recomendation help here

Cataract2 · 04-17-2002, 08:33 AM

ok. i've narrowed it down to 3 year models that i want. i've dropped the 90-92 mustangs due to there being few left and those selling them want an arm and a leg. i now am aiming for the 93-95 models. i like the 94 and 95 body designs and they seem to be roomier than the 93 BUT i also like the 93 design. i was researching the models and i don't know if this is true or not but i read that ford changed the HP rating systems for the 94, 95. so.... does the 93 have MORE HP thand the 94 and 95 or less.

also. what would you all recommend the better year model between those 3 is? please help. i'm torn here.

Mr 5 0 · 04-17-2002, 09:06 AM

The HP rating was dropped to 205 on the '93 Mustang due to various minor changes Ford had made to the 5.0 over the years but never got around to adjusting the HP. No substantial difference in engine configuration and only a slight loss in performance.

The 'SN95' (94-95) Mustang is a good advancement in design. The engine and suspension is very similar to the earlier 'Fox' models but the handling and braking was improved, as were the interior and overall design. Lots of these around too, compared to the earlier models.

Personally, I would go for a '93 or earlier Mustang because I like the body style (more muscular, in my opinion) and they're quicker) but a '94 - '95 is basically the same car underneath the new skin, although it's a bit heavier, a bit slower in bone-stock form.

No big loss if you buy a '94-'95 Mustang and you still get the fabulous 5.0 engine.

Crazy Horse GT · 04-17-2002, 11:34 AM

my bad memory, mr 5.0 was it 92 or 93 that had those crappy piston's?

89 Cobra LX · 04-17-2002, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by crazy horse gt
my bad memory, mr 5.0 was it 92 or 93 that had those crappy piston's?

The 93s and newer have hyperectic (spelling?) pistons, not crappy pistons. 87-92 had forged pistons. Hyperectic are not the best thing for all out performance (lots of boost or lots of n2o), but are just fine for street cars. They are quieter and supposedly run better at initial start-up. I believe your 2000 GT has hyperectic pistons.

tireburner163 · 04-17-2002, 12:56 PM

93's had the crappiest computers of all fox bodies, but 94/95's were even worse. The 93's up stangs have hyperurtetic or, as I like to call them, hyperpathtic. But then again I worship Bubba, god of nitrous. For N/A combo's and ones seeing limited boost or spray they are perfectly reliable.

The SN95 stangs handle better, ride better, have better brakes, and better "fit and finish." The drivetrains are about the same, except SN95's have rear disk brakes, slighty different trannys, and crappier computers. For a general dailey driver the SN95 is better IMO, BUT for speed it's the Fox all the way.

silver_pilate · 04-17-2002, 03:35 PM

I've always loved the Fox. I'm sure if you look you could find plenty of pre-93 Fox's at a reasonable price.

I was NOT a fan of the SN95's when they first came out, and they still take a while to grow on me, but if they're done right, they can look pretty good. I just don't like the fact of the lowered horsepower with increased weight.

If it were me, it would be Fox all the way. No and's, if's, or but's about it.

As far as the hypereutectic pistons: that's still open for debate. There are guys running modular motors with hyper's pushing insane amounts of boost and running insane track times.

It's true that hypereutectics are weaker than forged pistons and don't hold up to detonation well, but they also have decreased thermal expansion and thus can be run to tighter clearances. Also, most major engine failures involved with hypereutectic pistons would have caused similar damage even if the motor was equiped with forged pistons.

I'm running Keith Black pistons right now, and I have no problems. However, according to the ring-gapping charts provided by the manufacturer, I would likely need to increase my ring gap to safely run nitrous.

Maybe I'll try a little 75 shot with conservative tuning and see what happens....

--nathan

Mstngscoob · 04-22-2002, 10:14 AM

in agreement w/ mr 50 the 93ish stang looks meaner. most ricers and idiot musclars will think that the car is slow because it is old. but once you are bitten by the power bug you can modify just about anything to go fast but especially those 5.0s. either way you can get a lot of hp and tq out of those engines for relativly cheap.

lx mike · 04-22-2002, 11:01 AM

Quote:

93's had the crappiest computers of all fox bodies

My 93 Lx has the A9L computer. car only had the 3.73's, flowmasters and the k&n filter when i bought it.

04-17-2002, 08:33 AM	#1
Cataract2 Registered Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Fl Posts: 28	recomendation help here ok. i've narrowed it down to 3 year models that i want. i've dropped the 90-92 mustangs due to there being few left and those selling them want an arm and a leg. i now am aiming for the 93-95 models. i like the 94 and 95 body designs and they seem to be roomier than the 93 BUT i also like the 93 design. i was researching the models and i don't know if this is true or not but i read that ford changed the HP rating systems for the 94, 95. so.... does the 93 have MORE HP thand the 94 and 95 or less. also. what would you all recommend the better year model between those 3 is? please help. i'm torn here.

