This is true. I had a 1990 5.0 coupe and it was bulletproof no matter how hard I pushed it auto crossing, on a track, at the drag strip, or on the road. It was rough around the edges but just about indestructible. In many years of hard driving the sole problem was needing to recharge the A/C. Even at the bargain price of around $14K it had things like a standard limited slip rear differential and a stainless steel exhaust. You can’t find either of those as standard equipment on even most cars today costing $40K or more. Even Jeep is too cheap to provide a limited slip or locking differential as standard on anything but their most expensive $50K+ Wranglers. The Fox body Mustang was a true bargain.
@@leeterwilliger2303 Quite possibly. And yet nobody cares. Why? because that thing does not snap your neck back off idle and throw you back in the seat. And it sounds like a hair dryer.
It could be much faster than these numbers. But then again you aren't going for the fastest times when you run the track with the top down. There is likely a 2.73 in that 8.8 rear instead of a more acceleration friendly, but still tall 3.08. I bought a coupe new in '91 off a lot and it was underwhelming, even for the time, with the 2.73. I chucked it for a 3.55.
They were. Don't forget the convertible GT is the heaviest and slowest of all the 5.0 Mustang Fox Bodies. It most likely was optioned with 2.73 rear gears. A lighter non convertible Mustang GT can easily run in the 14's and the lightest of them all Mustang LX Notchback can get in the high 13's with 3.08's.
That's because of the amount of torque at that time from such a low RPM. Plus these cars were fairly noisy which gave you the perception that you were moving faster than you actually were.
DrewLSsix Maybe not the C4 Corvette but I just didn't know how else to classify it. But the Foxbody, IROC-Z and GNX most certainly are. Do you need your head checked?
Since these were Net HP ratings, this would be pretty close to how a 289 HiPo Mustang would have felt in the 1960s as far as acceleration times are concerned. 225 Net HP would have been really close to the 271 Gross HP rating of the 289.
Wrong. Only the Fox Body 5.0 Mustang saved the muscle car. Without the fox bodies, there would no Hellcats, Z06s, Camaros, etc. Dodge didn't even make a muscle car back then. Chevy stopped making Camaros. At this time, Ford stuffed most of the 5.0s with manuals. Finding a manual Iroc was like finding a unicorn. Even then it wouldn't compete with one of these. Chevy made Camaros with the laughable 305 and an underpowered 350. They had to radically redesign the Camaro just to compete with this car. This car forced Chevy to do better. Chevy finally put a decent engine in the Camaro and they were readily available with manuals. I've owned both. The Mustang 5.0 of this era was on another level from the Iroc. My 86 Iroc was beautiful but lethargic. My 93 GT is brutal and a blast to drive. Don't get me wrong, I love all muscle cars. I just don't think they'd exist without the Fox Body 5.0 Mustang.
Flowmasters restricted. Those in the know did K&N air filters, Headmen Headers, Super Turbo Dynomax or Borla Mufflers. Those who never lost a race added B303 cams, Trickflow Heads, SVOs heavy duty T5, and enlarged the diameter of the cross tube of the H-pipe.
@@michaelcowin6442 I made more power with AFR 185s than I did with my TFS heads but I was running a more aggressive cam than a FRPP B grind, but it ran very well. Approaching 400 HP with a bone stock shortblock before I boosted it.
Also I ran a WC T-5 out of a 93 Cobra with ~90k miles on it and made 50+ passes at 650-680 HP before it broke. It lasted a full race season on drag radials but then threw in the towel after only a few passes on a full slick.
The basics, as I understand it, are full exhaust, remove MAF sensor, K&N air filter, and "bump the timing". I think that's the basics. The next step up would be, if I remember it correctly, a bigger throttle body and cam. A third step, lol, would be a cobra upper/ lower and either ported heads or GT40 heads. Oh, I forgot, a 3.55-3.73, maybe a 4.10 if you're only at the strip. The last step would be a turbo, then two turbos on a block with more displacement, and then a supercharger on top of that. And if you're trying wheelie down the track, you put in the biggest block you can with as many turbos, superchargers, and spray. It gets crazy
@@kirkkrieger9360 Depends on which Camaro, the 245hp 350 TPI/automatic combo was on par, maybe a couple tenths quicker than your manual 5.0 multi-port V8 Mustang. Automatic 5.0 V8 vs the auto 350 TPI, the Chevy mops the floor with its far superior automatic. Problem was you had to know how to work the option sheet with your Camaro, as there were several dog ass 305 V8 options that made between 150-170hp depending on year.
@@AaronSmith-kr5yf I had a 3.08 geared 89 LX 5.0 with a 5 speed. Still miss it to this day. It wouldn't show the taillights to one, but it took a damn good working IROC to even get a fender length on that little pony car in a quarter mile.
@@AaronSmith-kr5yf The automatic took about 0.3 seconds off the 0-60 on the Mustang. I recall a GT convertible with an automatic testing at 7.3 0-60, and this manual equipped convertible tested here got 7.0. It was not the huge difference some people think. I don't know how the Camaro of the era changes in manual vs automatic.
