I replaced the water pump, belt, hoses, brakes, tires, heater core, starter motor, alternator and some other odds and ends. All in a 2 year span. The stereo started giving me static noise toward the end of my ownership of the car.
My Mustang 5.0 was a fine performance car. The motor was very responsive especially at low and mid-ranges.It does start losing steam after 4,500 RPM's, but you rarely need to go beyond that. A true thrill to drive in any given situation. On the freeway the motor is above idle speeds due to the tall 5th gear. At 120mph the engine speed was around 3,000 RPM's. I clocked 140mph on occasion with ease. Around the town drag racing in this car was quite a blast and so are the curvy roads in the country, although if pushed to hard the back end would come around. On rainy days this car can be lethal! I managed to get into some nasty spins. The suspension is firm and feels sporty. Overall a good thrill for the money.
Of course the back end is gonna come around its called horse power! I would be really disapointed if it didn't. I love when it does that!
As for the rainy days, there fine to drive as long as you're not driving crazy. If you take it easy then its fine.
WOW, 3000 rpm at 120mph... that's a great overdrive gear... my Honda civic si is at 3000 rpm at 65mph...
No way was the engine turning 3,000 RPM's at 120 MPH. I had two of these cars and they are pushing past 4,000 RPM's in 5th at that speed. Even a 6 speed car would be pushing more than that at 120... Learn how to read your tach... or get it checked out because it aint workin' right!!
Well my 50 runs 120 at 2800 and I can read the tach fine.
The tach probably turns lower RPM's due to the pitiful 2.73 rear end. The Traction Lok axle (3.08) is greared higher therefore the rpm's would be higher at the same speed.
2.73 back end is not bad. Raise that and you will start burning gas like V8 Bronco or more LOL.
My last Mustang was a '90 5.0. It's got 11-15mpg and was not as fast as my 2007 4.0 V-6. It wasn't one of my favorite ponys. I've had 7 Mustangs, I'd rank it 6th out of the 7. The worst was a 1976 (based on the Pinto chassis).
"2.73 back end is not bad. Raise that and you will start burning gas like V8 Bronco or more LOL."
"Not bad" as long as you don't mind the increase from 6.2 seconds to 7.3 in a 0-60 run. Gas mileage was never a problem for my Mustangs. I could get into the mid 20's cruising the highway even with the larger 3.08 axle. Running around town was around 18 as long as the tires didn't have any smoke coming off of them.
I sold Ford's back in the 90's and there was a Mustang GT with the 2.73 axle on it and it was a dog. We couldn't sell it to save our lives. The Traction Lok made such a huge difference in performance and it was a no cost option on the car at the time. I wouldn't even look at a 5.0 with an "M" code axle in it. "Z" code all the way.....
"My last Mustang was a '90 5.0. It's got 11-15mpg and was not as fast as my 2007 4.0 V-6. It wasn't one of my favorite ponys. I've had 7 Mustangs, I'd rank it 6th out of the 7. The worst was a 1976 (based on the Pinto chassis)."
I would have put the '90 at 8th out of 7th if mine was getting 11-15 mpg. Were you driving on the highway in 3rd gear? You had some major issues with your car there to get that low of a mpg rating or you were just driving it in too low of a gear consistently. You should have checked for pools of gas from your leaky tank in your driveway!!
Oh, and the 5.0 with a traction lok was faster by at least a half second to 60 over your V-6 car so in no way is the 2007 V-6 faster than a 5.0. It probably feels faster 'cause it sits lower than the older Mustang but you are shy about 15 HP and three times that much in torque. Of course if you had an AT or a 2.73 rear end it would have been closer. And if you actually had a '76 Mustang, you really only had 6 Mustangs all together.
Note: A Comments RSS Feed is available. New comments appear in the Members Area before the main site