: 297	I use to be concerned about it too when my buddy was looking for a GT, but it seems most 5.0's out there are not near stock form. He was looking for a 87 for the extra hp rating it had but in the end those power adders werent even on the ones we looked at. Considering how much they had been tampered with. But it was a good thing you could say, with new mass air ect. But I'm sure my opinion on many 5.0's being modded is differed from region to region. hope this helps! Just dont get too set on a year from my expierence. __________________ 87 Mustang 5.0 (308) Notchback - The Blue Baron Rice Hater's Club member #20

02-07-2003, 07:02 AM	#11
Old Guy with 87 GT Registered Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Posts: 379	surprized nobody mentioned this ,....if your looking into getter a manual trans car then go with 90-92...........they started using the world class t-5 in late 89 and up models ......better transmision in them definatly i would still steer clear of the hyperutectic pistons ......i haven't ever heard of anybody experiencing any catistrofic failures from modifieing the hyper moters ,but i have heard of the hyper moters not holding there ring seat and bore quality as well ,or as long as the forged ones........... i also have never seen any of the hyper-5.0s last for 200,000 miles like the forged piston moters do .............if your planning on using any nitrouse then the hyperutectic pistons aren't supossed to hold up to spray as well either i'm not trying to flame the hyperutictic guys, just stating what i was lead to believe ,no disrespect meant __________________ the "not so old",old guy 87 Mustang GT T-top >hanlon t-5, pro 5.0, centerforce clutch ,adj. cable/quatrant ,3.27s ,full 2 1/2 ex(off road H) adj. reg. ,e-cam ,70mm TB, cobra intake ,1.7rr ,ported/milled e7ets w/crane springs ,306 balaced/decked short block w/speed pro forged flat top pistons ...257rwhp/302rwt best et 13.7@102 (4/11 ) '80 Capri (future project,currently collecting parts for 351 moter)

02-07-2003, 12:43 PM	#12
Kamaro Killer Mustang Enthusiast Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 528	none taken to tell you the truth, before reading this post, I was unaware that I had hypo pistons. It makes me think a little harder about getting a built shortblock really soon. __________________ 1993 GT 5.0-My Stang Rice Hater's Club Member 22

02-07-2003, 02:02 PM	#13
Nixon1 Registered Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Palm Bay, FL Posts: 432	I didn't know mine has factory forged pistons!! Hmm..in another year, nitrous ahoy! __________________ '91 Mustang GT 5.0 AOD Daily Driver Current stats: NEW 302 short block, E-303 cam (@.050, 220/220, .498/.498, 110 degrees), 1.6 roller rockers, Performer RPM heads (aluminum, 1.9/1.6, 60cc chambers), Cobra intake, Granatelli 75mm MAF, Billet AFPR, Equal-Length Shorty Headers, Off-Road X Pipe, Flowmasters, 4.10 POSI 13.73 at 103.8, ~2.2 60'

02-07-2003, 04:54 PM	#14
Fox Body Mustang Maniac Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: GA, U.S.A Posts: 2,266	Ha, I knew you guys were gonna start getting into performance mods.... ...but I already have a project car so I need a good daily driver. I won't be putting in lower gears, or anything that'll subtract from gas mileage. BTW, I want an auto not a manual. The GT has tons of space b/c of the hatch, a decent amount of power, looks great, and I can work on it myself with no major problems cause it's a stang. Thanks again for all the info, I appreciate it. __________________ 351W-powered 1979 Ford Mustang Ghia notchback '79 Video @ Idle Stock 5.8L under 4" cowl 'glass hood, C4 w/ Transgo shift kit, Holley 750 cfm, Edelbrock Performer RPM intake; Fluidyne Al radiator, Flexalite 175 electric fan, 1 5/8" MAC shorty headers, FRPP Al driveshaft; S&W 6-point cage; 2.5" Off road H-pipe, 2-chamber Flowmasters, 8.8" Rear w/ 3.55s; Weld wheels (15x6;15x8), Front: 225/60/15, Rear: 275/50/15 Nitto NT 555R Drag Radials; 14 x 4” K&N X-stream air filter. '92 GT (5-speed) Small In Car Video Stock 5.0L, 2-chamber Flowmasters, MAC CAI, Tri-Ax, Al pedals... "Red, thou art my companion. Hasten now your quickened metamorphosis to Green that I may conquer all who dare abide there beside me. May they be left thither behind burnt black." ---Fox Body

02-07-2003, 11:09 PM	#15
chatcher Registered Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: butler pa Posts: 303	92 jmo __________________ 92lx wannabe saleen

02-08-2003, 10:10 PM	#18
FireFinder20 I See Stupid People Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: New Jersey Posts: 47	And... For the T-5 guys, the 92 was the first year wth a synchronizer for reverse. Any Fox body guy before that knows about putting the car in a forgear before backing up...what a pain! __________________ 92 Lincoln Mark VII LSC Mods: 65mm Edelbrock TB and a conical K&N Visit Central Jersey Mustangs & Fords

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
New Opinion of 05 Mustang GT	gilmoujr	Modular Madness	11	06-05-2005 07:23 AM
Fastest Stock Motored 87-93 GT Mustang You've Seen	Mustang_GT_90	Windsor Power	18	07-07-2003 03:38 PM
my 1996 mustang gt	bignsexyasever	Modular Madness	14	04-02-2003 03:49 PM
1988 Mustang GT for sale	88fivepointoh	Windsor Power	0	08-05-2002 08:33 PM