Must keep in mind that the convertible GT models were the heaviest Fox-body produced. A low-optioned coupe model (notchback) weight 2,900lbs and ran low 14 second 1/4 miles (I actually have some videos on my channel from 1987 with stock notchback coupe running 14.1 times) and with timing advanced, tire pressure dropped almost in half and those little boogers could squeeze out high 13 seconds, very impressive for the late '80s. Back in 1987 one of the publishers of "Cars Illustrated" (Tony DeFeo, who also contributed many articles and features for Muscle Mustang & Fast Fords magazine through the '90s) bought a brand new 1987 Mustang 5-liter LX (little heavier hatchback model) with A/C delete and no power accessories, a total bare bones stripper model. He bumped the timing and ran a 13.9 which was really a big deal in 1987 lol. Across the country in 1987 (on the west side) Chris Kaufman was hand porting the stock E7 heads with extrude hone to the intake and a few other tricks and ran a 12.2 in the 1/4. These fellas were 5.0 Mustang Pioneers and I'm proud to say that I enjoy chatting with them about the golden era of the 5.0 Mustang! These cars are today's 32 Ford and 55 Chevy. I produced a video awhile back as a tribute to the 5.0 Mustang for the fellas that lived it through the '80s and '90s, with some old 5.0 Mustang footage that I shot many years ago (back in the day lol) it's title is "Fox-body 5.0 Mustang - Generation X's Muscle car" ....check it out if you are a 5.0 Mustang enthusiast, I think you'll enjoy it!
nedaCFilms / Mustang-Town I had that exact magazine as a teenager! I remember vividly Defeo's black LX. It was a black and white magazine. I remember it showed him racing an '85 GT owned by some guy named Chef. He beat Chef until he turned on the nitrous lmao. DeFeo put the 5.0 Mustang on the map! If you see him give him my best!
You. Are. Killing. Me. 😂 Thx for posting, your video making me ultra nostalgic. I just now posted up old VHS of my 1989 (bought new!)... and now I am browsing UA-cam wishing so BAD that I still had it. Thx for posting this classic vid!
I am fortunate to still have the Titanium Frost '91 GT hatchback my Dad got new in August 1991. I was 13 then. We share it now. I learned to drive in it with him, years before I was licensed. Thank you, Dad.
Purchased an 88 LX 5.0 conv. 5 speed brand new. She did 6 second 0-60 times all day long. For all the times I beat on her, she held up very well. Those stangs were hard to come by at the time. Dealers were trying to get over sticker on them too.
We all had Fox mustangs back in highschool when they were new. Of course it didn't hurt that Ford was practically giving them away. I got a 90 GT for $13K and my brother got the '90 LX 5.0 for $11K. I really wanted the notchback, but they started getting harder to find by 1990. I remember stock the car had lots of grunt, but ran out of steam at 4500 RPM. It would do a solid 140MPH, but would shake badly giving up it's econocar roots. Brakes were poor with rear drums and front small disks, front suspension geometry not so performance oriented as well. All of this made the car try to kill me several times, but I loved the car and would not have had it another way. In comparison an Isuzu Amigo was close to $18K back then so the Mustang car was a screaming deal. In street play, I found the 5.0 was more than a match for 2nd and 3rd gen F body's, but needed some help with the Grand National. C4 Vette's would beat me slowly and eventually show me the round tail lights. Of course now all bets are off since these have been modified to the hilt. I did eventually lighten my 1990 GT by adding the fiberglass hood and Steeda front end (no light bar). Removed the sound deadening as well. I weighed my car at the track scale (Moroso, now PBIR) and it weighed 2975 and ran 14.0 stock engine with catback and 3:55 gears
My 1992 LX 5.0 I bought new got destroyed on an on ramp by a plum color C4 that I suspect was a ZR1. He tailgated me onto the interstate and came flying by despite me shifting down and flooring it. Really hurt my ego! I later traded the 5.0 for a '94 auto Z28.
+blackericdenice Big difference with inherent engine design there bud.....very ignorant and misleading comment. I own both Ford and GM... you can't compare them by displacement. Go to the strips and talk this way and you'll be laughed at.
Amazing how much cars have changed. Look at how high the back end goes during hard braking. And it still gets called rock solid. I still love these old cars, though.
This is the same car Alicia Silverstone and Steven Tyler's daughter Liv drove in Aerosmith's 1994 video for the song "Crazy"; even though this car's red and the one they drove was black.
Only 205-225 hrs power. But wait, there’s more! 300 Ft lbs of torque down low! Oh boy! I need to get my 89 vert back on the road. Has 3.73s out back and used to have a S-Trim Vortech Supercharger. Back in the 90’s. What a fun car!
Just bought my first ever 5.0 a few months back and it's a convertible lx that looks like the one at the beginning of this video except with the 5 liter. Been restoring the old worn out parts but hope to make it look and drive great again.
Had this exact car back in the day. Nice cruiser, but my 1985 GT felt a lot more athletic. The hardtop made it behave a bit better and faster. Both were 5 speeds.
My grade 9 teacher had this same mustang in 95-96.We’d always watch her pull out of the parking lot after school,whistle at her then take off on our bikes.
they say that mustangs cant handle. these maneuvers are pretty impressive. i guess its not that these cars cant handle but that the drivers that crash them dont know what the fuck they are doing.
Daniel Diaz these cars are hard to drive fast. No ABS, iron block up front, small front discs and rear drum breaks means they can heat up in a couple of stops, and a loose frame means you have to on point. There are also a lot of people who slap cams and heads on these and do nothing to the frame or breaks. Or cheap out on tires.
He keeps saying "musclecar", but those start at 14 seconds or faster in the 1/4... not 15.9 like this Mustang... The car magazines complain about handling just to complain... 99% of owners don't take them to a road course or even drive them very hard... Most owners prefer a soft, floaty ride that doesn't beat you up on a long trip...
Alicia Silverstone and Liv Tyler drove one of these in the video for Aerosmith’s “Crazy” video, but then again how many music videos was this Mustang convertible featured in?
Everything about these cars- possibly the simplicity, the dual exhaust note, the limited slip, the huge upper intake look - makes it the best car the 80's ever cranked out. I'd give almost anything to own a stock 85, 86, 87 and 92 GT.
