99-04Gt Verse 95Gt

[Notaneggspert]

Hey I'm new to the forum and would appreciate some advice. I've been driving the family 08 Fusion SEL for the past year and am planing to get a Mustang Gt between now and the summer.

I'm just looking for some general advice on which I should buy.
I can drive manual and will not get an automatic GT.

The way I see it is the 5.0L 95s are cheaper to buy and insure but lack power compared to the 4.6L. They also tend to have lots of miles and often need work. The 99-04 are more expensive to buy/insure and have some 50 horses more under the hood from the factory. Their millage isn't pretty either and they often need minor work but seems like they would be easier to keep running.

For a while I gave up on the 95s simply because they are older and don't have as much horsepower, but after driving a friends 5speed 2002 Volkswagen with 110 Hp I realized the 5.0L would make a solid first car for 3-5K.
Still would love to get a good deal 4-7K on a 99-04 but insurance would be almost twice as much.

 

[95Vert383AOD]

I have a 95 GT.....WITH an AUTO I seem to have traction problems in most all gears. Could be the Manual valve body and ratchet shifter. OR the 497lbs TQ @2200 RPM. Or maybe it has something to do with the 6.3 emblems on my fender. BTW i'm still running stock ratio gears with Trac-lok.

But in all honesty. If i planned on driving a car in stock form and wanted it to be fast it probably wouldn't be a mustang. With that said, if you'e willing to turn a wrench.....Buy the 95 and build something pretty on an engine stand. I had my engine built before i bought my 95.

 

[Deleted member 38176]

I test drove a 95 GT before buying my 02. The 95 was a 5spd and my 02 is an auto. The 95 felt like a V6 compared to my 02 (when it was stock). That being said, I absolutely wouldn't mind having an old 5.0 motor. Those motors are GREAT platforms to build on and make fast rides.

It really comes down to what you can "afford". If you honestly have to stretch your funds for a 99-04, then maybe the 95 is the better option. A 95 5.0 with a few bolt-ons can make for a damn fun car to drive.

 

[Ateup]

I don't recommend a 16 year old sports car for your first vehicle. I'm guessing your younger and have limited income so I'd go with something newer, slower, less miles, more dependable, and cheaper to own and maintain.

 

[Notaneggspert]

I test drove a 95 GT before buying my 02. The 95 was a 5spd and my 02 is an auto. The 95 felt like a V6 compared to my 02 (when it was stock). That being said, I absolutely wouldn't mind having an old 5.0 motor. Those motors are GREAT platforms to build on and make fast rides.

It really comes down to what you can "afford". If you honestly have to stretch your funds for a 99-04, then maybe the 95 is the better option. A 95 5.0 with a few bolt-ons can make for a damn fun car to drive.

Regardless of which car I get I am planning to put on some bolt ons and hopefully turn it into a project car in a few years.
I wouldn't consider putting a super charger in anytime soon. Mostly aesthetics things like chrome/fog lights (don't want projectors), chin spoiler, and grill delete. And some slight performance boltons like a CAI, exhaust and maybe springs.
Thanks

 

[N8Dogg98]

I'd stick with a 99-04 GT. Sure the old 5.0's can be fun, but the 2V 4.6 cars have a lot of potential as well, plus they are more refined, at least 4 years newer, and the 4.6 engines are incredibly reliable. Not sure what your goals are, but if you did the following to a 4.6 2V you'd have a damn fun car to drive, that would handle well, and could potentially have around 280-290 RWHP.

Suspension:
FLSFC's
lowering springs (H&R Supersports, or Eibach pro-kit)
New shocks/struts (tokiko HP or bilstein HD's)
MM LCA's
MM CC plates

Performance:
new mid-pipe (either X or H, o/r or catted)
cat-back exhaust (buy for the sound not for performance)
new rear gears (3.73 or 4.10)
new cams
dyno tune

 

[joshjwc9]

I think you are really torn between the two. I think you need to ask yourself (and probably answer these so we can lead you in the direction we think you'd like):

Is this a DD?
Does gas mileage matter?
Are you able to perform maintenance? (Oil Change, minor suspension replacement)?
Do you just want a cruiser, or do you eventually want to put some power under the hood?

