My daughter came home from school one day and told me how her friend needed help with his car. I offered to help and she relayed this to him. Over the next month or so the details came to me – via my daughter – in fits and starts. The car did not break down, it was involved in an accident. Only the very front of the car was damaged. It was a Mustang. It was not insured.
At this same time, the questions slowly morphed from: Could it be fixed? To: Could I help him find used parts? Later: Could I help him fix it? And finally: Would I be willing to fix it if he paid me?
I decided that I needed to actually see the car. Besides, there had been weeks of third party Q & A and my daughter was sick and tired of being the middleman. I discovered a few things. The reason the process took so long was that the mother would complain to the son about the broken-down car. The son would then talk to my daughter, she would then talk to me, and then the process would reverse itself. Not efficient communication.
When I arrived, the teen owner wasn’t home. I found a 1995 Mustang GT convertible. It was a 5-speed car with leather seats. It was in decent shape except for the hood, bumper, core support, radiator, headlights, and grill. Inside, I saw that the airbags had deployed. Mom seemed relieved that I finally came over. She had been admonishing her son to get rid of the car. Dad arrived home a few minutes later. He was also under the impression that I was there to remove the car. I had to explain to them my side of the story. He had only been asking me for advice, then help. We all agreed that I needed to buy the car and haul it away ASAP.
When the young man came home, he was disappointed that the sale was being finalized. He wanted to get the Mustang back on the road. He was driving a completely beat out Ford Ranger. The Mustang was bad, but that old Ranger appeared to have spent significant time in Afghanistan or somewhere worse.
I wanted to find out about the status of the title. If the authorities were called and/or wrote an accident report, the car could have a salvage title. This makes a car very difficult to sell, so it directly affects the value. Turns out, there was no official record of the accident. The title was clean. Apparently, he rear-ended a Dodge dually in traffic. The boy hit the truck squarely on the trailer hitch. The truck received no damage and its driver seemed to have somewhere else to be. Our young friend had called a rollback tow truck and had it hauled home.
As a side note, remember that a bad Carfax almost always means a bad car, but a good Carfax does not mean the car is accident-free. This Mustang was proof of that.
1995 was the last year of the old-school 5.0 often referred to as the “Windsor”. It was replaced in ‘96 by the OHC 4.6 which Ford claimed was just as powerful, although no one in their right mind ever believed this. IIRC 1996 was the first year of OBD II and the old 302 was not going to be compliant, or Ford wasn’t going to bother.
A bit of Ford 302 trivia: The 5.0 H.O. was rated for less and less horsepower from 1987 through 1995. The change from Speed Density to Mass Air calibration made it lose horsepower, the camshaft was revised in ’89 or ’90 and it lost a little more. Then in 1994, the upper portion of the intake manifold had to be revised to fit under the revised Mustang hood and a few more ponies were lost. The funny thing was that these last, “weaker” 5.0s were still stronger than the first 4.6s.
Later, when I advertised the car for sale, I put “Last of the 5.0s” on the sign in the window.
Back at this time (about ten years ago) junkyards were full of SN 95 Mustangs and all the parts were readily available. The parts I needed were common front-end pieces. They could be sourced from a V6 or V8 model, hardtop or convertible. The air bags could come from any Mustang, the covers just needed to be the correct color.
I picked up all the easy-to-get pieces quickly. I even found matching air bags and a good airbag module in the junkyard. The only thing I lacked was a core support. These were welded in, so getting one was going to be slightly more challenging. Instead of going to the nationwide/corporate junkyard, I went across town to a small “Mom and Pop’s” type-place. This junkyard had a much smaller selection, and it was hard to pay because there was not always someone at the checkout window when you were done.
I found a Mustang and then I went and found “Pop”. I told him what I needed and he grunted something and got on his giant front-end-loader (with forks on the front) and away he went. A minute later the Mustang came around the corner, about ten feet in the air, bouncing on the forks of that Caterpillar.
