Guys can help me out ;) :P I know your all smart ones.
 

Hello I wanna start of by saying I'm looking into the stangs, well I have been. MY parents own a '67 stang coupe w/ a 289. We will be tearing out the engine and getting it repainted sometime. Doing the body work and all that.

As for me I will be driving in about a year and I'm starting early looking into a car and getting a few mods done.

Here is what I need help with.

1. Gt or Lx - I have heard and done some research that lx is lighter, but just checking what you guys think.

2. Year. I have been told to choose after '89 but dont get a '93 becuz their a crappy year. So I'm looking '89-'92.

3. Would you recommend con. or no. I know it is heavier but just asking ;). A legit question.

4. How safe should I be w/ mileage? I have talked to people and they tell me to stay below 125,000.

5. Tell me anything else ;)

So in conclusion i'm looking into:

'89-'92 Mustang Lx 5.0 5sp. or auto (prefer 5sp.) no convert w/ under 125,000.

Thnx for your help guys. :D I know your all smart. (well most of you ;P)

- Atari

under 125k is hard to find, nothing wrong with 93's they have hyperneumatic pistons, not as strong as forged 87-92 pistons but good enough for n/a, and yes lx fox bodies are lighter, the notchbacks like mine (trunk cars) are the lightest, but not by much, imo i think lx's rule because they are simple, i didnt want all the ground effects, but thats just me, others would have it no other way, good luck.

oh and 87-88 cars were speed density, 89-present have mass air.

Yes I heard the 87-88 were speed density but didn't react as well as the mass air did w/ mods.

Yeah I'm pretty sure their hard to find but it would be better to find one under 125,000 this way it hasnt been beat on "too much" ;)

A 93 mustang has the same motor as other years just the pistons are different. First figure out GT, LX or notch back. Dont just try to find one with low miles go with the stang that looks best to you. You'll be much happier with your stang in the long run. Good luck on your car quest.

I definantly want an Lx thats no doubt.

I want it between
'89-'92

I'm just finding what you guys think about the subject.

Sounds like there isn't much to add. You already made a choice based on your research. Your selection of years is fine, and I don't think you'll receive any arguments, except for under 125k miles is hard to find. You may already know that the 91's and later came with 16" Pony wheels and airbags. There are also subtle differences in suspension geometry in the years you quoted, and there are also small differences in the trannies. Either way it's hard to go wrong.

Hey Atari, those are good and intelligent questions you posed. And yes, you already pretty much narrowed it down for yourself. I will just add my little advice to you.

What kind of Mustang you buy will, to a degree, depend on what you plan on doing with it. GTs are better at high speeds b/c of ground affects and hatchback (more aerodynamic) but are heavier than the LXs. However, most guys I know are more into 1/4 mile setups than high speed setups.

IMO, the best combo in a Mustang for 1/4 mile acceleration for me is:
---AOD or 5 speed manual (depending on what you want--either one will cost you if you want them built up),
---hardtop (less weight, stiffer body, less chance of someone cutting the top and stealing your stuff),
---LX coupe (not hatchback) (less weight),
---'79-'93 (b/c I'd build it the way I wanted and it wouldn't really matter what engine it had).

It seems though that you're gonna get your first car and need something reliable-- something, though that you can still build later without putting too much money into. Therefore, I would suggest you get an '88-'92 Mustang LX coupe (with AOD or T5 tranny). I wouldn't really worry too much about getting one with really low miles. When you go to buy it can make a difference who you buy it from (some young punk who looks like he abused the car or someone who looks like they took care of the car. B/c it may only have 80,000 miles on it, but at the same time, it could be beat down to trash). If you can get one with less than 160,000, than that may be okay. But hey, if you can get one with less than 100,000 miles, in great shape, and $4000, go for it!

There are many other considerations but this pretty much answers the questions you asked. Hope it helps a little.

why are u excluding the 93's? You have a problem with the pistons? This would open up your serach for more possible clean cars.

Hey Fox B - not a flame at all, but just curious...what info indicates the GTs were more aerodynamic than the LXs? The hatches are more aerodynamic than the trunks, but other than that I understood the GT body additions were designed with a focus on appearances as opposed to aerodynamics. E.g., the GT wing generates some lift instead of downforce, the LX wing does relatively nothing, and the SVO wing provides some downforce as do the Saleen wings. Again, just curious.

oh and when the airbags came in, the tilt steering went out, but im used to mine, fits nice enough.

What do you truely know about the speed density cars? The fact that a stock engined SD car can run 12's? They are around. The speed density cars are a couple tenths quicker in stock form than the MAF cars, and they have more aggressive computers. They can also take heads, mild cams, intakes, and other mods with the addition of an adjustable fuel pressure regulator? In other words, it's possible to get mid 12's N/A out of the Speed Density cars without too much difficulty. So don't let ease of modification get involved into the decision. Upgrading to MAF is a relatively inexpensive modification when you finally need to do it.

