90's "muscle car" choices?

-
zhandfull said:
I completely agree. Thing is you can do it cheap. If I was a young kid looking for a first car and had a choice between a 1970 dodge dart with a slant 6 auto and a 1991 mustang 5.0efi 5 speed with AC relatively same condition at the same price. Lets say $2,500 it would be a no brainer for me. give me the Mustang. Unfortunately I really believe that is why its hard to sell an average "A" bodies now days. It just cost to much money to get the performance to a level playing field with a mid 80's and 90's Mustangs.

I'm stupid and have 3 "A" bodies. Only 1 that currently runs and I have no money lol...
Click to expand...
I bought a 80s 5 litre Capri once from a friend who got it at an auction for 800.00. Stick car, last of the carburated ones.....that little sucker was pretty fast and cooler then a mustwang.
 
mopar really did not have a musle car in the 90's. i like the rwd chrysler conquest or the equivilant was the mitsu starion. they are bad-*** cars
 
i loved my 89 firebird and it was easy to fix if something went wrong, which wasnt often at all by the way and you could definatly find one in that price range.
 
1987 Turbo coupe T-bird or the SVO Muttstang. Yeah I know itsa 4 banger buuuuut, it had more horsepower than the 5.0 GT muttstang! Fast and economical!
 
I do appreciate the input. Here is the dealio. If I lived in town I'd still be driving my 440 Dart Sport. But at 40 miles a day to get to work and back and the fact that I'd like at least 20 MPG.

Trucks don't do much for me since I already have a couple.

Picture a car nice enough to lay a nice patch, run down the track once a year and still throw the keys to your wife for $2500 +/-.

I still think it comes down to the 5.0 or the LT1. To me it feels like comparing a known variable (the 5.0) and the LT1. Not sure I like some things about the LT, window motors, Opti's, hard to work on etc.

There is a 96 and newer GT sitting about a block from my work that has some minor issues but is all stock and a mid-90's Firebird LT1. Both haven't moved in quite a while.

Thank you for your thoughts and any more are welcome. I am going to consider them and weigh the options.

ROB
 
One of the guys at work has a WS6. Has a few squeaks and rattles, but it Hauls for a stock rig.
 
Not a muscle car by any means but has put many rear wheel drive cars to shame on the highway.
 

Attachments

  • 000_1359.jpg
    131.1 KB · Views: 411
In 1995, I ordered a 2WD Dodge Dakota, regular cab, reg bed, V8, 5 spd, 3.91 gear, HD tow group (just bigger radiator). Dealers rarely ordered them this way. I found one other one in my area and it was the one that I ordered at another dealership. I wanted to stay with Mopar. The other unique feature was that it was ordered without AC. All California dealers at the time were receiving V* trucks with AC...ALL of them. This truck was quick enough to handle 5.0 Mustangs stock-for-stock. It was cheaper than a 5.0 Mustang too. It beat Lightnings and 454SS trucks. However, it couldn't hold a candle to the LT1. The LT1 was a good package right out of the box. It would be very difficult for you to find a truck with a similar configuration as mine. I would just go for an LT1 car (Camaro or Trans Am).

Another cool car that has slid under the radar are the 92-96 Nissan 300Z's. Even the Turbo models can be had for cheap.
 
ya mean 60's "muscle car" don't you?
they didnt make "muscle car's" in the 90's
 
lol.. I was going to say that, too. "90's muscle cars"= oxymoron. lol

The Fox body 5.0 LX Mustangs of the early 90's were viable (GT's are over priced, and over weight).

Other V8 rwd cars from the 90's that might be fun would be the Impala and caprice, the Camaro and Firebird, the Monte Carlo and it's clones, The early 90's Thunderbirds, and don't forget the Crown Vic's and it's Merc counter part.

I'm really not much for the fwd transverse engine cars, and I don't look at fwd 4 cyl. and 6 cyl cars as "muscle cars". To me they are Sports compacts, and while they are excellent at what they are supposed to be. "muscle car", they are not, imo.

in fact, the only fwd car I can say I liked was the 66-69 Olds Toronado. the were V8's with inline mounted Engines, and were also torque monsters.

Of course the easy way to build muscle in the 90's was to just go with a truck, like a V8 Dak, or any of the full size trucks with V8 (or v10) power.

just my 2¢
 
Can't say I was into much for the 90's muscle, although the 5.0L Mustang was interesting. The last muscle I liked was the 1987 twin turbo Grand National GNX!
 