I think a issue with looking for a vehicle is the simple thing a perspective owner overlooks. Are you willing to replace such things as a fuel filter, rack bushings, shocks and struts. Furthermore, if you are a college student like myself, are you willing to try to install this stuff yourself, or spend the cash to have a professional install it.

Since insurance is a concern, I'd start leaning towards a modified 94-95 GT or Cobra if you can find one. The Cobra has the better brakes right off the start.

Good Luck!

 

[SteedaGT9150]

theres absolutely nothing wrong with either car, ive owned both engines and would buy another 302 in a heart beat. it really comes down to what you want to do. have you worked on cars before? a 302 is 10x easier to work on in my opinion, and is a great engine for someone to learn on. just remember, you dont always have to have the fastest car on the road, its whatever makes you happy.

 

[N8Dogg98]

theres absolutely nothing wrong with either car, ive owned both engines and would buy another 302 in a heart beat. it really comes down to what you want to do. have you worked on cars before? a 302 is 10x easier to work on in my opinion, and is a great engine for someone to learn on. just remember, you dont always have to have the fastest car on the road, its whatever makes you happy.

Well said Steeda.

OP, just keep in mind that the older the vehicle the more maintenance it may need. I'll say with confidence that any Mustang from 94-04 is very easy to work on. It just depends on how much time and money you are willing to invest to keep one of these things running top notch. The OHC engines can be intimidating at first, but there's really nothing too difficult to work on with them (except installing headers ). Although, no matter what you decide on, remember that the aero cars are better looking than the new edge cars

Josh had some good questions for you about what you're looking for in a car. If you have answers to his questions, we can probably provide better advice.

 

[BurningRubber]

I almost went with a '95 GT, and at times I now regret not doing it. If you're looking to go fast, there's a larger aftermarket and prices are often much less for parts compared to a 4.6 car.

That said, expect to replace more wear and tear items on an older car. My 2000 GT has been rock solid, breaking zero parts since I bought it 4 years ago at 92k, and now it's at 147k. I've drag raced it, autocrossed it, beat on it... never gives up.

 

[N8Dogg98]

I almost went with a '95 GT, and at times I now regret not doing it. If you're looking to go fast, there's a larger aftermarket and prices are often much less for parts compared to a 4.6 car.

That said, expect to replace more wear and tear items on an older car. My 2000 GT has been rock solid, breaking zero parts since I bought it 4 years ago at 92k, and now it's at 147k. I've drag raced it, autocrossed it, beat on it... never gives up.

There may be a larger aftermarket for the 5.0 cars, but really a 4.6 car w/ the right parts can go just as fast and be easier to DD.

FYI, a TF top end kit for the 5.0 (360 HP) is $2600 compared to $2900 for the TF top end kit for the 4.6 (390 hp).

*waits for Gearbanger*

 

[SteedaGT9150]

There may be a larger aftermarket for the 5.0 cars, but really a 4.6 car w/ the right parts can go just as fast and be easier to DD.

FYI, a TF top end kit for the 5.0 (360 HP) is $2600 compared to $2900 for the TF top end kit for the 4.6 (390 hp).

*waits for Gearbanger*

iirc, most dont even get close to 360....

 

[patman0911]

The biggest difference between a 99-04 and a 94-95 is that the 99-04s are 5~10 years newer than a 94 or 95.

For all intents and purposes, there's not much real difference between a 1994 and 2004 GT. There's some differences in the details but I wouldn't get too hung up on them - any of them are going to be a lot of fun to drive.

If reliability is a factor, my advice is to get the newest, lowest mileage, best condition one you can find at a price you can afford.

These cars are pretty reliable in general - my '96 has been the most dependable car I've been associated with - but once you get past about 10 years, issues are going to start creeping up if it's a daily driver. If you can put up minor annoyances and the occasional day or two without your car while you replace some failed part, than feel free to dip into the older end of the pool of Mustangs out there. The basic drivetrains are very durable unless you do chronically stupid/abusive stuff or are just unlucky.

A 2004 with decent miles and hasn't been totally abused should still drive like a new car and give you 5+ years of service with practically nothing but oil changes. Even the best 1994 is going to have a few things that need looking at right off the bat and is going to have some new problem pop up every so often.

 

[Kornnut]

theres absolutely nothing wrong with either car, ive owned both engines and would buy another 302 in a heart beat. it really comes down to what you want to do. have you worked on cars before? a 302 is 10x easier to work on in my opinion, and is a great engine for someone to learn on. just remember, you dont always have to have the fastest car on the road, its whatever makes you happy.

X3

 

[Dark04GT]

theres absolutely nothing wrong with either car, ive owned both engines and would buy another 302 in a heart beat. it really comes down to what you want to do. have you worked on cars before? a 302 is 10x easier to work on in my opinion, and is a great engine for someone to learn on. just remember, you dont always have to have the fastest car on the road, its whatever makes you happy.

+4.

It sounds like money is tight, if it were me I would look towards the 99-04's because they are newer / might require less maintenance work. But either one would easily fit the bill.

 

[Notaneggspert]

I think you are really torn between the two. I think you need to ask yourself (and probably answer these so we can lead you in the direction we think you'd like):

Is this a DD?
Does gas mileage matter?
Are you able to perform maintenance? (Oil Change, minor suspension replacement)?
Do you just want a cruiser, or do you eventually want to put some power under the hood?

I think a issue with looking for a vehicle is the simple thing a perspective owner overlooks. Are you willing to replace such things as a fuel filter, rack bushings, shocks and struts. Furthermore, if you are a college student like myself, are you willing to try to install this stuff yourself, or spend the cash to have a professional install it.

Since insurance is a concern, I'd start leaning towards a modified 94-95 GT or Cobra if you can find one. The Cobra has the better brakes right off the start.

Good Luck!

This would be a daily driver to work school and a little fun on weekends.
Getting a car with 20-60K miles would be amazing but cost a lot more than the 70-120K obviously the lower the better just need to find the perfect balance between low miles/price.
I love working on cars just started doing basic things like oil changes (did a Lincoln town car today). My friend has a Vic with lots of problems, were bleeding the brake this weekend he also needs a new diagnostic computer.
I am leaning towards a 95 its slower now but they have lots of potential for later when I have extra cash.

 

[purplestang47]

honestly most of these cars in this price range should all be pretty dependable. it really just depends how hard the po was on the car you're going to look at. both the 5.0 and the 4.6 are great platforms and are going to hold up to alot of abuse but you are going to have the occasional problem. like my 96 two months after i got it i had to change tie rod ends and then a couple weeks later i did the ball joints if you can handle basic work like that then i deffiinely would look a little harder into the 94-95 or even 96-98 sn95s just for the fact that you can find them cheaper and insurance will be cheaper and you will be getting almost the same car as the newer style. yeah they may have less power now but if you're planning to do a build in a couple years i would try to save as much mone now as you can and keep saving up for parts along the way

 

[Mustang5L5]

If this is going to be a basic bolt on car, stick with the 4.6l. You get more starting hp and they take well to the bolt ons.

If this is something you want to pull the engine out and really tear into, get the 5.0....but I would get a 5.0 cobra. A few mods and you can get 300 crank hp out of them. They are severly underrated and limited by The factory. You can prob get a 5.0 cobra for 5k.


Ive had both 5.0 and 4.6....I love them both.

 

[LarsD]

I gotta agree with a sentiment here, I love both my 4.6 and 5.0. My 5.0 is in a 91 and not an SN-95, but still the same engine. I got mine with about 140K on the clock, it now has 150K on it and it has been relatively trouble free. It's down at the moment due to having basic stuff being neglected on it by the PO, but it's mostly simple fixes. Like others have said, if you want to wrench and do bigger things later, get the 5.0, if you just want to do some boltons and drive it, get the 4.6.

 

[N8Dogg98]

iirc, most dont even get close to 360....

well that's just what they're advertised as, and I assume the manufacturer is referring to crank hp and not RWHP.

I've got to say, the responses in this thread have been excellent. There was a time a couple years ago when threads like this would turn into a stupid childish 5.0 vs. 4.6 debate. It's nice to see everyone here isn't wrapped up in those kind of arguments. I too agree with everything you all have said. Both are reliable, both can be made to go fast, and both are relatively easy to mod.