I'm 18 and I am interested in a 1992 5.0 Ford Mustang. Whats the difference between a GT and a LX? There both rated at 225 HP and 300 lbs of torque. Is it possible to find an automatic 5.0 under 75,000 miles? I don't got a ton of money so I thought a 5.0 would be a good choice. What would an automatic run in the 1/4 stock? Mid 14's? I know the car only weighs like 3000 lbs. Anyone got any suggestions. Eventually I'll probably buy the basic mods like exhaust and intake.
1992 Ford Mustang 5.0 Questions
- Thread starter Cobra18
- Start date
-
Sponsors (?)
super302
I'd do anything for free Bapples
gt's come with alot more options (pw,pl,pm....) they also have the 'body kit' and fog lights, and dif. tail lights.
I really wouldn't worry about milage, people on here have 200k on their 5.0 and it still runs great
A stock auto would probably run 14.8-15.1, a little slower than if you had a 5-speed
I really wouldn't worry about milage, people on here have 200k on their 5.0 and it still runs great
A stock auto would probably run 14.8-15.1, a little slower than if you had a 5-speed
super302 said:
GT's come with more options "standard". EVery option could be ordered in an LX except for Fog lights and the Sport seats in 87-88 LX hatches and 87-90 LX coupes. Other than that, same interiors really.
A '92 AOD car would probably run high 14's to low 15's. They weigh about 3200-3300 pounds
Cobra18 said:
I would bet on the 92 the 94 is a totally different car completely......but they both have 5.0's. The 92 is lighter. I prefer the "foxes" as opposed to the 94+ They are both good cars though.Many prefer Lx's because they weigh less it is all based on opinions......the drivetrain and suspension are the same in LX an GT cars in general.
super302
I'd do anything for free Bapples
I wouldn't worry about the mileage factor...I would say for something to be reliable is look for something with less than 130k and seems like it has been taken care of...but some have severe problems at 70k or at 250k...so mileage is hard to judge based on just mileage...it has more to do with the condition and maintance of the car...
Why are you set on a 92?...just curious...91-93 are pretty much the same car...(airbag and pony wheels)...and don't believe the 93 having less power (Down from 225hp to 205hp)...that was just a marketing ploy from Ford...it is the same as the 87-92 5.0...
An Lx isn't much lighter than a GT...my friends 90 GT is actually lighter than my 93 Lx...
Also...an lx can have the same options as a GT...as stated the GT gets more options that come standard...
I think you have made a good choice going with a GT...I always wanted to turn on the fog lights...can't do it because I don't have an Lx
But I could on my 2000 GT ...when I had it 
Good Luck on finding one...
Why are you set on a 92?...just curious...91-93 are pretty much the same car...(airbag and pony wheels)...and don't believe the 93 having less power (Down from 225hp to 205hp)...that was just a marketing ploy from Ford...it is the same as the 87-92 5.0...
An Lx isn't much lighter than a GT...my friends 90 GT is actually lighter than my 93 Lx...
Also...an lx can have the same options as a GT...as stated the GT gets more options that come standard...
I think you have made a good choice going with a GT...I always wanted to turn on the fog lights...can't do it because I don't have an Lx
But I could on my 2000 GT
...when I had it Good Luck on finding one...
78mustank said:
Because the following year Ford released the Sn-95 body style... and to clear the hood the intake was made a bit more restrictive...hence the 10 horsepower loss (to 215hp for the 94-95 models)...and Ford being the smart people they are...
...knocked down the 93 model horsepower to 205 because they couldn't fathom the new body style coming out "strong" with less power than the previous model...Ford said they changed the way they measured power and 205 was closer to the actual output of the 5.0...but dyno test have proven this is not true with 185-195rwhp being put down by 87-93 5.0's...To further this truth...this is straight out of a book I have which is titled "Mustang 5.0 & 4.6"...
"...Ford lowered the horsepower number to 205 for 1993 only. The engine didn't just lose horsepower; Ford's official line was that the method by which it rated horsepower had been changed and that this was really a more accurate number."
Down the page it talks about the hints that it was a marketing ploy because Ford could not fathom putting the new model car (94+) with 10hp less than the previous model...Ford denies this...but it makes complete sense...
Instead of the 04 Viper having 500hp...how would you like to buy a 05 Viper with 475hp....same principle applies...
87-93 cars dyno probably no more than 5rwhp apart...because of the little changes like slightly different cam designs, speed density, maf, etc...
93 cars came with Hypereutic pistons so some people say this is the reason for the change but actually are lighter than the forged pistons (87-92) so actually the hyper pistons might be good for another horsepower
Hope this helps
_jb_
New Member
super302 said:
My dad has a 95 GT Vert, and I like it. But I like the 99+ body style better. But I'm starting to like my car more and more. I can't wait for my diamond headlights to come next week!
Cobra18, around here there are very few fox bodies around. If they are, it's a 4 banger. I was out cruzin' today and I say three fox bodies, 1 was a 86 I believe and was a 5.0. Then I saw two LX's and they were 4 bangers. GT's are hard to come by around here. And since less GTs were produced, I wanted a GT more (Plus fog lights). So good choice!
I have pictures of black GTs, but I can't post them. The one is about 250K and I can only post a max of about 80k.
_jb_
New Member
Pretty much yeah. Just the 87 and 88 GT's have Speed Density instead of Mass Air. I believe in 89 or 90 they switched to the 140 MPH speedometer, and I think in 90 airbags were installed with the cost of no tilt steering. Go here and it can tell you the differences between the years, http://www.mustanggt.org/main.htm
_jb_
New Member
Well depending if the 87 and 88 GTs came from California, they have MAF. Best way to explain the differences between SD and MAF is here, http://www.50tech.com/articles/display_article.php?catid=4&id=8
A tad slower? Nah, nothing you will notice.
As for the 1/4 performance, all I know is that Stock 87-93 5.0 Mustangs are in the high 14s-low 15s. I'm nore really sure though.
A tad slower? Nah, nothing you will notice.
As for the 1/4 performance, all I know is that Stock 87-93 5.0 Mustangs are in the high 14s-low 15s. I'm nore really sure though.
Yes...both cars would react equally well with the particular mods you listed...
Speed Density (87-88) is slightly stronger than a Maf equipped car (89-93...88 if California car)...maybe a couple horsepower stronger...it is when you get into mods like heads, cam etc...the Speed Density does not like it and therefore many convert to MAF...They sell conversion kits for $3-400 bucks I believe...
90 was the first year for 140mph speedo...and 91 was the first year for airbag (different steering wheel...no tilt)...but they got the pony wheels instead of the 10 holes...and also in 91-93 they got bigger wheel wells...
An automatic Gt would run high 14's to low 15's at around 93-94 mph...
Just remember 91-93 are the same thing except for the fact that the 93's have lighter pistons (hyper) compared to the forged in (87-92)...
How much you looking to spend on the car...
Speed Density (87-88) is slightly stronger than a Maf equipped car (89-93...88 if California car)...maybe a couple horsepower stronger...it is when you get into mods like heads, cam etc...the Speed Density does not like it and therefore many convert to MAF...They sell conversion kits for $3-400 bucks I believe...
90 was the first year for 140mph speedo...and 91 was the first year for airbag (different steering wheel...no tilt)...but they got the pony wheels instead of the 10 holes...and also in 91-93 they got bigger wheel wells...
An automatic Gt would run high 14's to low 15's at around 93-94 mph...
Just remember 91-93 are the same thing except for the fact that the 93's have lighter pistons (hyper) compared to the forged in (87-92)...
How much you looking to spend on the car...
Similar threads
