1993 Ford Mustang GT from North America - Comments

Replaced starter, alternator, and A/C compressor before 90,000 miles.

Leaking weather stripping around both doors.

No problems with the engine or transmission, they are very tough.

Completely stock, mine would smoke most pre-1993 Camaro V8's. If you are considering buying a GT based on performance, don't do it! Although it was a blast to drive, I regretted not getting a '93 or newer Z28. Why waste your money on aftermarket parts, when you can buy a Z28 with 275 hp stock?

The problem with your car is that in 1993, sales had dropped too much for Ford to continue their mustangs to its legendary power, it also affected the 94-95 with 215 hp. A 92 stang has 225 hp, yours has 205 due to replacing the forged pistons with hypereutic pistons.

I suggest you change your pistons to gain 20 hp to normalize the perfomance of a previous year.

You are completely incorrect about the horse power drop.. The hyper pistons are actually lighter, just not able to handle the stress of detonation enough. The reason for the "horsepower drop", Ford change the way they rated the engine that year, with all the accessories on. Basically running the test with the A/C on, 1993 makes the same horsepower/torque as the 87-92 models.

That is exactly correct. The hyperneumatic pistons are lighter, and provide just as much performance as pre-93 models. Just the way they measured horse power changed. You may also want to rethink that Camaro statement. If you take the price difference from a mustang and a Camaro, split it in half and add performance parts to your stang you would have a different story to tell. Mustangs are just more cost efficient.

I know the posts that are up are old, and maybe no one will see mine, but I was interested in the information the previous to posts were stating. the whole drop from 225hp to 205 hp thing interests me. Are you saying that with all the accessories off, the 93 actually runs the same (or should) as the 87-92...that would make me feel better being a '93 owner, if someone could email me that would be awesome...zhssoccer7@hotmail.com.

The rating system did differ that year and the 205 rating was actually the same power and performance as the 225 of the previous years back to '87. One theory for this was Ford wanting to make the Cobra look better with it's 235 hp rating. A 10 hp gain didn't justify the cost increase of the special edition car. They also probably wanted the new '94 to appear better with it's 215 hp rating as it was the new thing in that day!

I can say, having owned an'89 5.0 5-speed convertible, a '91 LX5.0 auto, and a 93 LX5.0 5-speed, that there is hardly any variation in performance between the HP ratings. The only noticeable difference is between the heavier '89 convertible, and the '93 having no cats and flow-masters, the unmodified '91 automatic seemed to fall respectively in-between the two in terms of performance.