I made a mistake of buying one of these. A Lx 5.0 and my friends custom civics and 80s Zs were faster. My other friend has a 90 thats a fine GT0. But I must have bought a dud
If this concerns you read How to Tune a 5.0. I didnt wright something cause I wanted to make it up. Its written and if you look at the horsepower its rated lower then anyother year. It was a emissions thing and if you know about the 5.0 pushrod it was never good at emissions. If you disagree then dont go by the internet, where apperantly everyone thinks they're a mechanic or racer. The book How to Tune a 5.0 is done by a real 5.0 nut who works at 5.0 mag. Who would you trust to get information, one site or the whole automotive world.
Previous review is a joke. There was no significant difference in performance between a 1992 5.0 and a 1993 5.0. Bone stock 1993 5 speed GT is capable of low 14 second 1/4 mile at around 95 mph. Refer to the 1982-1993 Mustang GT Registry for the facts. http://www.mustanggt.org/forums/search.php?searchid=84569
This was a Stang like any other. It was a step back in 86 in terms of power, but with new saftey features it was havier. Also the car gave out less torque, and was the same in handling and braking as the 87-92. So it wasn't the greatest,and with out its straight line performance it was a loss.
The problem was in the engine. Ford had changed internals for cost and emissions. What happend was a more resrictive engine, that not only had restrictive heads, but the internal pistons and crank were the main faults of this car. Now the 0-60 of an auto(which auto trans are not Fords strong point, and they lack power transfering that seems to be absent of GM and Mopar cars) was 8sec flat, from a 92 auto of 7.2. Well thats a big jump back, the 5 speed cars were really lacking too. It went from 6.2 to 7.1 to 60mph. This car then became a joke on the street as the Five Slow! If you pulled up to one, you would almost think wow the is a quick four cylinder, or man that guy really can't drive that thing. Yeah well it didn't take long for the green horn drivers to make it into a joke. Sure this car was more emissions safe, but it was a cost thing that Ford did and kept until 95. This was a horable end for the Fox. What an insult to the GT/Lx 5.0. What made the 89-92 so popular was its after market performance, sure the 93 could take them but it wouldn't see the increase of power. So unless you were going down to block in upgrading(if you plan just get a new block its cheaper)this car could never get the power. The 93 was limited to around safe 400hp where the 87-92 could make 500 on the bottom end.
There was one good thing, and it almost made up for this loss. The Cobra! This is a mildly custome 92 GT, but it was made to perform. The Cobra R brought the handling and braking of the Fox to a head, and the normal Cobra got similar upgraded. Four wheel disk brakes! Upgraded shocks and struts, making it handle a low to mid .9g compared to the mid .8g(An upgrade that is a must for anyone tuning a 5.0) The performance was up too. Not much, but thanks to a mildly ported upper and lower intake and enlarged throttle this car was up 15hp.(Not much compared to what Edelbrock, Holley,BBK or several other brands offer now)This made the car launch to 60 in 6secs and 5.8 in the cobra R. Now the top end was 150mph compared to 138 of previous years. However, still the standard GT was down to 130mph. So this was a win/lose year and even with the power loss the miles per gallon were still low. This was low technology and the start in the wronge direction in which the mustang GT wouldn't be rid of until 1999 but at least the Cobra started again and gave us what we wanted.
I feel this was a losing year even with the Cobra. Case and point it was the end of a performance deal with the GT for six years and the death of the Lx V8. So beaware when buying one, that you will spend your time wishing it was a 92 not a 93.