J Baker hmm you missed out man. Sure the sn95 were slow as a snail, but in 1999 they got s boost to 260 hp and 300 torque. And a few mods can get it up to 300 hp.
@@angelgjr1999 I drove a 2001 Grand marquis when they were new in early 2002, at the time I also owned a 1996 mercury cougar with the 4.6. Could not believe how fast the grand marquis was with the PI setup compared to my smaller cougar with the non pi 4.6 (or how differently it sounded for that matter).
Thank god Ford didn't go with FWD Japanese 4 cylinder. I owned an '89 GT and I loved it, even despite it's many quirks. Now I have a 2016 GT and it's amazing.
Within 6 months of buying my 91 GT convertible, I removed the air box, installed a set of BBK headers with a full two and a half inch exhaust, swapped out the rear gear for a 3.73. And installed a set of frame connectors.
The 4.6 came out in the Panther cars in 92 and the Mark VIII in 93 had the DOHC. So the rumor was the mustang would be the first to get the 4.6. Thank god it didn’t because early 4.6 SOHC had some teething issues. The Panthers were the cars to wring out any issues before the mustang got the new motor.
1991 model V8 cars to be exact. These replaced the 15 inch twenty spokes in the GT and the 10-hole fourteen inch wheels in the LX 5.0's. The ten-hole wheels became an option for four cylinder Mustangs.
I've gotten into the mustang GTs lately as I never knew how much more quality they were compared to the base model mustangs, and so far this is my favorite variant of the foxbody, but second favorite GT model next to the 1968 Shelby Gt 500 with its amazing body, but this one is much more affordable and definitely can outperform the older model, along with the convenient soft top roof that makes it even lighter
"Power freaks will be happy to learn an even more power 4.6L unit is in development for the 1992 Mustang" - LOL. Love the Foxes though, I sure miss my blue / grey 90 Gt :-/
I have no idea why MW would go and test the slowest of the Foxes. A Hatchback was a 6.1 second car, 14.5/ 92 MPH all day, and the LX 5.9 14.2/ 95 MPH both stock. I kinda hate all the millenials commenting "ohhh ma van is fastah than that" etc. They have zero knowledge on these cars and how you can make them really fast when tuning them. And they have no idea on how to drive a real car instead of an appliance, or even worse to drive a stick.
The convertibles weren't meant for drag racers, and not everyone needs a drag car. That's what the LX 5.0 notchbacks were for. You don't sound like much of an expert to me with this sort of one-sided commentary and I grew up with these cars.
Wow, I remember how impressive these were back then, 0-60 in 7 sec. Technology has made lots of improvements. Today a 3,700 lb Chevy Blazer 2LT V6 will rock it in 6.1 without raising a fuss. That's impressive!
People have to remember that convertibles are quite a bit slower. Stock 3.08 hathches were well into the 14's and low optioned notch cars were in the lower 14's with a good driver. Back in the day my 2.73 geared '90 hatch was a 15.1-15.2 car bone dead stock and in need of a tuneup.
If I had it today, the first thing I would do would be to install the 3.73 gears, just that would make a huge difference. Did you ever bring yours to the track?
What did he say the 4.6 liter for the 92??? They didn't put the 4.6 in till 96. So they kept putting the 5.0 in till 95. I wonder why they didn't want to put it in the foxbodys? that would of been a good idea.
The stupid thing was it made the same hp as the 5.0. Car & Driver said Ford said the 302 was hard to make pass emission but they put it in the Explorer until 2001.
***** I know nothing about the Lincoln Mark Vlll but that would of been a really nice upgrade of a motor into the foxbody. 280hp vs 225hp would of made the 5.0 Mustang haul some serious ass! It would of been a mid 13 second car. At that time nothing would of been close to it in performance.
***** Mark VIII came out in 1993. The first car to get the SOHC 4.6 was the 1991 Town Car. The Mark VIII got the DOHC in 1993 and the Cobra got it for it's 1996 model year.
My dad used to eat these cars up. He owned a 1969 falcon station wagon with a 302 that was converted to floor shift 3 speed the motor had an Edelbrock manifold, carb, it was bored over, had TRW pistons the legendary ford 9 inch limited slip, 3 quarter cam and had a 289 crank which made it a stroker many people he raced thought it was slow. But he told me he tore these and Camaros up and had the car past 120 and beat a Lexus with an 8 cylinder. But nonetheless the mustang is a legend!
The convertible is 200lbs heavier than the GT, yet this MW video runs it in the 1/4 mile nearly a second and a half slower than the GT. I've been told that 100lbs gives up 1/10 of a second in the quarter mile on these cars. An 87 GT (stock) pulls in a 14.4, while an 88 convertible GT pulls in a 15.8 in this video. I'm starting to question MW's 1/4 mile times.
I had 2 friends who owend Stangs back in the day. One was an 91 Gt 5.0 5spd and the other 96 Gt 4.6 5spd. They were both stock and both ran identical quarter mile times. It was until 99 When ford added more punch to the 4.6. They should have done it earlier and used the 91 Lincoln 4.6 Dohc which produced 270 HRP
Owned an identical Mustang as shown here, including the 5 speed and tweed interior. Put my 1 year old son in the car seat in back and had a ball. To this day he likes the fast wind in his hair.
Like ReVan Evan said Waaay back when asked what he thought of this car when joining MMFF magazine,, and I quote “ The 57 Chevy of its Day” the granddaddy of the Modern Muscle Car!!❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️Love Them‼️
Many enthusiasts were disappointed with the new 4.6 Mustang '96 and later as the power band sweet spot was moved further up the RPM range over the discontinued 5.0L V8. They would have to wait a few more years for the 2 valve to catch up or pony up $ for the 300 HP Mustang Cobra with the 4V 4.6.
