1998 Ford Mustang Reviews - Page 5 of 9

1998 Ford Mustang V6 232 3.8L V6 from North America

Year of manufacture1998
First year of ownership2004
Most recent year of ownership2006
Engine and transmission 232 3.8L V6 Automatic
Performance marks 8 / 10
Reliability marks 9 / 10
Comfort marks 10 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
9.0 / 10
Distance when acquired57000 miles
Most recent distance69004 miles

Summary:

Great car for anyone

Faults:

Only thing that was wrong with it is the headlights get hazy. Ford doesn't use UV protection in their headlights. Just an excuse for me to buy new ones that look better. No big deal.

General Comments:

Let's be honest first. It is not the fastest car around. Does the 1/4 mile in high 16 seconds. It doesn't have ABS or traction control. It isn't what anyone would call the best car in the world, but for its generation it is an awesome car. I love Mustangs, and I love them even more now that I own one. I have driven plenty of other cars, but nothing is like driving a Mustang. I have had no major problems with this car. Even for a v6 it has the low end torque that people look for in a Mustang, and for it's generation v6 it is quick. The back seats are small, and a little more leg room could be nice for all your passengers, but it's nothing really to worry about unless if you got a bunch of guys in your car.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 18th September, 2006

1998 Ford Mustang GT 4.6L 281ci V8 from North America

Model year1998
Year of manufacture1997
First year of ownership2003
Most recent year of ownership2006
Engine and transmission 4.6L 281ci V8 Manual
Performance marks 7 / 10
Reliability marks 8 / 10
Comfort marks 6 / 10
Dealer Service marks 6 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 7 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
6.8 / 10
Distance when acquired35000 miles
Most recent distance51000 miles
Previous carPontiac Grand Am

Summary:

Fun to drive, with an exhaust note to match any big block V8 around

Faults:

Non-Leather seats have started to show wear badly.

Speakers are beginning to crackle.

Carpet in Trunk has torn away and slides freely.

General Comments:

This car is in serious need of performance upgrades, with only 215 horse power from the factor and weighing with the big cars, it is pretty slow off the line. The rear end "hops" when big power is put to it, but that can be fixed with the proper control arms. I have put in a few dollars into this car (heads, cams, exhaust, tune) and it ROARS. There is no match for the sounds of a V8 roaring down the road. I could not be happier with my car. The few problems I have encountered are mostly due to the performance upgrades and would not be noticeable on a stock, daily driven car.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 10th January, 2006

22nd Jan 2006, 15:36

My buddy has a 97 with a flowmaster exhaust, I have a 1975 Cadillac Eldorado. Let me just say that the big 500 in the caddy does sound better than the 4.6 in the mustang. Sorry, but I am right.

12th Jan 2007, 16:10

First of all a Mustang is a ford Product. that is the worst of all. Fords are slow, anytime that you want to race let me know. I've got a 69' camaro SS 454 Turbo 400 trans amd NOS. so bring it.

12th Jan 2007, 18:12

I agree that the original poster was being a little arrogant, and sort of brought this on himself. But it's not quite fair for a 454 Camaro to pick on a poor little '97 Mustang. You are totally out of his league. Go find a 'Cuda to play with.

14th Jan 2007, 10:34

Oh trust me, I have, they're fast cars, but they've never beaten me. You do the math: a 575 hp LS6 454 plus the 250 hp shot of NOS. You can find any Cuda you want and race me.

11th Feb 2007, 01:13

Using NOS in an american muscle car is just plain WRONG. where's the fulfillment in that? knowing that your car can't beat the other one on its own so you have to push the little button and make the other car magically dissappear? Nahh. that's not racing. NOS belongs on those little ricer imports. If you really want your car to prove something, add steel and aluminum parts to the engine, not pressurized gas.

22nd Nov 2007, 23:25

You don't have an LS6 454. I've never seen a 7.4 liter (454) LS6 engine ever. You've simply got a chevy big block.

Let's see, Ford sucks cause they use a smaller engine than your LS6, big deal. And get rid of the NOS, you'll blow your engine a lot quicker that way.

22nd Nov 2007, 23:26

My bad, I was confusing the LS naming. But my other point still stands.

23rd Nov 2007, 17:35

LS5 454s are the common version. The LS6 454s are were put it select 70-72 Chevelles. They came stock with 450 HP, and nicknamed the "rat motor"

They were not put in any other Chevrolet from that era.

Average review marks: 7.5 / 10, based on 42 reviews