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.

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.

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

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.:eek:

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.

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

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.

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