Keep a 5.0 foxbody stock and keep the oil changed and these things will run forever. They are like the muscle car version of a Honda Accord.
Yup. There's guys that have 400,000 miles on em
@@loganpennington5253 mines been to hell and back and it's still goin lol
This is true. I had a 1990 5.0 coupe and it was bulletproof no matter how hard I pushed it auto crossing, on a track, at the drag strip, or on the road. It was rough around the edges but just about indestructible. In many years of hard driving the sole problem was needing to recharge the A/C. Even at the bargain price of around $14K it had things like a standard limited slip rear differential and a stainless steel exhaust. You can’t find either of those as standard equipment on even most cars today costing $40K or more. Even Jeep is too cheap to provide a limited slip or locking differential as standard on anything but their most expensive $50K+ Wranglers. The Fox body Mustang was a true bargain.
my 5.0 convertible has 235,000 miles in 33 years and starts every time
@@loganpennington5253 there's guys with 600-700k miles on them...
300 lb/ft of torque from a 5.0 V8 was nothing to scoff at in 1988. A well kept one would probably still feel quick today.
To be totally honest. My 83 5.0 5spd only makes 175 and it can still boogie alright. Torque is really the winner.
My Fox makes me muster a big smile when I floor it, that torque feels so nice and the motor growls like nothing from today.
@@tays8306 displacement!
My Conquest Tsi is quicker all day.
@@leeterwilliger2303 Quite possibly. And yet nobody cares. Why? because that thing does not snap your neck back off idle and throw you back in the seat. And it sounds like a hair dryer.
This car felt so much faster to me than these numbers back in the day.
They sure did didn’t they? I think it was the rattle of the cheap interior
It could be much faster than these numbers. But then again you aren't going for the fastest times when you run the track with the top down. There is likely a 2.73 in that 8.8 rear instead of a more acceleration friendly, but still tall 3.08. I bought a coupe new in '91 off a lot and it was underwhelming, even for the time, with the 2.73. I chucked it for a 3.55.
They were. Don't forget the convertible GT is the heaviest and slowest of all the 5.0 Mustang Fox Bodies. It most likely was optioned with 2.73 rear gears. A lighter non convertible Mustang GT can easily run in the 14's and the lightest of them all Mustang LX Notchback can get in the high 13's with 3.08's.
Yeah back then these foxbody mustangs felt fast. Nowadays a truck can beat it in a race. Modern cars are crazy fast.
That's because of the amount of torque at that time from such a low RPM. Plus these cars were fairly noisy which gave you the perception that you were moving faster than you actually were.
If it's good enough for Vanilla Ice, It's good enough for me...
Vanilla Ice is the best rapper in the world.
It's hard to believe my 10th generation civic 6 speed manual With the 1.5 Turbo is faster than this😁
EthanGamer _726 maybe from 60 but not above that
Lol..😃 Was just thinking that....Rollin in his 5.0..😃👍
Damn straight!
Absolutely one of the best cars from the 80's and 90's!
These, along with the Corvette C4 and GNX and IROC-Z, saved muscle cars.
C P none of those were muscle cars.
DrewLSsix
Maybe not the C4 Corvette but I just didn't know how else to classify it. But the Foxbody, IROC-Z and GNX most certainly are. Do you need your head checked?
Jrod_ con06 wtf
Since these were Net HP ratings, this would be pretty close to how a 289 HiPo Mustang would have felt in the 1960s as far as acceleration times are concerned.
225 Net HP would have been really close to the 271 Gross HP rating of the 289.
Wrong. Only the Fox Body 5.0 Mustang saved the muscle car. Without the fox bodies, there would no Hellcats, Z06s, Camaros, etc. Dodge didn't even make a muscle car back then. Chevy stopped making Camaros. At this time, Ford stuffed most of the 5.0s with manuals. Finding a manual Iroc was like finding a unicorn. Even then it wouldn't compete with one of these. Chevy made Camaros with the laughable 305 and an underpowered 350. They had to radically redesign the Camaro just to compete with this car. This car forced Chevy to do better. Chevy finally put a decent engine in the Camaro and they were readily available with manuals. I've owned both. The Mustang 5.0 of this era was on another level from the Iroc. My 86 Iroc was beautiful but lethargic. My 93 GT is brutal and a blast to drive. Don't get me wrong, I love all muscle cars. I just don't think they'd exist without the Fox Body 5.0 Mustang.
LX notch back was the best.
In 88 I was 19. So I remember seeing these everywhere.
I was 16 and had a friend who was 18 and his dad bought him one for being valedictorian 😁 it was fun being king of the road in a '87 gt 5.0 !
well i have a 1988 ford mustang and im 19 and its 2021 so that tells you how popular these cars are
I was born in 1999 but my dad had a 5 speed foxbody in black color. I loved it.
Yep, I was 19 in 88 too and this car was everywhere. Had an 88 mustang in the late 90's, it was fun.
THE OLD TRIED AND TRUE 5 LITER!!! TIMELESS DESIGN
one of the best looking mustangs ever made!
+Acc0rd79 They are nice and love the fox but think the 2005 has the looks...
it was in twins!
how come no more lx?
Back when they put the Mustang name on a Mazda body...
BuzzLOLOL I miss the lx it was a cool car
1:50 wow ford was thinking about putting the 4.6 V8 back in 1992, good thing they never did until 96
@@lowrydin They age like molassis, too.
I caught that info too! Did the 4.6 debut earlier in other models before finally the Stang in 96?
@@Fleetwoodjohn 4.6 debuted in the town car in 92 I believe.
Still a great looking ride 30 years later.
