Classic Mustangs List Archive

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Kevin Spence (email redacted)

I've been into the early pre-74 models for years and years, but I know
squat about the 79+ years and want to get something newer for the wife
to drive. I want a 5.0, (and maybe in a convertible?), but I dont know
a lot about which years are the best 5.0s to get, which had the best
(reliable) trannies, etc.

I want the motor to be a durable one (no thinwall castings, etc) and the
overall car to be reliable since the wife will put more time in it than
me.

I am not at all interested in something new.

I remember driving a new 88 5.0 black on black convertible with leather
seats and I liked that...this is roughly the year I am looking for (no
way do I want another 25K rolled into a car payment)

So, if you can give me your 2 cents as to the best model, and also a
quick or or 2 lines to tell me why, I'd really like to hear the
feedback...What I am after is "Make sure its an LX " (see- I'm not sure
why I'd want an LX) or "Dont get a ?? year because the motors are
terrible" or "Get a ?? but make sure the tranny is ??" - you get the
idea. Rarirty is not something I want to invest in, I just want
dependibility and mechanical desireability...

Thanks everyone!

Kevin



------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the list info you'll ever want: antler.moose.to/~server/cm

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Bud Sharp (email redacted)

Kevin, are you look at Fox 3 (87-93) or SN95 (94-95)? If you are looking at
SN95 5.0, they are a little better built and have stiffer chassis. If you
are looking at Fox 3, I would get a 90 or newer. The T-5s are stronger and
have better syncros. 87s had the weakest trans. If you go with 91-93, you
have the more expensive 16 in wheels and tires. If you get a convertible of
any year, I would get sub-frame connectors welded on. As far as LX or GT,
get the LX, same car but cheaper. I would not get the leather seats (they
are only available on rag tops) because Ford uses cheap thin leather and it
comes apart after a few years.
As far as durability, all the motors are the same. I have 100k on my 90 LX
and it still runs strong after many high speed open tracks. With 89 and up,
you get mass air, they offer a little better drivability when any engine
mods have been put on the car. On 87-88 you have speed density computer
system. They will out run a stock mass air flow car every time.
One thing to be concerned about, it will be hard to find a older one that
has not been beaten to death or modified. For a daily driver that you wife
is going drive, I would not get a 79-86. They have weak trans, smaller
brakes, weaker rear ends and the floors under the seats tend to crack. Also,
Ford used bad paint from 87-90, so make sure it has good paint, mine was
repainted by Ford under warranty. Hope this helps.

Bud
68 CJ
68 Conv.
90 LX

Kevin Spence wrote:

> I've been into the early pre-74 models for years and years, but I know
> squat about the 79+ years and want to get something newer for the wife
> to drive. I want a 5.0, (and maybe in a convertible?), but I dont know
> a lot about which years are the best 5.0s to get, which had the best
> (reliable) trannies, etc.
>
> I want the motor to be a durable one (no thinwall castings, etc) and the
> overall car to be reliable since the wife will put more time in it than
> me.
>
> I am not at all interested in something new.
>
> I remember driving a new 88 5.0 black on black convertible with leather
> seats and I liked that...this is roughly the year I am looking for (no
> way do I want another 25K rolled into a car payment)
>
> So, if you can give me your 2 cents as to the best model, and also a
> quick or or 2 lines to tell me why, I'd really like to hear the
> feedback...What I am after is "Make sure its an LX " (see- I'm not sure
> why I'd want an LX) or "Dont get a ?? year because the motors are
> terrible" or "Get a ?? but make sure the tranny is ??" - you get the
> idea. Rarirty is not something I want to invest in, I just want
> dependibility and mechanical desireability...
>
> Thanks everyone!
>
> Kevin
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> All the list info you'll ever want: antler.moose.to/~server/cm




------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the list info you'll ever want: antler.moose.to/~server/cm

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: John Dettori (email redacted)

Kevin Spence wrote:
>
> [...] I know squat about the 79+ years & want to get [one] for the wife
> to drive. I want a 5.0, (and maybe in a convertible?)[...]
> which years are the best 5.0s to get [...]
> I want the motor to be a durable one (no thinwall castings, etc) and the
> car to be reliable [...] I am not at all interested in something new.
>
> [Liked an 88 convertible]
>
> [...] Rarirty is not something I want to invest in, I just want
> dependibility and mechanical desireability...

Kevin,

Aside from what's been suggested to you already, a few thoughts to help
in your search. BTW - All Ford small block V8s are thin-wall cast since
1962. In fact, all modern engines are thin-wall cast. It's only a
problem if you bore it more than a certain amount. All Fox Mustangs rust;
particularly in the window frames. At least the cowl bolts off and on.
And if tortured by racing or high hp motor build ups - the floors crack
without sub-frame connectors.

79-82 should not be on your list. In addition to being the oldest of the
Fox Mustangs, they are the crudest; Ford was experimenting with some things.
Ford learned some lessons here and moved on. Like the metric sized tires that
went with the TRX suspension package - bad idea. And there was a 255cid
version of the windsor small block, a very unreliable engine good only as a
boat anchor. Most of these cars sport a cheesy 4-speed that's worthless.
The 302 became a 5.0 litre during this period. The Turbo-4cylinders are
trouble too. If you must buy one, the most desireable car of the period
was the 79 Indy Pace Car replica - only from a rare/value stand point.
Performace high-point is the '82 when the GT re-emerged with a 5.0 litre 2V
engine sporting 157 bhp. These cars are cheap, even with low mileage. They
made 370k+ in 79. Pass on them.