Attachments

  • GNX.jpg
    13.1 KB · Views: 341
67DartGT340 said:
Can't say I was into much for the 90's muscle, although the 5.0L Mustang was interesting. The last muscle I liked was the 1987 twin turbo Grand National GNX!
Click to expand...

Yes! they were unbelievable! As I recall, they held the honor of fastest American production car in '87. Pretty incredible when you think of the so called muscle machines of the day.
 
DionR said:
I've thought about the later '90s BMW 3 series. They look to be fun, and the M3's have some spunk. No idea on cost, or maintenance, though.
Click to expand...

Owned a 94 318is (e36)for quite sometime, very well built car. Full bilstein coilover suspension all the way around sway bars and borla exhast, 35mpg uphill down hill headwind, tailwind it didnt matter. Car (thanks to gearing) wasnt a vw bug but was not fast by any stretch of the imagination. Once it got up to speed the car handled like it was on rails though. Extremely fun to drive. M3's are incredible but even the e36's are going to set you back nearly 10k. 325's you can get for a good price which has good power, nearly M3 status, but if you have to rebuild the motor its going to be a 6month affair, and forget master rebuild kits, there arent any.

DionR said:
Or how about the MK 3 Supra? Turbo 5 speed, could be fun (if you can find one without a fart can and wing).
Click to expand...
If it's rice and had potential to be fast, your going to have to pay out the nostrils for it.

Wondered how long it was going to take before a Grand National was mentioned....Good luck finding one for the 3k price range.

Fox bodies are your best bang for your buck but yet again not sure when the last time you guys checked the price of one out but a decent one that your not afraid to drive that far everyday is going to set you back 6-10K unless you go with a 4 banger, good luck finding one that doesn't look like an 80yr old man on his death bed.

Cameros go for much cheaper but your probably going to be stuck with a 305 at that price range. You can actually pick up a camero in your price range that able to be commuted in. Its like riding a moped or dating a fatty, just dont get caught in it LOL :D

You want something peppy in that price range, I would ditch rwd and look at a Mazda mx-6 LS with the v-6 and a 5spd 2nd GEN!!! not first. The 2.7 dohc motor is plenty peppy, handles good. Ricers never found out about em so you can keep your head high when you drive it. They are extremely sporty looking, and unique.
 
Frankie said:
Yes! they were unbelievable! As I recall, they held the honor of fastest American production car in '87. Pretty incredible when you think of the so called muscle machines of the day.
Click to expand...
Yes and that's why GM stopped producing the GNX. It was faster than their flagship car the Corvette. Why get cheap speed in a GNX, they wanted us to spend much more on a Corvette.
 
hands down. 5.0 mustang. iroc/z28 camaro's were junk never liked em...the mustang has always been around since day 1. its been here for YEARS!. so much aftermarket support...they are great cars...
 
I just sent the car on its way. Sorta sad, but I think I'd be better off getting something a bit nicer to start with. Whatever I end up with, I am not "intending" to build it up and become a rabid enthusiast. I do want RWD, V8 and preferably stick.

There is a 96+ Mustang near my work with the 4.6. It is an automatic and I know it has some mild issues. The owner used to work near me. Not a fast car, and no idea on potential fuel mileage. I'll check. Not sure I want to get under that hood. It looks similar to an LT1.

There is a mid-90's Firebird with a v8. The Camaro is pushing it for me on the bling factor, and the firebirds usually are too much for me. My of my student's parents drove it. Not sure why it is sitting.

Thank you for the thoughts and ideas. Oh, and I get the "muscle car" joke. I know when the era ended, but the same concept is still out there.

ROB
 
Oh man, the 96-98 4.6 is such a dog. None of the SOHC 4.6 are any kind of performance motors until 2005.

And those 96-98 Mustangs are HEAVY. They are heavy turds. Literally the 99 V6 Stang is quicker through the quarter. Not to mention hydroboost brakes, and TWO sets of coil packs. Unless you enjoy supplying "kills" for the local rice troup, stay far away.

The 99-04 is so-so ok. Faster than a stock 5.0 and smoother, but not worth doing boltons to.
 
Here's another vote for the Dakota. Seriously, 2wd, 5 speed, 318 or 360 (if you can find one), and it still weighs less than the Camaro or Mustang. I had a Trans Am, it was nice, but it was a total pig. Weighed a lot more than it should have, and handled like a land yacht.
 
Thrashard340 said:
Another cool car that has slid under the radar are the 92-96 Nissan 300Z's. Even the Turbo models can be had for cheap.
Click to expand...

There is only one problem. They make the 4th gen camaro's look like the best engineered engine bay in the world.

I love the TT 300zx's, but they are a nightmare to work on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top