The first things most Mustang owners did was get rid of the restrictive airbox, put on Flowmasters and replace the shifter with a Pro 5.0
Flowmasters restricted. Those in the know did K&N air filters, Headmen Headers, Super Turbo Dynomax or Borla Mufflers. Those who never lost a race added B303 cams, Trickflow Heads, SVOs heavy duty T5, and enlarged the diameter of the cross tube of the H-pipe.
@@michaelcowin6442 I made more power with AFR 185s than I did with my TFS heads but I was running a more aggressive cam than a FRPP B grind, but it ran very well. Approaching 400 HP with a bone stock shortblock before I boosted it.
Also I ran a WC T-5 out of a 93 Cobra with ~90k miles on it and made 50+ passes at 650-680 HP before it broke. It lasted a full race season on drag radials but then threw in the towel after only a few passes on a full slick.
The basics, as I understand it, are full exhaust, remove MAF sensor, K&N air filter, and "bump the timing". I think that's the basics. The next step up would be, if I remember it correctly, a bigger throttle body and cam. A third step, lol, would be a cobra upper/ lower and either ported heads or GT40 heads. Oh, I forgot, a 3.55-3.73, maybe a 4.10 if you're only at the strip. The last step would be a turbo, then two turbos on a block with more displacement, and then a supercharger on top of that. And if you're trying wheelie down the track, you put in the biggest block you can with as many turbos, superchargers, and spray. It gets crazy
After exhaust, I changed out the rear differential and that really helped.
Thank God the Probe didn't replace the Mustang!
IT SHOULD HAVE!👀👂
@@gtaashwagandhaman7551 still butt hurt those old Fox body Mustangs would wipe a Camaro's ass of the same era?
@@kirkkrieger9360 Depends on which Camaro, the 245hp 350 TPI/automatic combo was on par, maybe a couple tenths quicker than your manual 5.0 multi-port V8 Mustang. Automatic 5.0 V8 vs the auto 350 TPI, the Chevy mops the floor with its far superior automatic. Problem was you had to know how to work the option sheet with your Camaro, as there were several dog ass 305 V8 options that made between 150-170hp depending on year.
@@AaronSmith-kr5yf I had a 3.08 geared 89 LX 5.0 with a 5 speed. Still miss it to this day. It wouldn't show the taillights to one, but it took a damn good working IROC to even get a fender length on that little pony car in a quarter mile.
@@AaronSmith-kr5yf The automatic took about 0.3 seconds off the 0-60 on the Mustang. I recall a GT convertible with an automatic testing at 7.3 0-60, and this manual equipped convertible tested here got 7.0. It was not the huge difference some people think. I don't know how the Camaro of the era changes in manual vs automatic.
Must keep in mind that the convertible GT models were the heaviest Fox-body produced. A low-optioned coupe model (notchback) weight 2,900lbs and ran low 14 second 1/4 miles (I actually have some videos on my channel from 1987 with stock notchback coupe running 14.1 times) and with timing advanced, tire pressure dropped almost in half and those little boogers could squeeze out high 13 seconds, very impressive for the late '80s. Back in 1987 one of the publishers of "Cars Illustrated" (Tony DeFeo, who also contributed many articles and features for Muscle Mustang & Fast Fords magazine through the '90s) bought a brand new 1987 Mustang 5-liter LX (little heavier hatchback model) with A/C delete and no power accessories, a total bare bones stripper model. He bumped the timing and ran a 13.9 which was really a big deal in 1987 lol. Across the country in 1987 (on the west side) Chris Kaufman was hand porting the stock E7 heads with extrude hone to the intake and a few other tricks and ran a 12.2 in the 1/4. These fellas were 5.0 Mustang Pioneers and I'm proud to say that I enjoy chatting with them about the golden era of the 5.0 Mustang! These cars are today's 32 Ford and 55 Chevy. I produced a video awhile back as a tribute to the 5.0 Mustang for the fellas that lived it through the '80s and '90s, with some old 5.0 Mustang footage that I shot many years ago (back in the day lol) it's title is "Fox-body 5.0 Mustang - Generation X's Muscle car" ....check it out if you are a 5.0 Mustang enthusiast, I think you'll enjoy it!
ua-cam.com/video/8Ix3OvNDCP4/v-deo.html The ever-popular Fox-body 5.0 Mustang - "Generation X's Muscle car"
nedaCFilms / Mustang-Town I had that exact magazine as a teenager! I remember vividly Defeo's black LX. It was a black and white magazine. I remember it showed him racing an '85 GT owned by some guy named Chef. He beat Chef until he turned on the nitrous lmao. DeFeo put the 5.0 Mustang on the map! If you see him give him my best!
Patrick Simmons Tony just tossed his hat back in auto journalism! Tony and Neil started the 5.0 street/drag movement on the east coast!
Those LXs were too damn sweet...
So true u really know your shit about cars
You. Are. Killing. Me. 😂 Thx for posting, your video making me ultra nostalgic. I just now posted up old VHS of my 1989 (bought new!)... and now I am browsing UA-cam wishing so BAD that I still had it. Thx for posting this classic vid!
I am fortunate to still have the Titanium Frost '91 GT hatchback my Dad got new in August 1991. I was 13 then. We share it now. I learned to drive in it with him, years before I was licensed. Thank you, Dad.
Love those 1987-1993 Ford Mustangs.
Ford Mustang 85,86, 87 and 88 is my favorites
The fox body mustang's trapezoid looking shape made me fell in love with it
Purchased an 88 LX 5.0 conv. 5 speed brand new. She did 6 second 0-60 times all day long.
For all the times I beat on her, she held up very well.
Those stangs were hard to come by at the time. Dealers were trying to get over sticker on them too.
