J.P.

Want to say that was 94, I think that is when the body style changed.

MadMax96

Actually - if you didn't have the 5.0 engine, that car had a 2.3L four-banger with a ground shaking 105hp. (I just looked up the hp figure).

Yeah - they were turds.

Back in the day my friend had a '92 (?) Plymouth Laser Turbo that would eat 5.0 Mustangs no problem.

tmf2004

iTrader: (15)

I think the 1999 had the HP issues..

92 SC400

Yeah, '93 was the last year of the Fox Body, '94 was the beginning of the SN95. My mom had a SN95 GT Convert. and it's interior, as far as I can remember was ugly but pretty solid. The car didn't have any issues at all either; had it about 6-7 years.

Like many others, lots of friends in HS had the Fox Bodies but none were concerned with interior quality but I do remember sitting in them and noticing how crappy the interior looked. Most were too loud to notice and squeaks or rattles though... haha

pvmike1

jimxo,

A 5.slow, really? Is there some sort of sentimental value attached to your choice?

The hardtop versions, both the LX and GT 5.0, were fun cars, but not necessarily the most reliable cars even in their prime. I'd be wary of the convertible top giving you problems too.

Personally, if I had to get an automatic convertible in that range, I'd buy a Miata. They're reliable, fun to drive, great on gas, and perfect for scooting around town in the summer.

Either way, there's a ton of choices I'd consider over a 5.0:

- early 90's convertible Vette
- RX-7, 300xz, Celica convertibles (although finding a good example might be tough)
- MR2 Spyder (tough to find an SMG one in your range)
- Jeep Wrangler
- Porsche 944
- Jaguar XJS convertible
- Mitsubishi Eclipse Spyder
- MB SLK (hardtop), or even an older SL or 300CE
- mid 90's BMW 3 series or Z3
- Toyota Solara

Other not so appealing choices:

- Cadillac Allante
- Chrysler Sebring
- PT Cruiser convertible
- Saab 9-3
- VW Beetle or Cabrio

Hope this helps. I'll bet the Miata will be the most reliable and fun to drive.

Mike

UDel

Forgot about that, my buddy with the white Mustang GT sister had a Mustang with a 4cyl that was really anemic, they did offer v6 in early 80's mustangs and then later on with the 4th Generation which were also pretty underpowered. At one point the turbo 4 was the only performance version of the Mustang in the early 80's.

mmarshall

Maybe so............but earlier versions, IMO, were also not very torque-impressive, compared to their GM competition. I don't advocate street-racing by any means (and never did it myself), but, even so, it is well-known that Mustang SVTs, GTs and Cobras trailed their 5.7L Camaro/Firebird rivals for a number of years before the recent 500 and 600-HP Shelbys finally came out, which can run with almost anything GM builds. Auto-enthusiast magazines did numerous articles on that long-held Camaro/Firebird dominance on the drag strip.

IS-SV

I thought this was about 1987-1993 Mustang GT convertibles and in short chassis flex, windnoise (both top up and top down) and V8 roar were most prominent features.

Stage3

iTrader: (3)

Stay away... I have a buddy that was a mustang restorer, and he would always say that they aren't worth the hassle. They look nice but they aren't worth much more than that.

jimxo

Great feedback people. I really like the car, I was 18 in 1987 when that car came out I was in love with it. I never owner one but my friends all had them and I drove them often. A low mileage automatic to cruise around town seems like fun. The 5-speed would be more fun but also molested to death. I will be 42 this summer so its a mid life feel young again thing. I found one for $5000 with 58k miles in good shape. If he takes 4k I may jump on it.

Keep the comments coming.