83-86s are a little better, with Ford making continual improvements. Don't
forget these engines have carbs until 86. 83s featured the slogan "The Boss
is Back" refering to the pumped up 175bhp 5.0 V8. 84-85 brought 200+bhp via
roller rockers/lifters, EEC-IV and factory shorty headers. They also started
using BW T-5 5spds, which was far superior to the 4spd, and continually
improved.
But all 79-85 V8s suffer with the 7.5" integral carrier rear axle READ: weak!
86 saw the installation of the 8.8" axle, considerably stronger (although not
like a 9". Thru 86 cars were speed density, using a vane air meter (as opposed
to Mass Air Flow on 87 & later cars). Additionally, all 79-90 cars used 4 lug
15"
wheels (except the SVOs), with rear drum brakes. By 85/86, the quad-shock
SVO introduced suspension replaced the TRX set-up. LXs are lighter than GTs,
and probably cheaper. The sedans are the sleepers (light and cheap). 86s
are the performance and reliability choice of the set. $2-5k in the NY area
for average solid cars. I'd buy a GT because they're cheap. Watch the T-5s
past 100k miles. They made 225K in 86, the sales record of the 80's.

While you've concentrated on the V8s, a word about the SVO. The Intercooled
Turbo 4cyl has an exceptionally high output from it's 2.3 litres. Forged
pistons, sodium filled valves, OHC, large canted valves (a la Boss 302),
adjustable Koni struts up from, quad shock koni rear set up, 16x7" 5-lug
wheels shod with 50 series tires, sporting the Mustang's first 4-wheel
disc brake set-up. Hurst shifter mated to special T-5, closer pedals,
recaro-like seat adjustments, and standard 3.45 - 3.73 rear traction-lok
rear axle (although they are the weak 7.5" ones). This is all in addition
to the aero-look off-set hood scoop and bi-plane spoiler. Oh yeah, they all
come loaded w/ cloth or leather deluxe interiors, power everything, and pre-
mium stereo/cassettes. Hope you don't want a convertible, because it's a
hatchback only. The 85.5-86 are the hot ones with 200bhp and 3.73 rears.
The 84-5 are 175bhp, and still strong running. They are rare - only 9,844
over 3 model years (rarest being the ~450 made as 85.5s), and inexpensive
(60k mile nice cars going for $4-7k). I have an 86 as a daily driver-future
collectible and love it! It will rev to 7k and eat most stock V8 Mustangs,
CamaraBirds, etc. in the quarter, while topping off at 145mph, and delivering
20+ air conditioned comfortable mpg.

87-93 are the most refined of the breed. 225bhp, roller-motors, more functional
interiors, better seats, many of the SVO refinements, 16" wheels, MAF, better
T-5s, and quite a few to choose from. 90 up has the nicer 5-lug wheels. My
concern is the hyperutectic pistons, not quite the strength of a forged,
although
marketed as such. These are the choice performance models, the creme de la
creme
being the '93 Cobra. 5.0 LXs are sleepers - lighter and cheaper. I like the
91-93s personally, and you can probably find a low mileage one. Figure $5k-10k.

Since you don't like the 94-99s I won't say much. Except my choice would be
the '98 Cobra, or the 94 Indy Pace Car convertible. I don't like the '99s
either.

BTW, any year Saleen would be hoot to drive and give you collectibility at a
cost. Same is true with the SAAC MK I & II Mustangs. The Steedas & others
to a lesser extent. Stay away from a home-made hopped up Mustang.

There's 4 books you might want to get; I'll get you titles tomorrow as I have
the information at home.

================================================================================
John Dettori 86 SVO (2.3l IC Turbo)
Sr. Principal, Technology Solutions Corp. 70 Mach I (351C-4V)
800 759 2250 mailbox# 2447 67 GT Convert (289-4V)
(email redacted) <reserved for 67 GT500>

------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the list info you'll ever want: antler.moose.to/~server/cm

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Bud Sharp (email redacted)



John Dettori wrote:

> Kevin Spence wrote:
> >
> > [...] I know squat about the 79+ years & want to get [one] for the wife
> > to drive. I want a 5.0, (and maybe in a convertible?)[...]
> > which years are the best 5.0s to get [...]
> > I want the motor to be a durable one (no thinwall castings, etc) and the
> > car to be reliable [...] I am not at all interested in something new.
> >
> > [Liked an 88 convertible]
> >
> > [...] Rarirty is not something I want to invest in, I just want
> > dependibility and mechanical desireability...

The only Fox 3 Mustang to have five lug is the SVO. The 91-93 had the 16in wheels,
but they were still four lug. Even the 93 Cobra has four lug.

Bud

> Kevin,
>
>
>
>
> 87-93 are the most refined of the breed. 225bhp, roller-motors, more functional
> interiors, better seats, many of the SVO refinements, 16" wheels, MAF, better
> T-5s, and quite a few to choose from. 90 up has the nicer 5-lug wheels. My
> concern is the hyperutectic pistons, not quite the strength of a forged,
> although
> =============================================================
> John Dettori 86 SVO (2.3l IC Turbo)
> Sr. Principal, Technology Solutions Corp. 70 Mach I (351C-4V)
> 800 759 2250 mailbox# 2447 67 GT Convert (289-4V)
> (email redacted) <reserved for 67 GT500>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> All the list info you'll ever want: antler.moose.to/~server/cm




------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the list info you'll ever want: antler.moose.to/~server/cm