87-93 Vs. 94,95

custom89stang · Feb 27, 2004

So which one had the fastest stock quarter mile times? Which one weighed more? Just give me all the info, thanks a lot. Of course i'm talking about the 5.0 Engine........

Mavrick · Feb 27, 2004

94-95's were heavier and used the hyper pistons, whereas the 87-93's were lighter, and up until 1992 used forged pistons.

94+ have all wheel disc brakes, much better than 94previous.

custom89stang · Feb 27, 2004

Mavrick said:
94-95's were heavier and used the hyper pistons, whereas the 87-93's were lighter, and up until 1992 used forged pistons.

94+ have all wheel disc brakes, much better than 94previous.

so there is good and bad to both. well i was just wondering if i'd notice a difference in terms of power or quarter mile times if i got a 94-95 5.0 vs. my 1989 that i have right now.

Mavrick · Feb 27, 2004

When choosing between the two, the differences are marginal.. i would decide based on the look and styling of the car and the interior.

Personally i don't like the 94-98 cars, but thats my buyest opinion, i also don't really like the newer interior.

With your 89, you can always upgrade the brakes to a newer all wheel disc setup, as well as nearly every other part on your car. I'd keep the 89 if i were you.

JadeFalcon · Feb 27, 2004

1979-1985 The beginning years of the fox, all are carbureted and 4 eyes.
1986 Fox was a 4 eye, but was fuel injected. However it used Speed density fuel injection, the MAP sensors used in speed density tend to make more power than a mass air car stock for stock, but cams cannot be changed, as well as other things. Most people convert to mass-air. Forged Pistons factory.
1987-1988 These foxes were the newer more modern fox front end, however they were still speed density. T-tops were available in these years, which is quite sought after. (Note: 1987-1988 California foxes were mass air, something good comes from california for once). Forged Pistons factory.
1987-1992 Fox's produced 225hp. 1992 was last year for forged pistons factory.
1993 Fox produced 205hp, had several disadvantages such as hyper pistons, less cam, other misc. changes. Last year of the fox body. The Cobra returns this year.
1994-1995 These are the newer bodies (SN95), but still have the 5.0 HO. These produced 215hp, still 10 less than the 1992 and previous foxes, and it weighed considerably more. Factory Hypereutetic pistons from 1994-present on all GT's. In 1995 ford offered GTS option-delete model, a lightweight tribute to the LX. 5.0 Cobras offered in these years.
1996-1998 4.6L Modular mustangs produced more power than previous mustangs but are much more limited by aftermarket modifications. Cobra receives new DOHC 32v 4.6L modular motor.
1999+ Mustangs had upgraded heads for more power, and the motors have a better following, there are more aftermarket parts available, but still quite limited selection compared to the 5.0's.

That should answer your questions

92BlackGT · Feb 27, 2004

In '93 they changed the way they measured the HP of the engine....i beleive they had to test with all the accesories on. So '93 still has as much power and the 87-92's.
I would stay with your '89...looks better, lighter.

Ned · Feb 28, 2004

I didnt used to like the 94-95s much, I do like them now but dont know that I would ever take one over a fox...87-93 just feels faster to me, they are alot lighter. And I also heard the same, that they changed the way they rated horsepower, so although the later 5.0s didnt appear to have as much power, they were just rated differently. I do like the brakes on the 94+ models though, of course you can always go to the work and switch it over to your car. If I was you, I would stick with your 89, I think you will be happier with it. My friend just sold his 91 LX hatch and bought a fairly well modded 95 GT, and now he wants his fox back because it was alot easier to work on, and felt faster he says.

87gtconv · Feb 28, 2004

Note 87 Ca cars ARE Speed Density I know I have one!

GroverDill · Feb 28, 2004

JadeFalcon said:
1993 Fox produced 205hp, had several disadvantages such as hyper pistons, less cam, other misc. changes. Last year of the fox body. The Cobra returns this year.

booo hater!

93's always get a bad rap, same fin car just different pistons.

The change was how HP was measured, funny 93's still make more RWHP than the 94's, stock for stock

I belive the cam was the same, it changed around 90 I think.

JadeFalcon · Feb 29, 2004

Sorry, yes the MAF cars, 89 up have a cam change to "quiet the valvetrain" as ford put it.

hyperucrackedit pistons are enough for me to hate on the 93 ups.

leakyfaucet · Feb 29, 2004

Well in all fairness, if you don't plan on going crazy with power, hyper pistons are better. Lighter, and no oil burning when cold.

ponyboy19 · Feb 29, 2004

JadeFalcon said:
Sorry, yes the MAF cars, 89 up have a cam change to "quiet the valvetrain" as ford put it.

hyperucrackedit pistons are enough for me to hate on the 93 ups.

say what you may but i've always heard that ford used some very good hyperetic pistons and my 95 was boosted to 540-550 fwhp and never broke one. I think the durablity of hyperetics lies in state of tune and keeping detonation away IMO.

