Thinking about buying a '96 mustang. - Ford Mustang Forum
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 10 (permalink) Old 03-01-2012 Thread Starter
Apprentice
 
USAmusclefan777's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2011
Location: Bend
Posts: 206
 
Garage
Thinking about buying a '96 mustang.

I'm looking for a car with good looks, and better gas mileage then my '71 351c coupe. So I wanted to know if these 4.6l are decent engines, what kind of performance you can get out of them, or if I would be better off getting a 5.0l. Any input will be appreciated, the more the merrier. Thanks in advance.


John 3:16

1971 Mustang coupe-351c 2v--C6--9" rear end--originally 302/C4/8" car.
USAmusclefan777 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 10 (permalink) Old 03-01-2012
Rookie
5.0L Member
 
dunny077's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2009
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 32
 
I've had my 95 GT for three years now and like it. I'm glad I went for the 95 rather than the 96-98 just because parts are so much cheaper (for the engine at least). The exhaust was roughly the same as what you would pay for 96 parts. The 5.0 is a much more reliable engine, and the gas mileage isn't horrible. With all my basic bolt-ons, and 3.73's I get about 23-24 on the highway, and about 17-18 around town. Hope this helped!


-Dunny
1995 GT - B&M Short Throw, CAI, Pypes O/R X Pipe, Magnaflow 6in SS Mufflers, SCT Eliminator Chip, 3.73 gears, Ford Racing Aluminum Driveshaft, 20%front/5%rear window tint, 6000K HIDs
dunny077 is offline  
post #3 of 10 (permalink) Old 03-01-2012 Thread Starter
Apprentice
 
USAmusclefan777's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2011
Location: Bend
Posts: 206
 
Garage
Very helpful Dunny, thanks for the help, I'll see if i can find a 94-95 5.0 liter out here in oregon.

John 3:16

1971 Mustang coupe-351c 2v--C6--9" rear end--originally 302/C4/8" car.
USAmusclefan777 is offline  
 
post #4 of 10 (permalink) Old 03-01-2012
Apprentice
4.6L Member
5.0L Member
 
sn95stang42's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Location: Hays
Posts: 98
 
I have had both a 95 and 96. 94 -98 are the best looking body. As far as the motor go both are very strong motors and reliable.The thing about the 94-95 5.0 is the bottom end is not forged witch is ok as long as you dont want go F/I.The 4.6 bottom end can handle up to 10-12 pounds of boost stock. And for parts the aftermarket heads for the 4.6 cost a little more then the 5.0. In less you go the pi route. Cams for the 4.6 are bit more to but as far as the rest of the engine parts they are about the same.

96 GT 5sp Mac CAI, Mac H pipe,Mac cat back, C&L plenum,255lph,b&m short throw,auburn pro series differential,31 spline axles,ford racing drive shaft, center force clutch,3.73 gears, TKO600, Bama Tune

04 exploer limited

95 vert gt 5sp SOLD!
sn95stang42 is offline  
post #5 of 10 (permalink) Old 03-01-2012
PONY Member
4.6L Member
 
burninrock24's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2011
Location: Bloomington
Posts: 804
 
If you want an SN95 and not a new-edge (99-04) then Id go with the 5.0 for the fact that it makes similar HP for half the price of parts for 96-98 mustangs.

But dont get me wrong, I love my 96.

Black with saddle 1996 Mustang GT convertible. Manual. NPI, 2v 4.6L. Full bolt-ons.
burninrock24 is offline  
post #6 of 10 (permalink) Old 03-02-2012 Thread Starter
Apprentice
 
USAmusclefan777's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2011
Location: Bend
Posts: 206
 
Garage
Thanks guys, great advice.

John 3:16

1971 Mustang coupe-351c 2v--C6--9" rear end--originally 302/C4/8" car.
USAmusclefan777 is offline  
post #7 of 10 (permalink) Old 03-03-2012
GT Member
S197 Member
 
Quan Cheese's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2012
Location: Lancaster
Posts: 2,046
 
I rather have the 99+ Style... 210Hp stock really?? The thing runs 15s My sisters b.f slow 2012 si can do that.. o.0 And then the amazing slow numbers of 160hp on a stock dyno for an auto. And I hate that body style its so ugly...


Sources: My personal opinion......
Quan Cheese is offline  
post #8 of 10 (permalink) Old 03-03-2012
Banned
4.6L Member
 
sillyrabbit0420's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2009
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 3,705
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by quan cheese View Post
i rather have the 99+ style... 210hp stock really?? The thing runs 15s my sisters b.f slow 2012 si can do that.. O.0 and then the amazing slow numbers of 160hp on a stock dyno for an auto. And i hate that body style its so ugly...


Sources: My personal opinion......


gtfo..........................
sillyrabbit0420 is offline  
post #9 of 10 (permalink) Old 03-03-2012
GT Member
S197 Member
 
Quan Cheese's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2012
Location: Lancaster
Posts: 2,046
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sillyrabbit0420 View Post
gtfo..........................
lolol someones mad...


It's true. There slow
Quan Cheese is offline  
Banned
4.6L Member
 
sillyrabbit0420's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2009
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 3,705
 
No. Your post is unclear and retarded. I don't care what your opinion is. I just don't know what you're talking about.
sillyrabbit0420 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Ford Mustang Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a VALID email address for yourself, otherwise you will not receive the necessary confirmation email needed to confirm, validate and activate your new AFM member account.

Failure to provide a VALID email address, will result in the cancellation of your new AFM member account registration.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome
 


Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.1