We all had Fox mustangs back in highschool when they were new. Of course it didn't hurt that Ford was practically giving them away. I got a 90 GT for $13K and my brother got the '90 LX 5.0 for $11K. I really wanted the notchback, but they started getting harder to find by 1990. I remember stock the car had lots of grunt, but ran out of steam at 4500 RPM. It would do a solid 140MPH, but would shake badly giving up it's econocar roots. Brakes were poor with rear drums and front small disks, front suspension geometry not so performance oriented as well. All of this made the car try to kill me several times, but I loved the car and would not have had it another way. In comparison an Isuzu Amigo was close to $18K back then so the Mustang car was a screaming deal. In street play, I found the 5.0 was more than a match for 2nd and 3rd gen F body's, but needed some help with the Grand National. C4 Vette's would beat me slowly and eventually show me the round tail lights. Of course now all bets are off since these have been modified to the hilt. I did eventually lighten my 1990 GT by adding the fiberglass hood and Steeda front end (no light bar). Removed the sound deadening as well. I weighed my car at the track scale (Moroso, now PBIR) and it weighed 2975 and ran 14.0 stock engine with catback and 3:55 gears
My 1992 LX 5.0 I bought new got destroyed on an on ramp by a plum color C4 that I suspect was a ZR1. He tailgated me onto the interstate and came flying by despite me shifting down and flooring it. Really hurt my ego! I later traded the 5.0 for a '94 auto Z28.
Back in high school, telling the mustang guys that this "five oh" was really a 4.9 used to make them livid. Lol
love these fox bodies, pretty much legendary.
+joecugo not for most.
+joecugo First: look at that era, no cars were up to the tech as now, especially american cars. Second: Bang for the BUCK>
+andrenj1970 I owned a couple. They were fun, but complete junk.
+reints74 you got your opinion others got their opinion, that's so.
andrenj1970 They were fun & quick, I'll say that much.
Rollin' in my 5.0
With my ragtop down so my hair can blow
The girlies on standby, waving just to say hi
Did you stop? No. I just drove by.
Who is Vanilla Ice?
Nobody cares about Stangs because the Like Chevy guys!
added the last line for ya.
because THEY like Chevy guys* damn tipe o.
dayway05 Chevy better be glad the 2015 Mustang GT engine is not a 6.2 or it would be making 541 hp.
+blackericdenice Big difference with inherent engine design there bud.....very ignorant and misleading comment. I own both Ford and GM... you can't compare them by displacement. Go to the strips and talk this way and you'll be laughed at.
When I was a kid this was my favorite car of all time and I still want one I love a foxy foxbody
Amazing how much cars have changed. Look at how high the back end goes during hard braking. And it still gets called rock solid. I still love these old cars, though.
This is the same car Alicia Silverstone and Steven Tyler's daughter Liv drove in Aerosmith's 1994 video for the song "Crazy"; even though this car's red and the one they drove was black.
***** I never forgot what car that was in the video, and the video debuted shortly after Ford unveiled the successor to that Mustang.
Pretty fair review actually. Honest about the stang's flex issues. Nice to see they put the leather boot on when they had the top down.
When I was a kid I thought these cars were a souped up escort lol love them now !!
Only 205-225 hrs power. But wait, there’s more! 300 Ft lbs of torque down low! Oh boy! I need to get my 89 vert back on the road. Has 3.73s out back and used to have a S-Trim Vortech Supercharger. Back in the 90’s. What a fun car!
owned 5 5.0s every bodystyle except lx 5.0 conv. They were all fun & cost nothing to run like hell.
Just bought my first ever 5.0 a few months back and it's a convertible lx that looks like the one at the beginning of this video except with the 5 liter. Been restoring the old worn out parts but hope to make it look and drive great again.
I've always wanted one of these.
Had this exact car back in the day. Nice cruiser, but my 1985 GT felt a lot more athletic. The hardtop made it behave a bit better and faster. Both were 5 speeds.
You've gotta love the huge body gaps
My grade 9 teacher had this same mustang in 95-96.We’d always watch her pull out of the parking lot after school,whistle at her then take off on our bikes.
Canadian?
Love my 93 convertible!
Impressive 1/4 mile times, sharp looks, legandary performance.
they say that mustangs cant handle. these maneuvers are pretty impressive. i guess its not that these cars cant handle but that the drivers that crash them dont know what the fuck they are doing.
Daniel Diaz that's because everyone owned one at one time . And not a lot of people can drive .
No, they just can't handle.
Daniel Diaz these cars are hard to drive fast. No ABS, iron block up front, small front discs and rear drum breaks means they can heat up in a couple of stops, and a loose frame means you have to on point. There are also a lot of people who slap cams and heads on these and do nothing to the frame or breaks. Or cheap out on tires.
Are you blind? Or just some kind of stupid
He keeps saying "musclecar", but those start at 14 seconds or faster in the 1/4... not 15.9 like this Mustang...
The car magazines complain about handling just to complain... 99% of owners don't take them to a road course or even drive them very hard... Most owners prefer a soft, floaty ride that doesn't beat you up on a long trip...
Alicia Silverstone and Liv Tyler drove one of these in the video for Aerosmith’s “Crazy” video, but then again how many music videos was this Mustang convertible featured in?
Everything about these cars- possibly the simplicity, the dual exhaust note, the limited slip, the huge upper intake look - makes it the best car the 80's ever cranked out. I'd give almost anything to own a stock 85, 86, 87 and 92 GT.
This is the the car I wanted when I was 18
I'm 22 and I'm buying a used one
more powerful 4.6 Lmao...it had 5 less HP and 50 less TQ in it's first year.
After test driving a 96 model, that 4.6 turned off this Mustang Fan from 96 through 2010, until the Coyote debut.
