1991 Ford Mustang LX from North America - Comments

The Spark Plugs and Wires needed to be replaced, only due too bad installation though.

I needed a new battery after only 2 weeks, but that is also a reluctant fault.

Minor rust showed though very soon after my first winter, but it wasn't horrible for a 10 year old car.

This is for anyone reading up on their sports cars. Believe me, I've been there---done that with every aspect of an automobile. This is a great prize of American Muscle for any car enthusiast. Performance is second to none, acceleration (with minor upgrades) is worthy to play with the big boys. If you like cars just for a past-time, or you're sending it straight to the track, this car is ideal. I threw 15,000 dollars into my Mustang, and would do it again in 1/10 of a second. I never regretted racing a Ford, so don't be fooled. A Fox Body Mustang is and always will be King of the Road. If you want a real car, go with my advice, get a 2Stang. If you want problems and tugboat like acceleration, get an import or a Chevy.

I don't know how old this post is, but, I wouldn't go so far as saying chevy isn't responsive on the acceleration, I got a stock 1996 gmc 2wd truck with just a 305 that will destroy any stock mustang 302, or 302 HO from 0-100 mph. I only know this cuz my brother owns a 91 mustang 5 speed posi rearend 302 ho, it will only beat me after 100 because I get shutdown at 100 mph, and he doesn't, if I had 15,000 to put into a gm motor theres no way a ford would touch it, Gm/Chevy are the cheapest things to get Hp out of for the fact that they are more common.

"I don't know how old this post is, but, I wouldn't go so far as saying chevy isn't responsive on the acceleration, I got a stock 1996 gmc 2wd truck with just a 305 that will destroy any stock mustang 302, or 302 HO from 0-100 mph. I only know this cuz my brother owns a 91 mustang 5 speed posi rearend 302 ho, it will only beat me after 100 because I get shutdown at 100 mph, and he doesn't, if I had 15,000 to put into a gm motor theres no way a ford would touch it, Gm/Chevy are the cheapest things to get Hp out of for the fact that they are more common."

First of all the post is dated 2002. Second in NO WAY will a stock Chevy truck with a 305 "destroy" any 5.0 Mustang. Please... you have LESS POWER with MORE WEIGHT. Simple physics would tell you this is not a probable competitor for the Mustang. Your bro is just trying to make you feel good about driving around a slow truck or he just doesn't have any clue how to drive a stick. I'd love to race you for pink slips so I can have a nice winter beater truck to drive while the Mustang stays warm and dry!

0-60 is 6.2 seconds stock on the Mustang. From researching it the Chevy looks to be in the mid 8 seconds to low 9 seconds range stock with the 220 hp 305. Yeah, you're "destroying" Mustangs!!

If I put $15K into my 302, you wouldn't beat it with a Vette, never mind a truck with a 305 in it. Give me a break. This post is almost as hilarious as the Cavalier Z-24 guys that claim to beat 5.0 Mustangs!

I agree that a truck such as the one mentioned in comment 05:19 (if stock) would do good to beat an I-4 Fusion, let alone a 5.0 Mustang. With that said, the STOCK (and I emphasize stock) 5.0 is not all that fast. I've had two Fox 5.0's and neither would outrun a V-6 Camaro or the new V-6 Mustangs. They are easily modified, but stock they are fun but not fabulous. The new 4.0 V-6's eat them alive and the 2001-2002 V-6 Camaros beat me every time. Both mine were stock, however. I believe in being honest about my cars. Exaggerating is not my style. I really think comment 05:19 is an exaggeration if the engine in the truck is not modified.

"If I put $15K into my 302, you wouldn't beat it with a Vette, never mind a truck with a 305 in it. Give me a break. This post is almost as hilarious as the Cavalier Z-24 guys that claim to beat 5.0 Mustangs!"

True. A wealthy Mustang-enthusiast friend of mine has put $10,000 into modifying his 2007 Mustang GT. The shop that did the work did a dyno test and it is putting out close to 600 horsepower. The same shop tells me they can get 400+ horsepower out of my V-6 for under $8,000. With money all things are possible!!

A V6 Camaro has the following HP, depending on the year:

1982-1986 115HP, 1987-91 125HP, 1992-1995 165HP, 1996-2002 200HP.

A Mustang GT being lighter and have more HP 225-300, depending on the year, would smoke any V6 Camaro. Don't even compare a V6 Camaro to a Mustang GT. If you want to compare any Camaro to a Mustang GT, compare it to a Z28, or SS!

Be logical, compare apples to apples, not apples to pears!

A MUSTANG IS A MUSTANG ONLY IF IT HAS A V8.

