Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General General Second post as a troll...first opinions after a weekend with my new stang.

starsky, you must be on crack.

Whatever you say.

Why an 87 or 88 in particular? I can think of several reasons in particular to NOT choose an 87 or 88 GT over other years of the Fox body.

Though the interior is slightly larger than the present Mustang, it isn't any more useful than the present interior, because the extra room is in places you don't really need it, excepting of course the hatchback area, but this brings its own problems, such as extra weight and issues w/ torsional rigidity.

This is only personal opinion and certainly debatable, and personally I'd wager that 99svtguy prefers the 99+ sheetmetal over the 87-93 GT style.

This also is very debatable. The Mustang has consistantly sold about the same # of cars for many many years, and the particular GT style you refer to was built for 7 model years, and the 99+ style has been around for only 3.5, so the only way there is less of them is through massive attrition. (though I'm not saying this isn't possible, just that this is a very difficult position to defend without a very detailed list of vehicle registrations from DMV/Sec. of State from every state in the US)

Umm, the Mustang was built to sell cars, and women are a part of that market. Do they buy the GTs? Sometimes, but more often they choose the base car. The GT wasn't designed to cater to women anymore than any previous gen GTs were. The 94 Body style was intended to bring mustang back to its traditional flair.

I would love to know how you can get a *stock* 88 GT auto to 142+ seeing as how the Fox GT hits an aerodynamic wall at about 138, despite the aerodynamic instability at anywhere near those speeds (not that the present car doesn't have rear end lift either, most cars do)
Not to mention the absolute lack of adequate braking in the Fox body for even normal speeds.

Stock for stock, a 99+ GT will walk all over a Fox GT. The only real advantage the Fox GT has over the 99+ GT is that engine go-fast goodies are cheaper and there is a wider selection (excepting the 87-88 you so lovingly refer to, as the speed density system in those cars doesn't respond as well to mods as does the MAF based system in the 88 CA and 89+ fox cars, this is why so many people upgrade the setups in pre 89 cars) but other than that the 99+ is just as easy to modify for more power, and it starts with an honest 45 more hp.

Excepting very rare and isolated cases, this is absolutely false. Previous standards for rating factory hp had such oddities as not including the engine accesories when doing a dyno run, and the system was setup such that is was very easy to run a single "ringer" motor for determining the advertised hp. Now the "advertised hp" is an average of several engines, that are configured as they are in the vehicle (including exhaust systems) Hp ratings since ~93 are far more accurate than anything previously put out. Insurance rates are very very rarely a consideration for a hp rating, though other factors may be involved in getting a vehicle rated conservatively (I can think of at least one new car . . .)

Point being, that while the Fox body mustangs can be great cars, and can be made to be very fast, the arguments you use are completely useless, and you skipped ALL of the valid points for considering one. Not to mention you chose 2 of the worst years of the Fox (at least from a mod standpoint) to specifically call out.

99svtguy, good choice, I hope you enjoy the Mustang! feel free to drop me a line for any mod advice, as I have some unique experience in my knowledge of Mustangs, and would be more than happy to lend a hand in making your Mustang into exactly what you want it to be.