J Baker hmm you missed out man. Sure the sn95 were slow as a snail, but in 1999 they got s boost to 260 hp and 300 torque. And a few mods can get it up to 300 hp.
@@angelgjr1999 I drove a 2001 Grand marquis when they were new in early 2002, at the time I also owned a 1996 mercury cougar with the 4.6. Could not believe how fast the grand marquis was with the PI setup compared to my smaller cougar with the non pi 4.6 (or how differently it sounded for that matter).
Angel Gutierrez if you’re gonna get a New Edge, don’t bother getting the 4.6 2 valve. Just get a Mach 1 or a Terminator Cobra
@@elitewarrior0076 No Angel Gutierrez can't afford it.
Thank god Ford didn't go with FWD Japanese 4 cylinder.
I owned an '89 GT and I loved it, even despite it's many quirks. Now I have a 2016 GT and it's amazing.
***** sorry man, I didn't understand your question.
Right on.
Ford came close to going FWD format. The new Probe was supposd2B the next gen Mustang!
I WISH porsche went with the 928 and made the 911 more exclusive and less standard. Like only GT2 or GT3 models, no carrera or standard stuff
one of the most fun cars ever made, always great with top down, no matter how much HP they had
My-late Stepsister had the exact same car as they tested, I was more fond of the LX 5.0
Wow in ‘88 the public knew about the 4.6, that really shows how advanced ford was for the time
They are always leading the American car industry.
Here's a MotorWeek Retro Review of the Ford Mustang GT Convertible from 1988.
That's funny, i have one of these and i haven't put the top down in like 2 years,guess after 20 years you get used to it,lol.
I've never owned a convertible. But if I do, I want to wear a helmet like that guy.
car is worth more now than new
Within 6 months of buying my 91 GT convertible, I removed the air box, installed a set of BBK headers with a full two and a half inch exhaust, swapped out the rear gear for a 3.73. And installed a set of frame connectors.
Thanks for this one, been waiting for the foxbody review.
Interesting to know that Ford was planning on replacing the 5.0 in the Mustang so early, yet didn't materialize until 1996.
***** The Cobra took care of the LT1 but fell to the LS1.
The 4.6 came out in the Panther cars in 92 and the Mark VIII in 93 had the DOHC. So the rumor was the mustang would be the first to get the 4.6. Thank god it didn’t because early 4.6 SOHC had some teething issues. The Panthers were the cars to wring out any issues before the mustang got the new motor.
yeah but basically the same Fox chassis was used until 2004 lol
@@dodgeguyz Actually it appeared in the new Lincoln Town Car for the 1991 model (a year after the new TC's debut).
Man that 5oh fox is just a hands down straight up warrior..
Glad they switched to five spoke wheels a few years later
1991 model V8 cars to be exact. These replaced the 15 inch twenty spokes in the GT and the 10-hole fourteen inch wheels in the LX 5.0's. The ten-hole wheels became an option for four cylinder Mustangs.
I've gotten into the mustang GTs lately as I never knew how much more quality they were compared to the base model mustangs, and so far this is my favorite variant of the foxbody, but second favorite GT model next to the 1968 Shelby Gt 500 with its amazing body, but this one is much more affordable and definitely can outperform the older model, along with the convenient soft top roof that makes it even lighter
love the plastic warping parts lol!
I liked the cheaper 5.0 fast back version better.
I love my 91 convertible 👍🏼
MotorWeek | Retro Review: '88 Ford Mustang GT Convertible
The review is so comical. If someone dubbed this it would be so freakin awesome!
"Power freaks will be happy to learn an even more power 4.6L unit is in development for the 1992 Mustang" - LOL. Love the Foxes though, I sure miss my blue / grey 90 Gt :-/
I have a '87 GT Convertible in the u.k. We have a bigger gallon over here and mine averages 22 m.p.g. The automatic is definitely quite a bit slower
No idea what a "Bigger gallon" is. A US Gallon is a US gallon everywhere.
I had a '89 GT and the engine and transmission were very rugged and took a lot of abuse from an 18-year-old me.
Loved the looks of these in the 80’s and early 90’s, though this just doesn’t look as aggressive as I thought it did in my youth
I had a 87 and a 91 GT. I miss them but I just couldn't afford gas for them😞! Now i drive a 91 MR 2 turbo as my sports car.
mike scoggins doesn't look tough looks like the 80s as when it came out
I have no idea why MW would go and test the slowest of the Foxes. A Hatchback was a 6.1 second car, 14.5/ 92 MPH all day, and the LX 5.9 14.2/ 95 MPH both stock. I kinda hate all the millenials commenting "ohhh ma van is fastah than that" etc. They have zero knowledge on these cars and how you can make them really fast when tuning them. And they have no idea on how to drive a real car instead of an appliance, or even worse to drive a stick.
The convertibles weren't meant for drag racers, and not everyone needs a drag car. That's what the LX 5.0 notchbacks were for. You don't sound like much of an expert to me with this sort of one-sided commentary and I grew up with these cars.
Love that Car !!!! Love it so much
2:10 Where this car truly excels is acceleration. New mustang reviewed a couple weeks ago 0-60 in 4.5 & 1/4 in 12.9.
Adam Haught 2015 GT has nearly double the horsepower too.....
Wow, I remember how impressive these were back then, 0-60 in 7 sec. Technology has made lots of improvements. Today a 3,700 lb Chevy Blazer 2LT V6 will rock it in 6.1 without raising a fuss. That's impressive!
The foxbody generation has to be the best
It was a fantastic car, but I do not believe it to be the best. I think the 1969 mustangs were.
Easiest to make go fast
+Bucking Bronco 67-68 were better
ICE ICE BABY
+Tommy Siro yo v.i.p.
