MustangWorks.com : Ford Forums - View Single Post

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.

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.