1990 Ford Mustang Consumer Discussions

Ford Mustang Fox Body 79-93

• Re: I'm buying a 1990' Ford Mustang.... [rockylee]

  Written by: richbloom on Jun 1, 2009 4:41:53 PM

  Still have it? I just bought one 2 weeks ago. :P

Ford Mustang Prices Paid and Buying Experience

• Re: Ford Mustang: Prices Paid & Buying Experience [kirstie_h]

  Written by: cptchetco on Mar 26, 2007 12:35:38 AM

  I know this is not what you are asking, but it is relevant. 1968 bought 1966 '66 6cyl convert for $3600 w/11k miles. sold in 1971 for $3500. 1972 bought new Convert (Q code) for $4,000: still have it; appraised $34,000. 1989 Convert 5L 5spd bought 1990 $9,000 (21k miles)sold 1996 (125k miles)for $7,000 to a friend who still has it. 1983 Convert 6cyl Pd $1,000 March '06 (133k Miles)sold Aug ... Read More

Ford Mustang Fox Body 79-93

• I'm buying a 1990' Ford Mustang....

  Written by: rockylee on Nov 13, 2006 6:13:56 PM

  I'm buying a Emerald Green w/ White Leather 7-UP Convertible w/ a 5-Speed 5.0 Ford Mustang with 2,320 original miles this week. :D Like Vanilla Ice, says "Rollin' in my 5.0" Rocky

Modern Muscle with Classic Names

• Insurance...

  Written by: andre1969 on Feb 28, 2006 5:05:14 AM

  here are a few reference points, just to show how bad it can be. I got my driver's license in December 1986, at the age of 16. My mom gave me her 1980 Malibu, and I got an insurance policy in my own name in January 1987, liability-only, and it was $1361 for the year. By around 1989-1990, when I was 19-20, my insurance was down to around $900 per year. ... Read More

Ford Mustang (2005) vs. 2005 Pontiac GTO

• Re: Is there really such a thing as a GT w/ no options? [tayl0rd]

  Written by: facts101 on Feb 1, 2006 7:42:15 AM

  Why doesn't Ford change the rating on their 4.6 to 320hp if this is true? The 2005 Rousch stage 1 Mustang which only adds a better free flowing exhaust doesn't even rate at 320hp, and costs $38k+. I wasn't discussing Honda's, not sure what you are talking about? If you shrunk the GM 2 valve pushrod 6.0 liter motor down to 4.6 it would still be making slightly more hp then ... Read More

Modern Muscle with Classic Names

• Re: Retro's are no goes! [socala4]

  Written by: john_324 on Jan 25, 2006 8:07:35 AM

  Interestingly, the Mustang has faced this dilemma before, and its history provides examples of both when it worked and when it didn't. Consider the leap from the retro design of the Mustang II (an attempt to get back to the proportions and style of the orignal 1964 1/2 car) to the Euro-futurism of the Fox body. Now that was a bold change...and it worked well. But on the other hand, there's ... Read More

Ford Mustang (2005) vs. 2005 Pontiac GTO

• Re: 454SS was nothing special, either was '93-'95 Lightning [rorr]

  Written by: gxpgtodanman on Aug 26, 2005 11:44:17 AM

  "3.73 gears and only mid-high 15's???? Probably traction problems given the torque that motor was capable of and the unloaded rear-end...." You are right on the SS. The Ford Lightning which came out in 1993 had 4.10 gears, 240hp 5.8 Liter and ran mid 15's as well. Same as SS. Ford had a smaller motor, 5.8 vs GM's 7.4 By today stds it sounds avg to slow, Then again that was ... Read More

• Re: 442man [rorr]

  Written by: kevm14 on Jun 1, 2005 11:35:59 AM

  Mustang has solid rear-end. A Kia Spectra has IRS That reminds me. I learned to drive on a 1990 Lincoln Continental, which was based on a stretched Taurus platform. It had IRS. That car handled like....well, it didn't really handle at all. Interestingly, for the point of this discussion, my parents replaced that car with a 96 Maxima SE, with a solid beam rear suspension. That car handles worlds better, and, ... Read More

• Re: My take on this (part one)... [jae5]

  Written by: kenfran on May 27, 2005 6:43:54 PM

  You said, "Hell, the old VW Beetle had irs, so did the Corvair. Are you saying just because those, and this current GTO, have irs it automatically makes them better to a solid-rear axle car? I’d like to see your tire bill if the caster/camber are off on the rear, nasty!" Well, yes, I would say that either of my present Corvairs is a better car than a Mustang. The IRS ... Read More

• Final & last comments on this thread

  Written by: gunit on Apr 15, 2005 7:22:54 AM

  Here is the reason why the Mustang is $5k cheaper then the GTO.... Saw this on another site... funny but true... the Mustang is less expensive because Ford cut a number of corners building that car. "The performance of the GTO clearly blows the Mustang away. The engine, transmission and chassis aren't even close. Think of the GTO as a Cobra -- while the Mustang is just a GT. And with ... Read More

Ford Mustang (2004 and earlier)

• Re: 83 Mustang Gt Turbo [alan208]

  Written by: Sylvia on Mar 31, 2005 2:54:59 PM

  Check out the Used Cars page on Edmunds.com. Or you can go directly to the Used Car Appraiser for Fords - select the link 'Vehicles manufatured before 1990' and it will walk you through the steps.

• If that's it, then...

  Written by: john_324 on Dec 3, 2002 10:30:27 AM

  ...I'm glad I bought my 2002. I can't say that the design really does it for me. The front is unmistakably classic Mustang, but the back reminds me of the short-lived Mercury Capri convertible of the mid-1990s. Of course, it's hard to imagine that Ford would allow one of its most anticipated models out to go the beach (judging by the pictures anyway)and be photographed...this could just be another concept.