He plopped the Mustang down in the “work area” (which was just a slab of concrete with slightly less crap lying around). He wheeled over an oxy-acetylene cart, handed me a pair of sunglasses and said something like: “Don’t kill y’sef.” and then added: “Goin’ to git lunch.”
He had no idea who I was, nor my skill set. I wondered how many people he let do this, as I began cutting. A few minutes later I had the core support out and hauled it up front. Of course, there was no one to pay at the window.
I had that Mustang back together a couple of weeks later. The timing couldn’t have been better. The transmission was slipping badly in my daily driver, so I transferred the license plate over to the Mustang and used it for a while. I almost always drove with the top down (I had removed the smashed A/C condenser, and never got around to replacing it). The five-speed made it fun to drive, and the car still had close to 200 horsepower.
A few months later a father and son pair came to buy it. I had to tell them about the previous accident, but they didn’t seem to care. They had plans. There were plans to replace the aging top and update the audio system. The elder of the two said something about souping up the old 302. I smiled.
“IIRC 1996 was the first year of OBD II and the old 302 was not going to be compliant, or Ford wasn’t going to bother”
I’m voting for option 2 here.
I never warmed up to the early SN95 styling but that interior is pretty inviting.
I wasn’t immediately sold on the SN95 Mustangs when they first came out, but they grew on me quickly. I drove one about 20 years ago and the interior was great. Fit like a glove.
Current Mustangs are too big and heavy these days. The 4th-gens were about perfectly sized inside and out. I’d like to see Mustangs downsize a bit.
Wife let me order an ’89 LX convert with a 302, 5 spd with an optional higher rear end ratio from the PX in Korea about 4 months before DEROS. Picked it up at Capital Ford in Carson City when we got back. We had to separate shortly there after due to me getting deployed again to Angola. I never got to drive it much before it rolled out of our very steep driveway, into a tree and got totaled. I didn’t like the Fiat 124 I found in our driveway upon return nearly as much. That car was fun in its own way – much better handling and easier to park in SF where I was based. Nowhere near the sheer amusement value, feel or sound of what I remember as being a very healthy ‘stang though.
I’m only a fair backyard mechanic so I’m inclined to believe Ford decided not to make the 302 OBD II compliant based on the fact that GM’s SBC is older yet is still being used in cars.
That said, as a Ford fan I’m proud Ford took the plunge and went to a more modern/sophisticated and I’m guessing more expensive engine design. To it’s credit, Ford has been a bit more willing to go farther into “uncharted territory” than GM….most times.
I don’t buy that, Ford made the 302 OBD II compliant with the 1996-2001 Explorers, which were actually hotter than the H.O. used in these Mustangs – they used the Cobra GT40 heads and intake manifolds – they even had distributorless ignition added like the 4.6.
Different vehicle classification, though. It really wasn’t so much about OBDII compliance as it was about EPA regulations, and EPA regulations for Explorers were more lax than for Mustangs/Crown Vics.
I agree, but in terms of being non-OBD II compliant they were adapted just fine. Ultimately too the 4.6 was simply the newer engine and the displacements and outputs were so close that it’s clear the 4.6 was always destined to replace it.
Yes, the Explorer intake was a score in the junkyard ten years ago. Remember that the Explorers had GT40 “P” heads. From what I remember they still used an old-school distributor.
The coil packs are mounted on a bracket in the exact position where the distributor would be, so at a glance it looks like it still uses it. Underneath the coil packs is a cam position sensor, run down the former distributor shaft hole.
Cash for clunkers made for a a nice side profit for me, pulling those intakes at the junkyards for a couple bucks and reselling them in the hundreds. They were the only part of the engines not trashed by the liquid glass solution they put in them.
Good rescue of an injured pony! At times I am dreaming of doing something like that myself. Right now I am in the process of replacing a clutch in a Mazda B 2300. It teaches me that I should dream of something else because the frustrations of that case have turned it into a nightmare at times.
I think I would have left the junk yard owner at least some lunch money….Sometimes I even tip the mechanic for torqueing the lug nuts, something the garage does for free.