Hot80s
;)
+Tommy Siro He'd use an automatic, he'd want no stick.
With the rag top down so my hair can blow
"It's a monster..but a friendly one".... so are we talking Sulley or Randall monster?
John Davis' jacket in this clip is EPIC!!
That luggage rack was such an eyesore
Can you post up a video for the '99 GT? Those 99-04 models were significant.
People have to remember that convertibles are quite a bit slower. Stock 3.08 hathches were well into the 14's and low optioned notch cars were in the lower 14's with a good driver. Back in the day my 2.73 geared '90 hatch was a 15.1-15.2 car bone dead stock and in need of a tuneup.
*****
No, it was an AOD. Neglect and age has done some bad things to times on these cars.
The convert they tested for 0 - 60 was an automatic.... you can hear the driver didn't shift gears!!!
I really enjoyed my (similar) '91 GT convertible, but it felt VERY heavy, and kind of slow with stock 2.73 gears. Over 80 MPH it was nice though ;)
I had a 91 gt convertable. I had to put 3.73 gears. mac h pipe, dynomax cat back, bbk equal length headers, stroke to 347. that fixed it
If I had it today, the first thing I would do would be to install the 3.73 gears, just that would make a huge difference. Did you ever bring yours to the track?
Very cool! Love my 84 convertible!
What did he say the 4.6 liter for the 92??? They didn't put the 4.6 in till 96. So they kept putting the 5.0 in till 95. I wonder why they didn't want to put it in the foxbodys? that would of been a good idea.
The 4.6 wasn't a good motor to start though. It was extremely difficult to make power on versus a 302.
The stupid thing was it made the same hp as the 5.0. Car & Driver said Ford said the 302 was hard to make pass emission but they put it in the Explorer until 2001.
*****
I know nothing about the Lincoln Mark Vlll but that would of been a really nice upgrade of a motor into the foxbody. 280hp vs 225hp would of made the 5.0 Mustang haul some serious ass! It would of been a mid 13 second car. At that time nothing would of been close to it in performance.
***** Mark VIII came out in 1993. The first car to get the SOHC 4.6 was the 1991 Town Car. The Mark VIII got the DOHC in 1993 and the Cobra got it for it's 1996 model year.
***** Not a stock 302. They simply don't make enough hp and was just geared to high.
Love my more modern '11 GT convertible, but the GPS keeps taking me to coffee 'n' cars meetings
I loved my 89 lx 5.0 convertible. But they're right the body flex was TERRIBLE lol!! A lot of fun for cheap money;)
Easily solved by frame connectors.
This was IMO the best Mustang built since 1970
You mean the 60s 79 what's the first Fox
@@keithlabarrie3098 1970 was IMO the last classic style Mustang before they became bloated.
1:04 sounds like it's birthing a pony
🤣🤣
I would like to put out a request (if possible) to see a review on the 1994-1998 Mustang GT please.
Jordan Little why??? Lol
Bumpers are already warped badly on this new car. Makes me feel better about my only slightly warped 30 year old fox.
They sure did RAISE a RUCKUS.
2:12
“Truly excels, 0-60 takes only 7 seconds!”
Moldygreenbean And?🤔
7 seconds ain't bad and that is the vert version, back in 1988 a regular sedan would do 11-15 seconds.
MotorWeek cannot launch cars. Everyone else was getting like 6 second 0-60s out of these cars. Granted it being a heavy vert doesn't help
My dad used to eat these cars up. He owned a 1969 falcon station wagon with a 302 that was converted to floor shift 3 speed the motor had an Edelbrock manifold, carb, it was bored over, had TRW pistons the legendary ford 9 inch limited slip, 3 quarter cam and had a 289 crank which made it a stroker many people he raced thought it was slow. But he told me he tore these and Camaros up and had the car past 120 and beat a Lexus with an 8 cylinder. But nonetheless the mustang is a legend!
although there is still room for two limber adults that like each other a lot. lol
6:27 Easy to use convertible top? The ASC convertible that same year had a flexible rear window and stored under a hinged body panel.
LOVE THAT CAR
The convertible is 200lbs heavier than the GT, yet this MW video runs it in the 1/4 mile nearly a second and a half slower than the GT. I've been told that 100lbs gives up 1/10 of a second in the quarter mile on these cars. An 87 GT (stock) pulls in a 14.4, while an 88 convertible GT pulls in a 15.8 in this video. I'm starting to question MW's 1/4 mile times.
I had 2 friends who owend Stangs back in the day. One was an 91 Gt 5.0 5spd and the other 96 Gt 4.6 5spd. They were both stock and both ran identical quarter mile times. It was until 99 When ford added more punch to the 4.6. They should have done it earlier and used the 91 Lincoln 4.6 Dohc which produced 270 HRP
Owned an identical Mustang as shown here, including the 5 speed and tweed interior. Put my 1 year old son in the car seat in back and had a ball. To this day he likes the fast wind in his hair.
Al Bundy had a red GT convertible
Like ReVan Evan said Waaay back when asked what he thought of this car when joining MMFF magazine,, and I quote “ The 57 Chevy of its Day” the granddaddy of the Modern Muscle Car!!❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️Love Them‼️
I don't know why but this generation Mustang convertible always reminds me of Fergie's Glamorous music video
I love the 2 valve 4.6, but it did not out perform the pushrod 5.0.
Many enthusiasts were disappointed with the new 4.6 Mustang '96 and later as the power band sweet spot was moved further up the RPM range over the discontinued 5.0L V8. They would have to wait a few more years for the 2 valve to catch up or pony up $ for the 300 HP Mustang Cobra with the 4V 4.6.
Notice any faults that they listed can easily be solved with a hatchback