hey everybody, im new to the forums, and pretty new the the 5.0's. I am 16 and looking to buy my first car and I want it to be a mustang 5.0. I was just wondering which is the best year?? which years are not so good?? Are there nay probems to watch out for with these cars??
I would say overall IMO the best years are '85, '87, '88 and '89. They came with forged pistons and without air bags. I exluced the '86 because they didn't have very good heads or intakes and were low on power and are limited in how much cam you can put it them because there's no valve reliefs on the pistons. Get an '85 if you like carburetors or stick with the '87+ if you like fuel injection. The '90+ cars have their pros and cons but they came with hyperutectic pistons (which i'm not a fan of...others will argue it) and airbags which i'm also not a fan of.
Hey Benny, I'm pretty new to the forum too. But Not to 5.0's
In regards to which 5.0 was the best. I would say depends on where you live and what you want to do with it. If your looking for insane power and larger displacement motors I would put my money on a 87' to avoid emissions etc.
If Emissions standards are not an issue, I would say stay with a 87-92 The motor internals are indestructable and more reliable then a 93'
93' was the introduction of Hypereutectic pistons. A few buddies and me have killed a few 93' motors fairly easily.
Just my 2 cents. And hope you find something you like. You won't regret it!
technically IMO the best fox was 89, had mass air, had alot of interior options that went away with 90+ cars, like the gas door popper and tilt wheel etc.
i personally like the 90-93 cars best, nothing performance wise. i dont know if many notice but the 87-89 seat had taller backs and head rests on them. seats in those years also has stitching going from left to right, this ended in 90. i also think the airbag wheels looks better than the 87-89 style IMO
90+ are supposed to have bigger wheel wells.
performance wise the 87-88 SD cars were supposed to run harder in factory form, said to have a little more agressive cam profile than the mass air cars.
All the cars were almost identical between the 87-93. Hyper pistons aren't all that bad at all so don't let that sway you or be a deciding factor. The one thing I would suggest is to get a car with Mass Air setup. I am not knocking on Speed Density but it is a lot more forgiving as far as future upgrades are conserned... especially if a cam is involved. The 91+ front fenders are a little bigger to accomodate the larger wheels than the previous years. There was a subtle transmission change in 90+ which supposidly made it stronger if I remember correctly.
Kevin
I agree, 89 is prob the best year for foxes imo not because I have one either. Basicly for the reasons foxfan said. Yes, SD cars run harder then MAF cars stock for stock. Have seen a stock 88 ruin some cars that a 89+ wouldn't touch.
I would score the 88. I'm sure you are interested in that sexy front end from 87+. Unless the conversion is already done it's going to be alot of work and money to try and make it look like an 87+.
You'll have to change the rear quarter windows(Ugly Louvers), front end, ugly dash etc.... To much cash, you gotta love that fuel injection also
If you swap a aero nose onto a 4 eye Iam pretty sure people will hunt you down for something like that. If you want a 87+, buy one dont make a 86- into one...
for me I think it goes like this. 82-86 Capri RS 5.0L HO, then 82 Mustang GT for looks and the 3rd place winner is the 93 GT or LX Mustang. You have the last of the Fox Chassis and get all that could be installed in the 93. on the 82 GT you get the 4 Eyed look along with a hood scoopp and airdam that is on no other Fox unless you look at the 79 Pace Car. I am biased because own a 82 Capri RS 5.0L and you can tell Ihave a 93 LX. My friend has an 82 that has between its shock towers a nicely built carbed 351W backed by a T5 with 8.8 3.73 rear gears.
Well its up to you and options are abound so just be pick up as clean of a ride you can get. I bought a 90 GT Vert for my daughter and she loves that car more than me! LOL
Not to be that guy, but a mustang doesn't really make a good first car. Its an interesting experience the first time you go over choppy pavement in a turn in the rain. With that being said, I'd get a 89 if I could find one. Mass air and tilt wheel, no airbag.
89+
If you plan on modifying the car, mass air is a must.
I prefer 90 and newer, but that's because i don't like the 89 and older seats, BUT if i was looking for my first mustang, that wouldn't keep me out of an 89 that i liked.
I wouldn't even consider anything 88 or older, 86's had flat top pistons, crappy heads, no mass air. 87-88 no maf. Only way i'd disregard those options is for a t-top.
You'll spend hundreds to make an older mustang into an 89 or newer, and sometimes thousands.
Since you are 16 i doubt you want an 85 or older with a carb.
Ignore the warnings about hyper pistons, they usually only break when the cars owner screws something up. Rarely do you hear of a piston breaking, the block or the crank usually goes before it.
A 94 cobra for 4k sounds too good to be true, but i dunno, i rarely shop for or see them for sale, so i may be wrong.
If you dig the 4-eye thing, the '86 is your best possible option. All the supporting components for EFI are there, it has the 8.8" rear end, comes with dual exhaust, T-5 and all the other fancy things the newer 5.0s (87-93) came with, for the most part. If you really get so far as to wanting new heads or cam, some cams can be made to work, but you might as well do a rebuild with new (notched) pistons. Eh. It does kinda suck.
THAT BEING SAID, if you're not a die hard 4-eye man, then avoid them all together, because finding a good example is getting harder with time, and some of the older ones came with really poor components (7.5" rear end, single pipe exhaust, CFI, wimpy carbed setups, etc), and are not so easy to find aftermarket parts for.
So really, I'd say do some shopping and find an unmolested 90-92 notch, as some of those cars will have the pony wheels on them and look good from the get go. They also have mass air metering, and there is nothing wrong with having an airbag in a V-8 car that weighs 3000 lbs.
I'm a little partial to 91-92, they have the bigger fenders, mass air for mods, the little HVAC knobs, better looking steering wheel, more likely to have a 140 speedo, and '90 didnt have an armrest also unlke the '93 they have the forged pistons.
I would go for a mass air car (89-93), the SD cars car run hard, but mass air is easier to tune. But I wouldnt pass up an older car if it was exceptionally clean.
Totally forgot to mention the 7.5" Rear end... Ohhh God...
I'd have to agree with LiquidGT... Those little HVAC Knobs are more sexy. But then again you could always do what I did. Buy a $100 91 4 Banger... and that's a cheap interior let alone a nice collection of extra glass, those sweet Fenders Extensions and quarter skins when you do punch it in the rain
Also 87'-88' not a problem to make it Mass Air, what is it like 4 wires and 3-4 ECU Pin Moves, add the VSS wires, MIL light wire to the DCT Connecter and Voila! a Check Engine Light
89-93 for Mass air
90+ for upgraded T5 (rated for 300 ft/lbs torque as opposed to 265)
89-92 for forged pistons although some late 92's had hypers
90+ for nicer airbag steering wheel
91+ for bigger wheel wells
Now if you like the look of the 4 eyes, 79-86, nothing wrong with going with the 86 if you want EFI. There are guys giving away stock 87+ intakes and I've seen E7 heads going for $20.
Little differences here and there are really for nitpicking. It's all small stuff really that is based on opinion to which is better. SD vs MA is a debate. My car is still SD and it has plenty of mods. The bigger wheels wells of the 91+ is nice...but would i pass up a clean '89 for it? Prob not?
I usually tell people buy the best condition car you can afford. Everything else is just details