Of course I paid – interesting that you assumed I didn’t.
Boy, was I off base. I sincerely apologize!
1993 is the last year of the Fox body 5.0 and that’s the one I want.
The 302 is a good motor but I think the 4.6 is even better. They can rack up really high mileages, just look at all those Town Cars in livery service! The 4.6 has a main bearing girdle that ties them all together and to the block, a really good design, the lower end is very stout. Although the original Mustang versions were kind of weak, they were still better than tune the Crown Vic. I have a ’95 with over 200,000 miles on it still runs great.
On the other hand I’ve got a ’96 Explorer with 5.0. It’s got over 250,000 miles on it. It feels really peppy and it sure sounds good. I don’t know how it can sound so good with a stock single exhaust pipe.
A great story, and it sounds like you ended up with a fun car for awhile. I may be in the minority, but I have always liked the looks of this version of the Mustang quite a lot.
While folks are batting around theories for why the 5.0 was replaced by the 4.6, I might suggest that CAFE might have been the motivation given that the 4.6 seemed capable of better fuel mileage. The 1995 5.0/stick was rated at 15 city/23 hwy/18 combined while the 1996 4.6/stick was rated at 16 city/25hwy/19 combined. The 5.0 remained in the truck lines for awhile longer, but trucks were operating under a less stringent set of CAFE restrictions.
Really? Weird. Usually it’s the other way round, isn’t it?
Dan, I’m going to plead ignorance on this one. All the Mustang guys I knew said the SD cars from 87-88 were quicker than the newer ones.
Al Kirschenbaum (the expert) wrote a book about these cars, but I can’t find it now.
Digging deeper, it looks like the ’87 302 Mustang (SD) was rated 225 hp, the ’88 (SD) was rated 222, and the ’89 (MAF) was rated 220. So that’s a loss of 3 hp (1.3%) from ’87 to ’88, both with speed-density systems, and a smaller loss of 2 hp (0.9%) from ’88 speed-density to ’89 mass airflow. I’m not sure these tiny differences are significant, I’m not sure it’s quite fair to blame the ’89 loss on the MAF rather than SD system, and I’m sure as hell not sure that even full-boogie bench racing by dedicated Mustang Guys™ is to be believed when they claim a noticeable difference in quickness between a 222-hp and a 225-hp engine.
Yet the first thing they do when they decide to mod a SD car is convert to MAF, there have been write ups on it on the various mustang forums for decades now.
Well, yeah; a MAF system is much better at coping with engine modifications. A speed-density system has very limited ability with regard to engine characteristics different to the original programming.
Interesting story, I have seen junkyards like the one you describe but perhaps not quite as laid back about payment nor giving you the opportunity to badly injure yourself (you’d have to use your own gear at least)
The 302 was used by Ford Australia until early 2002, by then tweaked to 295 HP to try and keep up with the LS1. When production was finishing they did a large batch to send down under to tide them over until they worked out what to replace it with – they didn’t want the 4.6 for the Falcon range and ended up with the 5.4.
Mustangs were rare at the junkyards by me 10 years ago weirdly, I was actively looking for parts from them to cheaply upgrade my Cougar with. It’s actually been in the last 5 years or so I’ve found a solid selection of SN95s at them, which naturally I need nothing from anymore.
Warning: Gratuitous posting as I have mentioned all this before.
I have a 97 Gt convertible with the 4.6, and I had a 5.0 version. The results are that both are a hoot to drive, you can certainly tell the difference in torque curve but otherwise both engines have more than enough power to make a enjoyable driving experience. (the 302 builds torque out of the hole and is solid until it’s shift point. The 4.6 torque starts a little later but gets the job done without any great effort as the 4.6 loves to rev anyway.)
Unfortunately my poor old ‘stang is in storage (locked garage) way out in New Mexico at my Mom’s house for the foreseeable future, it has just turned over 73k and is in excellent condition. I love this car and fortunately have no need or desire to part with it.
A couple of other pictures, although I can’t seem to post more than one at a time.
One more then I will leave it at that.