As far as the 89-92, I would personally look for a 91-92. With the upgraded wheels it will be easier to get better tires, and the additional space in the fenderwells for the front wheels makes fitting larger tires less likely to rub. Also the 1990+ 5.0's got stronger T-5 manuals 300ft/lbs vs 265ft/lbs for the 1985-1989. I would stay away from the AOD if you want to go fast on the street cheap.

Now onto the GT vs LX comparo. The GT weighs a whopping 20lbs more than a comparable LX. The GT hatch only weighs 80lbs more than an LX coupe. That is less than a single tenth in the 1/4 mile. The coupe is more rigid than the hatch, but add a set of subframe connectors and weld the torque boxes and a hatch should really stiffen up.

Hypereutic cast pistons vs forged pistons. The hypers are lighter, and because of that on a engine vs engine comparison they would make more power. The 1993 GT was re-rated at 205hp according to Ford because of a new rating system. Quite frankly, that is a line of bull. The 1987 5.0 was the ONLY year between 1987-1992 that the engine was rated. Instead, MAF, weaker computers, camshaft revisions, silencer revisions, and other slight changes were made while the ratings just carried over. The 93's were usually underperformers, but they are also usually saddled with very weak computers. The pistons did not cause a loss of power. While forged pistons are stronger, the hypers are plenty strong for most applications. Still, if you can do better by avoiding the 93's weak computer, hyper pistons, and loss of the high back buckets, I would.

Is there really more room in the fender wells on 91 up cars unit? i never heard of that? but i guess its obvious, i dont think your gonna get a bigger tire under a 91 than an 89, maybe it will rub less often, oh well thats another topic.

Unit, I was under the impression the GT's wieghed considerably more than the LX's. Where did you get your info on the weight?

And why did they take the high back buckets away in 93?

You solved a great mystery for me, as I have a 93' GT which was fully optioned and wondered why I had the crappy low back seats. I swapped them for a set of older high backs from the bone yard.

As far as the computers being weaker, there seems to be differing opinions there. In one mustang book I have, a high performance tuner recommends the 93' computers as the best. I dont agree....but what do I know.

I can say from personal experience, when I swapped my 93' computer for an 89' vintage, It did seem to run a tad quicker, but nothing really that noticeable or that you would see a difference at the track with.

NO SLO PK, No problem with questioning my info or a diff in opinion-- I don't consider either a flame.

MotorTrend TV (not 100% sure I saw it here, though. It may have been in an MM&FF magazine) tested the LX and the GT at high speeds-- which kinda surprised me too, b/c I suspected they were just there for looks, and the mainly are, but it seems that they do help a little. It was found that the front ground effects (air dam) on the GT added some needed downforce at high speeds (say, over 120 mph). Also the side skirts (making the car appear lower to the wind) also added some stability. And of course the hatch just flows better. Also, MM&FF were building a high speed project car and it happened to be an LX hatchback. Not sure if they added GT ground effects or not (don't think so, though). In neither report was anything said about the spoiler (wing). And yes I agree, the MAIN difference between the GTs and LX's are simply how they look compared to each other b/c you definately can't say that any GT at a track will outrun an LX or vice versa. All in all, we are talking about minor differences (weight/aerodynamics) between the 2 cars and any '79-93 (I'm not saying all other years are slow, but ATARI is mainly focusing on fox bodies so I'm just saying that for me, any fox body will do, depending on its purpose) Mustang is the main ingredient for go-fast/quickness. But the fact is, those differences are there and one may wish to count in minor differences when considering building a car and what it will be used for.

MM&FF, in their tire article (the one about how big a tire to put on a certain rim) they stated that if you wanted to go with a bigger tire up front (I guess they were referring to > 235) to upgrade to 91-92 Mustang wheel wells. I have both a '79 and a '91 and yes I can back them up and say that the '91 does have more space b/c of how the wheel well is shaped and how it goes around the tire (where the well is attached to on the car).

Well you guys have helped me out a lot in finding what I'm looking for. Over the night you guys discussed stuff that helped me out. I feel more secure on what I'm looking for.

Another question I left out. What do you guys think of sunroofs. THey prob are heavier and also they'll have the tendency to leak but if thats what I can find on a bueatiful car :) You know the rest.

I have a sunroof. It doesnt leak at all. I would rather NOT have it, as Im not a real big sunroof fan, but it works fine. If you find a clean car, dont turn away because it has a sunroof. t-tops are another story. they are almost quarented to leak.

The '89 through '92's are considered the best for adding mod's. The combination of a stronger block, MAF, better heads, and forged pistons make these easier to mod and more reliable.

I have heard you can safely add a 50-75hp shot of NOS to these cars with higher fuel pressure.

FYI,

'86-'88 are speed density.

Have fun with the test drives!:p

I think the only thing that was left out was, try to get one that is bone stock! Stay away from the cars that have already been modded. This way you can start from scratch and do things exactly how you want to! Also, you wont be buying someone elses mechanical nightmare!
andy

I agree with Mach1, the moonroof stangs are MUCH less likely to leak than the t-tops (but you don't have to worry there, b/c they discontinued t-tops b4 the stangs of the year you want)