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 01, 2009 04:41 PM

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

Ford Mustang Prices Paid and Buying Experience

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

Written by: cptchetco on Mar 26, 2007 00:35 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 ... Read More...

Ford Mustang Fox Body 79-93

I'm buying a 1990' Ford Mustang....

Written by: rockylee on Nov 13, 2006 06:13 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 Read More...

Modern Muscle with Classic Names

Insurance...

Written by: andre1969 on Feb 28, 2006 05:05 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. I started getting the ... 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 01, 2006 07:42 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 ... Read More...

Modern Muscle with Classic Names

Re: Retro's are no goes! [socala4]

Written by: john_324 on Jan 25, 2006 08:07 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 ... 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 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 ... Read More...

Re: 442man [rorr]

Written by: kevm14 on Jun 01, 2005 11:35 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. ... Read More...

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

Written by: kenfran on May 27, 2005 06:43 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 on ... Read More...

Final & last comments on this thread

Written by: gunit on Apr 15, 2005 07:22 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 ... Read More...