As far as the 87-93 vs. 94/95 it's personal prefference.. I have both, my 95gt and 92gt and I look at them as two completely different cars. The 95 rides better, feels better, handles better, brakes better, and IMO is superior in stock form. engines produce the same power and the difference if any wouldn't be noticable.. the sn95 disadvantage would mostly come from added weight. Both of my cars ride on eibach pro kit springs with control arms so suspension is simular. My 92 is slightly less weight but rides much rougher. the foxes to me have a slightly more hot rod muscle car feel when your in them but that's probably a personal thing. They are both great cars so you can't go wrong, but I would recommend driving a 94/95 for a half hour before making your decission as they are different..

wishihadastang125 · Feb 29, 2004

if your car is a coupe then it only weighs i believe 3038 pounds & that is definately a good thing

JadeFalcon · Mar 2, 2004

I just dont like the idea of having less strong pistons when ford offered them from the factory before, it has nothing to do with anything other than cost effectiveness... and that worries me. ...They limit you so much, of course with good tuning and no detonation they are fine, but the idea of knowing that if you get any detonation for what ever reason, your pistons are history.

sleeper89 · Mar 2, 2004

stock for stock the fox should be substantially faster. my friend had a 95gt and i used to put like 6 cars on him stock for stock with my 200lb friend in the passenger seat, no powershifting. of course his was an auto too.

the sn95's have better suspension geometry, far better brakes, 5lug wheels.

hp should be the same, but this is a topic of constant debate.

87 cali cars were still speed density, 88 cali got maf. 89 for everyone else.
yes the 94-95's will have hyper-u-cracked-it pistons, but this shouldn't be an issue with a proper tune. just insurance so to speak. FWIW any 94-95 could probably use a rebuild before getting boosted so you could change the pistons if you want big power.

IMHO keep the '89.

-steve

whitemustang89 · Mar 2, 2004

89 fox all the way baby thats what i have and i love it except you have to be easy on the brakes and screw the 5 lug thing just get you some ponies and there are some nice 4 lug wheels out there

unclejackrock · Mar 2, 2004

After owning a 95 GT, I bought a 92 GT and the 95's for sale........

QCStang · Mar 2, 2004

custom89stang said:
So which one had the fastest stock quarter mile times? Which one weighed more? Just give me all the info, thanks a lot. Of course i'm talking about the 5.0 Engine........

Ok, so I have both (my 84 has an 88 drive train and a few other newer things)

95 Pro:
1) The ride. Drives smooth, almost like a Lincoln compared to a festiva. No blind spots when you drive.
2) 140A alternator. You can power your house with the thing.
3) Excellent stock Stereo.
4) Real good disk brakes all around. AND ABS!
5) Electric Fan. Heater and A/C are top quality. Don't know anyone that has either one of those fail.
6) Its a 5.0!
7) Awesome body, never seems to rust. I like the bodys on the 94-96. They are curvy, yet have a muscle car look. Like a female body builder (sorry ladies..)
8) Light years safer than a Fox in bad weather. Or in an accident.
9) Both of my cars are automatic. The AODE is rock solid. It's more dependable than the stick.

95 Con:
1) Heavy as a Licoln. Well, not really. about 3600 lbs, or 600 lbs more than a Fox notchback.
2) All the smog stuff, all the heavy duty wiring and A/C stuff, makes it really difficult to work on things like plugs and headers.
3) People telling me "Its not a 5.0, they stopped making those in 93!"
4) Damn strange computer.
5) Damn gas guzzler.
6) Less headroom in the backseat.
7) Aftermarket is more expensive than Fox, and the 95's are rare in the scrapyard.

84 Pro:
1) Its a little rocket! Nice and light, gobs of power.
2) Cheap aftermarket. Must be a million of them on the road and in the junkyard.
3) Pretty sweet to work on after working on the 95.
4) Fits in those little parking spots.

84 Con:
1) Damn rattles inside the car. Nothing fits as tight as it should.
2) Pieces are less than well made.
3) Far from the safest car on the road.
4) It takes abuse and keeps going.
5) If a car ever needed subframes and a strut tower brace, this is it.

If you want to drag race. Foxbody. Roadrace, SN95. They are completely different cars, although they share the same unibody and engine. For a daily driver or long drives, the SN95 hands down. For ripping around with the fear/fun factor, the Fox body.

Either way, its fun..

StangBangRicers · Mar 2, 2004

:worship:89-92 5.0 LX coupe or hatch

Rains · Mar 2, 2004

i've owned an 89 GT hatch, 87 GT conv, and now own a 95 GT, all with 5 spds.

i like both, (fox over the sn95)

I'd sell my 95 to look for a good clean fox hatch but i dont think i could readily find one in great shape with low miles so i'm going to stick with my 95

if you have your 89, and its running great, keep it

but get the newer seats, they are well worth the money and effort

87-93 Vs. 94,95

custom89stang

New Member

Mavrick

custom89stang

New Member

Mavrick

JadeFalcon

92BlackGT

Member

Ned

New Member

87gtconv

ragtopman

GroverDill

GoldMember

JadeFalcon

leakyfaucet

Member

ponyboy19

wishihadastang125

JadeFalcon

sleeper89

New Member

whitemustang89

Member

unclejackrock

New Member

QCStang

StangBangRicers

New Member

Rains

Similar threads

87-93 Vs. 94,95

New Member

New Member

Member

New Member

ragtopman

GoldMember

Member

New Member

Member

New Member

New Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency