1995 Ford Mustang GT 5.0 Litre 302

Summary:

Legendary promise that falls short

Faults:

With the promise of great looks and legendary performance, I thought the Ford Mustang would be a cool car. Wrong!

First week I owned it a valve broke and it ran and sounded like crap.

In two months the distributer gear broke and I had to get the pieces out of the engine.

Brakes failed at less than 50000.

Transmission leaked and shifted at too high rpms.

Ford 5.0 was very sluggish for an 8 cylinder. Could only beat small engine cars.

Nice looks but it started rusting behind the rear wheels. From then on I call Mustangs "Rustangs".

Rear suspension flimsy even after replacing springs and shocks.

Rear tires wore quickly.

Not very reliable.

Swallows gas like a drunk swallows booze.

General Comments:

Next time I will get a Camaro. My 1980 Chevette was much more reliable. In my opinion the "Rustang" is not a real sports car.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Don't Know

Review Date: 4th April, 2001

12th Jan 2005, 18:06

Yet another person who thinks just b/c it's a mustang it must be a super car. They are not well performers in factory form, anyone who know mustangs know that. Take the effort and do a lil work to it.

21st Aug 2007, 14:39

The 1995 only came with 215hp from the factory. It was the lowest since the mid 80's gt.

The car has a lot of potential with minimal work. If you can turn a wrench there is easily another 50hp for less than $300 waiting.

I own one as well.

1995 Ford Mustang

Summary:

Good deal

Faults:

Nothing. I love this car. Nice looking and very fast. Go buy one today.

General Comments:

It's kind of hard to keep up on the new fads on cars.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 26th March, 2001

7th Nov 2009, 14:57

What kind of engine was in it?

1995 Ford Mustang GT 5.0 HO

Summary:

A good performance, low cost convertible, but also a high cost hard top

Faults:

Transmission is crap! It goes, it gets fixed, it goes, it gets fixed, and so on. I must sell it when the warranty goes or I'll have to fix it.

Other than that, the battery dies for no reason, happens once a year. Nobody can figure that one out.

All in all it's a good car, could be a lot worse, this is about as good as it gets.

General Comments:

Seats are very cramped.

It's not all that fast for me, but it's more than fast enough for most.

It eats a lot of gas, but is good looking, especially with the top down.

To sum it up, I should have got a manual instead of an automatic, I'm sure I would not have as many transmission problems. Ford never could make a decent automatic transmission to save their lives, but all in all, it's a good car.

Things could be a lot worse, this is about as good as it gets if you're looking for a cheap low maintenance high performance convertible sports car. But if you can do without the convertible and just want speed, get an RX-7, 3000GT or a Supra; they all eat less gas and perform better,

The Mustang still is a loud unrefined squeaky door American car, but they're working on it :-)

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? No

Review Date: 27th July, 2000

25th Jul 2001, 09:14

All the other reviews on the Mustang were good, but yours. I think you got a bad one in the bunch. I had a '94 six cylinder, and a 2000 GT Convertible, both of which I loved, but they were also manuals. Maybe you were right about Ford's automatic transmision.

3rd Oct 2001, 13:58

So, I want to get a sport/muscle type car, and while I have heard mixed reviews of Ford Mustangs, I don't see other options for a real performance car, under 10 years old & 100k miles, for under 10k used.

While Ford cannot compete with Honda for simple reliable commuter type cars, when one is looking for a car with muscle, the choice seems much harder.

The Japanese sport cars are really expensive to buy and maintain and it's not like these machines have the reliability ratings of the Accords, or Civics or Camry. Most start out at %150- %200% the cost of the Mustang, and the same approx gas mileage (give or take say 2 MPG), in addition most incorporate expensive turbos, or exotic expensive to replace/repair engines (300zx, Eclipse GST, Supra, Rx-7, MR2).

It seems in terms of reliable commuter cars, the Honda, Nissan, Toyota are the undisputed winners.

In terms of affordable muscle/sport cars, no car from any manufacturer seems remarkably reliable, or cheap to maintain. Given that fact, the Ford Mustang seems to deliver all the power of the Japanese cars at a much reduced price both initially, and for replacement parts.

So help me out, if Mustangs are not reliable what is a good option?

6th Jul 2004, 18:22

I don't care what anyone says about 1994-95 Mustangs. I own a 1995 Mustang GT Convertible, and I love it!!! I have never had any problems with it since I bought it, and I don't care if honda's are better on gas or more reliable I still won't own one! I'd rather spend more money on gas and keep my Mustang!!!

20th Sep 2007, 09:23

Mustangs or awesome in so many ways I love mustangs. GT are awesome and every body that has a problem with them is a DORK!!!

1995 Ford Mustang GT 5.0 HO

Faults:

Cooling fan went out at 70,000 miles.

General Comments:

Great car, love the 5.0. I have 101,000 miles on it. Runs as strong as ever. I don't see why Ford shot themselves in the foot and stoped making Windsors.

Would love Ford to make a GT with a 5.8.... or at least a 5.4.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 23rd September, 1999

30th Oct 2009, 16:44

The cooling fans are under recall - they were faulty!!!

1995 Ford Mustang GT 5.0 Liter

Faults:

Power steering went out at 12,000 miles. Was replaced free and promptly. However dealer failed to do alignment correctly after replacing steering gear with new design and wore front tire down. Runs great!

General Comments:

Smooth ride and great handling. Would and want to buy a new one. Great car but Dealer was a a**hole. Reliable and has power to spare. Overall the best car I have owned.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 24th January, 1999