"A Mustang GT being lighter and have more HP 225-300, depending on the year, would smoke any V6 Camaro. Don't even compare a V6 Camaro to a Mustang GT. If you want to compare any Camaro to a Mustang GT, compare it to a Z28, or SS!"

Oh, really?? Then explain why a V-6 Camaro could repeatedly beat both my Fox 5.0's in the quarter mile. I've driven 2001 and 2002 V-6 Camaros that were totally stock. Regardless of WHAT their horsepower rating, they were faster than my stock Fox 5.0's. I'm a Mustang fan, but it doesn't do the brand a lot of good to exaggerate their performance. I drive them because I like Fords and especially the Mustang. Yes, the V-8 Mustang can be modified to be very formidable. Stock, however, it is a fun ride but not really a true muscle car. The post-2004's with 300+ horsepower ARE much faster, but the Foxes were pretty tame stock. My mildly modified 4.0 V-6 would run rings around either of my stock Fox 5.0's. Check out the 0-60 figures for the stock Fox 5.0's and you'll find they were pretty tame. Both mine did 0-60 in just over 7 seconds. That's not BAD, but not as good as the new 4.0 or the Camaro V-6.

"Check out the 0-60 figures for the stock Fox 5.0's and you'll find they were pretty tame. Both mine did 0-60 in just over 7 seconds. That's not BAD, but not as good as the new 4.0 or the Camaro V-6"

The Fox Mustang from '87-93 did 0-60 in 6.2 seconds as per C&D or MT magazine. If you are doing it in over 7 seconds you either had an AT or a 2.73 rear end, which really choked the performance potential of the car. The totally STOCK 3.08 traction lok axle with the T-5 5 speed manual is the only way to go on those cars. There is no Camaro V-6 that ever got to 60 in under 7 seconds, and you can check 0-60 times in many places on the internet if you need support of that claim. Okay, maybe the new one does it in less than 7 seconds, but it took 304 HP to get it to 60 in 6.5 seconds.... STILL not as fast as a 5.0!!

It makes me laugh when people think lower HP heavier cars, such as the older Camaros, are faster than lighter ones with more HP. Simple physics.

Both my Foxes were automatics with the 2.73 rear gearing. That was how the vast majority of 85-93 V-8 Foxes were bought. My '85 took nearly 8 seconds to 60 and my '90 took about 7.5. A totally stock 2002 Camaro V-6 my friend owned easily broke into the high 6's. GM vehicles have generally always outperformed Ford products with higher horsepower ratings. It isn't always a case of pure weight/horsepower numbers. Our 6 cylinder mid-sized SUV easily blows the lighter V-8 Explorers away while getting 5 mpg better gas mileage. It's about as fast 0-60 as my '85 Fox, for that matter.

Actually the AT used a 3.27 gear. Still not a performance car though with that lousy tranny in front of it. I think the '85 should have been a little faster though as the 5-speed did 0-60 in 6.4. Comparing AT cars to V-6 Camaros doesn't really carry much weight. Anyone who is an enthusiast would get the car equipped with the traction lok 3.08 with the 5-speed T5 manual tranny as it was a no cost option and made the car much faster stock than ANY V-6 Camaro. All of my friends and family who have owned 5.0's always had them equipped right and never had trouble with any Camaro V-6 or V-8 up until '93 when they made the Camaro essentially a plastic Corvette with the LT1. Oh, and I have NEVER seen a V-6 Camaro that beat the 7 second mark to 60 short of the 2010 model year. Most of them were closer to an 8 second run to 60.

I actually came across a guy with an IROC 5.7 and he said the only car that beat him consistently was an LX 5.0. If that car came with a 5-speed option, it may have had a better chance at taking the Mustang, but with it's AT even 240 hp wasn't enough to take the Mustang.

I have driven a couple of AT 5.0's, and they just don't do anything at all for me, so I can understand your disappointment in their performance. Don't be so quick to judge the Fox Mustang as a slow car if you haven't owned the fastest stock version of the car though. Even Car and Driver praised the 5.0 year after year through the late 80's and into the early 90's as the best bang for the buck, because it basically wiped up the pavement with every other car short of a Vette in those days.

Today, yes they are tame since virtually every V-6 powered sedan, and even the RAV 4 with a V-6, comes close to the performance, but let's not forget the latest V-8 powered Mustang is now doing 0-60 runs in 4.9 seconds stock! Pretty impressive since the Camaro SS with 111 more HP can only best it by .1 seconds at 4.8. Go test drive a new GT and you'll be amazed at the performance. It kills even the previous '05 - '09 car by a long shot.