1988 Ford Mustang GT from North America - Comments

The passenger window stopped working.

The Driver side seat belt buckle stopped latching (dangerous)

Crashed due to poor suspension handling.

My Mustang had a souped up engine, and pumped 350 HP and 350 ft lbs of torque, which is quite a bit over the stock 225/300.

0-60 in 4.0 seconds flat.

Quarter mile in 12.6 seconds at 109 MPH.

The cars suspension was not designed for this much horsepower, and was very squirrley. Trackion control would have been a dream.

This muscle car would win any race whether up against a corvette (my favorite to beat) or the silly import cars that kids like to drive.

There's no feeling like the "throw you in the back of your seat" torque feeling you get when you drive a true mustang.

The 5.0 mustangs have a lot of potential and I highly recommend this car to fix up. There are lots of bolt on parts available to make this car go faster.

Dyno tuning if available adds more horsepower for the money than any upgrade you will do.

Drive safely!

The 1987 mustang gt was rated with 225 horsepower and 300 pound-feet of torque. Not the 225 stated in the review. The torque output of the mustangs of the late 80's was probably the biggest reason why they were so fast compared to other sports cars of that time.

Correct the 1987 Ford Mustang GT has 300 lbs. of foot torque stock, Ford produced in 1987.I noticed the the 1st entry on this page titled "Teenagers can't handle a 12 sec car!" claiming the 1987 ford mustang gt stock has only 225 pounds of torque, therefore this comment should be have not been overlooked by the staff here at (carsurvey.org) and should have never been allowed to be posted, just like this one.

Trav.

The 1987 mustang gt 5 speed 5.0 is the fastest of all foxbody stangs.

Someone forgot that the 1993 cobra was also a fox body car. Outside of the Cobra the 1987 5.0 coupe LX was the second fastest fox off the production line. 225hp/284tq. not 300tq.

S50wpb@yahoo.com.

All of the Fox body Mustangs from '87-92 had 225 hp and 300 lb feet of torque. In '93 they re-rated them to 205 hp but they actually were the same as the previous years. All were exactly the same as far as fast goes. The Cobra was a little quicker as it was rated at 235 hp in 1993.

Lets be honest. These Mustangs are not that fast unless you add on power goodies, which these foxes love and respond great with. Excellent cars and truly long lasting motors, but stock it runs like a 98 to 02 3.8 V6 Camaro.

"Lets be honest. These Mustangs are not that fast unless you add on power goodies, which these foxes love and respond great with. Excellent cars and truly long lasting motors, but stock it runs like a 98 to 02 3.8 V6 Camaro."

Okay, I'll be honest. No way a V-6 Camaro would ever touch a 5.0 Mustang even stock. 0-60 in 6.2 seconds vs. like 7.5 - 8.0 for the Camaro. The most the Camaro ever had for power in those years was 200 hp (in V6 form). It is also bigger and heavier. Get your facts straight before making claims. Yes, by today's standards the 87-93 Mustang isn't as quick as it once seemed but in its day there wasn't much that could touch one, especially for the price. Now you can simply bolt on a supercharger, adding around 100 hp and get right back in the game with pretty much anything out there today. Aftermarket support is still among the best for these cars and there are so many ways to modify them.

I've found comment 16:30 to be true. I owned 2 Fox 5.0's and I drove several 2000-2001 Camaro V-6's. There was little (if any difference) in the power and acceleration. I was outrun by several V-6 Camaros. Granted, both my 5.0's were 100% factory stock. These engines are very solid and reliable and there are tons of after market parts available at great prices. If you want to add horsepower all it takes is a healthy dose of cash.

I opted out of the V-8 in 2007 and bought a 4.0 V-6. it is mildly modified and is faster than either of my two 5.0's. I can drive it exactly like I drove my 5.0's (pretty hard) and get 9 to 11 mpg better fuel mileage. I'm out of the V-8 game from now on. Smaller and more efficient engines offer plenty of go with much better mileage and much lower insurance rates. They are also more environmentally friendly.

My brother has a 99 Camaro with a V6 3.8 and it runs quicker than the Mustangs I have owned stock.

Stock 87 to 93 are good in 1st and 2nd, but run out of breath in 3rd gear and just are slow unless you bolt on some goodies, then the Mustang will run badass. I'm sure that the Mustang is a way way better car than the Camaro V6 or V8. Those 93 to 02 Camaros are just big problems; go and see the posts on those, you'll see about 90 percent are bad.

If you feel your running outta steam with the 5.0L stang in 3rd gear its because you have the 2.73 gears, or even the optional 3.08's...if you have a stock 5.0L all you have to do to get 20hp is take out the air intake silencer, and advance your timing to 14 degrees "while running 91 octane" this will make your car not only sound a lot better, but increase your throttle response by a large margin.. if you have money to do it "300 bucks* get a 3.55 gear set and your car won't be the same at all... you will go from 14.2-14.6 in the quarter to like 13.8 to 13.6.

There is no way your claim of a Camaro V6 being quicker than a Mustang GT could be true! The Camaro V6 had only 200 HP and weighed 500 lbs more than a Mustang GT. Here we go again we people claiming their V6 powered Camaro's are fast. Everyone who's ever owned a true performance knows, V6 engines in these cars are for people who only dream of having a true legit performance car and want to try to trick the unknowing public into thinking their car is fast. A V6 Camaro is NOT fast!