28th Jun 2005, 15:34

Who are the last 2 ingnorants who posted comments? You kniow, it;s funny how many driver's with Neons and Civic's have gotten spanked by my 5.0 95 Mustang. The Mustang name carries a heritage, and the muscle to this car isn't necessarily the V8, but the Mustangs reputation. For those who think that Mustang is a "mass produced, cheaply made" sports car, your wrong. The Mustang lags far behind in sales compared to Dodges and Honda's for example. So who's car is mass produced? You can attempt to mod a 4 cylinder with intakes and neon light, but the car is still a paltry 4 cylinder. The true V8 gas hog is a MAN's car! I love my Mustang, keep it clean, and YES, it does turn heads. The 95 was a retro-sharp year.

29th Dec 2005, 12:57

Why are you burning a guy for his spelling? Ooo he doesn't spell right so his opinion doesn't matter...

Mustangs may have "lost" their tuffness lately, but IMO they are still respectable cars. Why would you mention a neon though? If I said I drive a 4.6 mustang...you'd say yeah, cool alright...

If I said I drive a neon...you'd laugh and tell your friends. :)

I wait to see the day when ford puts a 5.8 in a stang. Or possibly a 460 engine. Now that would be a muscle car. Hey that might be a project for when I'm a bit older with more money. Buy a stang that can fit the 460 and drop that engine in. That'd be sweet project...

13th Feb 2006, 19:54

The GT from 1994-1998 had 215 stock horses - and could do 1-60 in 5.5 seconds. Almost as good as a Camaro, a Cobra or a Firebird.

If anything, the Mustang is being torn away, rather than mass produced.

In 2005, they ran out of GT's. Explain that...

:-)

25th Jul 2006, 23:50

Replying to the "SRT-4" comment.

Just to correct you on a few points, first of all a mustang weighs in at approximately 3100 lbs, second of all you claim that the mustang is a cheap mass produced car, if that's true than I would hate to see what a neon... I mean "SRT-4" is.

9th Nov 2007, 23:12

OK here is the thing with the "Pathetic 215hp", imagine this in 87 the 5.0 HO was rated at 225hp and 300 tq... now go to 93 when it was 205 and 270tq (I believe) and then 94-95 comes around and it all the sudden has 215hp and 285tq, when if you look under the hood... NOTHING HAS CHANGED... look at bore and stroke and cylinderheads NOTHING HAS CHANGED... the only thing that has changed was the way ford measured their horsepower, Ford, GM, and Chrysler were notorious for underrating their hp and tq numbers lower than real because of insurance premiums... and as far as any one with their "Sophisticated Machine"- yeah nice one Lance Tran from fast and the furious, you can come visit my 95 Stang GT, and we will see who has a better "Machine", yeah ricers are all the same, their engine is not as big as their mouth...

29th Sep 2022, 06:30

To the one saying a stock SN95 Mustang GT can do under 6 seconds to 60mph is incorrect; even with professional drivers it got worse times than my 'rice' 1999 Mitsubishi Eclipse GS-T I had as a kid, they were easy kills especially the V8 autos. I've driven plenty, and even the 1995 GTS model is too slow for a V8.

I like how these look, but stock they're probably the worst generation of Mustang GT since the 70s excluding the 1999-2004 models and 1996+ SVT Cobra, (the latter could hit 13.8s@102mph) Think about it...the GT manual ran 15s quarter miles @ 91-95mph stock while GMs Camaro Z28 was doing low 14s @ well over 100mph.

I had a 2007 Mustang GT 5 speed w the optional 3.55 factory gear ratios, only mod was a K&N filter, it ran 13.7s-13.9s@102-104mph at the strip and even that wasn't impressive for a V8. 300HP was just weak, it should have been at least 340HP. It stacked up terribly against the LS2 Pontiac GTO and LS1 Camaro/Firebird models.

Best car I ever owned was a 1996 Mitsubishi 3000GT VR-4, I kept it bone stock the whole time I owned it. Going over 130mph in my '07 Mustang GT was a white knuckle experience, in the Mitsubishi it was like doing 60mph. At the strip it ran consistent 13.3-13.4s@101-105mph depending on how hard I launched it and had great top end, it was reminiscent of a friend's C5 Corvette but with more of a rapid pull during the TTs peak. In *1994* MotorWeek tested a 1994 3000GT VR-4 and hit 60mph in 4.9s and the 1/4m in 13.5@103mph. My '96 is a lighter year but losing the Active Aero really helps, the 97-98 models can run 13.1s ETs with a talented driver. I'd have missed my AA after experiencing it though - it sucked the car down to the road and made it handle sweepers at laughably high speeds.