• Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-

plus and minus of 88 5.0?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ryan218
  • Start date Start date Apr 22, 2007
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
First Prev 2 of 2

ryan218

In just 10 years, I'll be old enough to drive!!!!
Dec 28, 2005
0
1
38
columbus ohio
Apr 22, 2007
#21
  • Apr 22, 2007
  • #21
fivespeedsteed said:
with what money?

88 is an okay year. 89s the best for foxes. have fun with the 85 mph speedo too.
Click to expand...



im good a saving money...that where...still owe my dad 1,000 though..so after i sell the sc 1,000 of that gose to him and the rest is for my 5.0...(haha "my 5.0" first time i said that )
 

Aliate X

Member
May 9, 2005
602
1
18
Rockland NY
Apr 22, 2007
#22
  • Apr 22, 2007
  • #22
25thmustang said:
You have owned 2 cars now and have driven zero of them?
Click to expand...

LOL
 

GSXRMIXXER

New Member
Feb 13, 2006
97
0
0
Apr 23, 2007
#23
  • Apr 23, 2007
  • #23
i've had 3 88 GT's and 2 were MAF, one speed density wtf? all had 85mph clusters was maf produced later in the year of 88?
 

cenok is family

15 Year Member
Jun 25, 2003
1,409
69
79
Norman, Ok
Apr 23, 2007
#24
  • Apr 23, 2007
  • #24
GSXRMIXXER said:
i've had 3 88 GT's and 2 were MAF, one speed density wtf? all had 85mph clusters was maf produced later in the year of 88?
Click to expand...

if i'm not mistaken, CA cars had maf in 88, the rest of the US got maf in 89
 

Strype

Cuthbert catcher
Founding Member
May 11, 1999
61
34
104
Huntsvegas, AL
Apr 23, 2007
#25
  • Apr 23, 2007
  • #25
RsStanG1987 said:
What are the pros and cons of a drivers license ? Ryan keep your damn supercoupe and stop wasting your fathers money..
Click to expand...



Congrats Ryan
 
G

genericstang

New Member
Dec 27, 2002
120
0
0
Marietta. GA
Apr 23, 2007
#26
  • Apr 23, 2007
  • #26
cenok is family said:
if i'm not mistaken, CA cars had maf in 88, the rest of the US got maf in 89
Click to expand...

you are correct
 

RsStanG1987

I shaved all my pubes playing this game.
10 Year Member
Mar 13, 2004
569
9
79
Dupont PA
Apr 23, 2007
#27
  • Apr 23, 2007
  • #27
fivespeedsteed said:
with what money?

88 is an okay year. 89s the best for foxes. have fun with the 85 mph speedo too.
Click to expand...

Actually 87 and 88 were the ballsiest foxes right from the factory.. Until you did a cam swap than they are headaches. Ive driven bone stock versions of both and the speed density cars definitely pulled harder than the 89+.. The early 87's also had a more aggressive cam than the later years..
 

Gearbanger 101

Straight Outta Locash
20+ Year Stangneter
Aug 10, 2002
9,457
1,377
234
Ontario, Canada
Apr 23, 2007
#28
  • Apr 23, 2007
  • #28
RsStanG1987 said:
Actually 87 and 88 were the ballsiest foxes right from the factory.. Until you did a cam swap than they are headaches. Ive driven bone stock versions of both and the speed density cars definitely pulled harder than the 89+.. The early 87's also had a more aggressive cam than the later years..
Click to expand...

http://forums.stangnet.com/showpost.php?p=6845209&postcount=14
 

88mouse

New Member
Apr 18, 2007
630
0
0
Mooresville nc
Apr 23, 2007
#29
  • Apr 23, 2007
  • #29
I don't know where ever body get that speed density car are so much of a pain after a cam swap.I have an 88 GT tfs1 cam the only problem i had was the idle. All i did was unhook the IAC and turn the idle screw up untill it idle about 800rpm.I did end up doing a MAF swap, i don't like it now im going to swap it back to speed density.
 

Strippt88

New Member
Nov 24, 2006
81
0
0
Cedar Lake, Indiana
Apr 23, 2007
#30
  • Apr 23, 2007
  • #30
Lotta guys like the adjustability of the maf system, I guess some think that switch is worth something in itself. Never had reason to change any of my speed density 5.0s, though my old 86 only turned 11.40s. Thumpers website has a lot of rumor debunking facts, good info by someone who would know. And yeah, when I was racing back in the late 80's early 90's, my 88 could definitely do more damage with less done than friends with 89 or newer 5 liters,and none of us knew why.
 

bloopbloob

Member
Sep 27, 2006
578
4
16
Alberta
Apr 23, 2007
#31
  • Apr 23, 2007
  • #31
maybe a little off topic, but i just remember a friend who told me once that some of the older fox-style stangs ( maybe 86ish??? i think maybe the 4-eyes?) have a better frame than the newer fox bodies ? can anyone clear this up for me?
 
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
First Prev 2 of 2
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Fox Fuel Pump Issues After Replacement/Upgrade
  • Ryu
  • Jun 23, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 2
Replies
23
Views
594
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Jul 5, 2026
Ryu
A
Discussion on mild budget build/ top end
  • Acesario
  • Feb 21, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 2
Replies
20
Views
752
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Feb 23, 2026
General karthief
M
85 mustang 5.0 cranking in run position
  • Mamaclean
  • May 23, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
3
Views
148
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Jun 1, 2026
General karthief
P
Air Fuel ratio bung location.
  • Praetorious
  • Feb 7, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 2
Replies
39
Views
998
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Feb 11, 2026
Noobz347
Electrical 88 EEC Injectors batch firing ?
  • Dustin 86GT
  • Dec 8, 2025
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Replies
10
Views
454
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Jan 8, 2026
gkomo
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Forums
  • What's new
  • Media
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Sponsor
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?