04-17-2002, 09:06 AM	#2
Mr 5 0 Conservative Individualist Join Date: May 1997 Location: Wherever I need to be Posts: 7,487	Mustang quandry The HP rating was dropped to 205 on the '93 Mustang due to various minor changes Ford had made to the 5.0 over the years but never got around to adjusting the HP. No substantial difference in engine configuration and only a slight loss in performance. The 'SN95' (94-95) Mustang is a good advancement in design. The engine and suspension is very similar to the earlier 'Fox' models but the handling and braking was improved, as were the interior and overall design. Lots of these around too, compared to the earlier models. Personally, I would go for a '93 or earlier Mustang because I like the body style (more muscular, in my opinion) and they're quicker) but a '94 - '95 is basically the same car underneath the new skin, although it's a bit heavier, a bit slower in bone-stock form. No big loss if you buy a '94-'95 Mustang and you still get the fabulous 5.0 engine.

04-17-2002, 11:34 AM	#3
Crazy Horse GT Registered Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Sale Creek, TN. C. S. A. Posts: 4,652	my bad memory, mr 5.0 was it 92 or 93 that had those crappy piston's? __________________ 95 gt vert, lot's of stuff, it aint slow. 04 sonic blue v - six my beater 89 rs camaro iroc turbo hood, other stuff, my wifes ride 84 lx stang cammed up 289 hi po, etc 65 falcon, maybe by the year 2020. black 00gt, gone but never forgotten. R H C- member # 1 o.b.c. da prez- member # 1 if your under 40 dont ask. goodbye for now odie,r.i.p. 11-27-03

04-17-2002, 12:56 PM	#5
tireburner163 It's a lot like a race car Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Meridian, MS Posts: 4,130	93's had the crappiest computers of all fox bodies, but 94/95's were even worse. The 93's up stangs have hyperurtetic or, as I like to call them, hyperpathtic. But then again I worship Bubba, god of nitrous. For N/A combo's and ones seeing limited boost or spray they are perfectly reliable. The SN95 stangs handle better, ride better, have better brakes, and better "fit and finish." The drivetrains are about the same, except SN95's have rear disk brakes, slighty different trannys, and crappier computers. For a general dailey driver the SN95 is better IMO, BUT for speed it's the Fox all the way. __________________ 1987 Buick T-type 1998 HD Electra Elide

04-17-2002, 03:35 PM	#6
silver_pilate DURKA DURKA!! Join Date: Sep 1997 Location: Lubbock, TX...(TX panhandle) Posts: 1,418	I've always loved the Fox. I'm sure if you look you could find plenty of pre-93 Fox's at a reasonable price. I was NOT a fan of the SN95's when they first came out, and they still take a while to grow on me, but if they're done right, they can look pretty good. I just don't like the fact of the lowered horsepower with increased weight. If it were me, it would be Fox all the way. No and's, if's, or but's about it. As far as the hypereutectic pistons: that's still open for debate. There are guys running modular motors with hyper's pushing insane amounts of boost and running insane track times. It's true that hypereutectics are weaker than forged pistons and don't hold up to detonation well, but they also have decreased thermal expansion and thus can be run to tighter clearances. Also, most major engine failures involved with hypereutectic pistons would have caused similar damage even if the motor was equiped with forged pistons. I'm running Keith Black pistons right now, and I have no problems. However, according to the ring-gapping charts provided by the manufacturer, I would likely need to increase my ring gap to safely run nitrous. Maybe I'll try a little 75 shot with conservative tuning and see what happens.... --nathan __________________ '91 GT, Coast 347, 9.5:1 compression, full intake, Wolverine 1087 cam, exhaust, Keith Craft ported Windsor Jr. Irons (235 cfm intake, 195 cfm exhaust), AOD, PI 3500 converter, Lentech valve body, 3.73's (4.10's in the works), and Yokohama ES100's out back. Daily Car: '04 Infiniti G35 Sedan 6MT Last edited by silver_pilate; 04-17-2002 at 03:42 PM..

04-22-2002, 10:14 AM	#7
Mstngscoob Registered Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Fayetteville NC Posts: 24	in agreement w/ mr 50 the 93ish stang looks meaner. most ricers and idiot musclars will think that the car is slow because it is old. but once you are bitten by the power bug you can modify just about anything to go fast but especially those 5.0s. either way you can get a lot of hp and tq out of those engines for relativly cheap. __________________ 2000 gt high pref red, 2 chamber flows, mac off-road H, 4.10 gears, home made ram air(thnks Tim), steeda tri-ax, 2001 suzuki gsxr-600 yoshi pipe, tint screen, helmet, flsh mnts. 4-sale

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Blower recomendation	xxxBlakexxx	Power Adders	8	04-06-2004 11:37 PM
Need Autoshop Recomendation, NE Ohio	XTheOwl	Modular Madness	3	06-16-2003 06:33 AM