Info on LS?

[SoonerLS]

Every once in awhile the tranny acts like it has trouble selecting what gear to be in. Not uncommon with 5 speed automatics. Downshifts can be a little slow also. In 2004 they put out 280 hp and it feels as if you are getting every last pony. Im comparing to my old Lincoln Mark VIII which had 275 hp. Both dont feel as fast as my 1989 GT convertible Mustang which only had 225. Could be the fact that the mustang was a 5spd manual and I drove it like a madman half the time Anyway to make a long post longer I think I would look for a 2003 and up. Lincoln made alot of changes and improvements in 2003. A few more in 2004.

My 2004 used to seem like it was having problems finding the right gear, but it's gotten better at that now that I have a few thousand miles of seat time. It does have problems with finding the right gear when decelerating; it downshifts OK, but it seems to be programmed more for saving fuel than for being in the right gear--it stays in too high a gear for too long, IMHO.

My '99 Explorer Sport has the same 5R55N as the pre-'03 LSes, and it seems to do a much better job of being in the correct gear when decelerating than does the 5R55S in my '04. At least the LS's transmission has smoothed out on the upshifts; when I first got it, it shifted much harder than the Explorer does, and it wasn't as precise at finding the right gear.

I don't have the numbers handy, but I'd bet that an '89 Mustang GT, convertible or not, weighs quite a bit less than an LS. IIRC, it is quicker, at least in the 0-60mph department, too; the old Windsor V8s have better low-end torque characteristics than our AJ-derived 3.9s.

You have to admit one thing, though: you may not reach 60mph as quickly, but getting there is much nicer in the LS.

 

[Dartastic]

My 2004 used to seem like it was having problems finding the right gear, but it's gotten better at that now that I have a few thousand miles of seat time. It does have problems with finding the right gear when decelerating; it downshifts OK, but it seems to be programmed more for saving fuel than for being in the right gear--it stays in too high a gear for too long, IMHO.

My '99 Explorer Sport has the same 5R55N as the pre-'03 LSes, and it seems to do a much better job of being in the correct gear when decelerating than does the 5R55S in my '04. At least the LS's transmission has smoothed out on the upshifts; when I first got it, it shifted much harder than the Explorer does, and it wasn't as precise at finding the right gear.

I don't have the numbers handy, but I'd bet that an '89 Mustang GT, convertible or not, weighs quite a bit less than an LS. IIRC, it is quicker, at least in the 0-60mph department, too; the old Windsor V8s have better low-end torque characteristics than our AJ-derived 3.9s.

You have to admit one thing, though: you may not reach 60mph as quickly, but getting there is much nicer in the LS.

The Mustang GT Convertible is lighter but not by much. I seem to remember about 3400 to 3500 pounds. Convertibles way more than non convertibles due to having to stiffen the body to keep body flex to minimum due to not have a solid roof. The mustang was more fun to drive in some ways and the ls is more fun in other ways. Love(d) them both.

 

[SoonerLS]

The Mustang GT Convertible is lighter but not by much. I seem to remember about 3400 to 3500 pounds. Convertibles way more than non convertibles due to having to stiffen the body to keep body flex to minimum due to not have a solid roof. The mustang was more fun to drive in some ways and the ls is more fun in other ways. Love(d) them both.

It doesn't take much weight to make a difference; the rule of thumb is 100lbs of weight difference is worth ~10hp. According to Edmunds, the '90 GT Convertible is 2975 lbs, and the '04 LS V8 is 3755 lbs, which is a difference of 780 lbs--which effectively gives the GT a nearly 20hp advantage over the LS. That's also why the 5.0 LX models were quicker than the GTs; the same powertrain moving less mass equals quicker acceleration.

The '90 is rated at 300 ft-lbs, but I don't know if that's true of the '89s. The 302 makes its torque at lower revs, which will make a difference in acceleration from a stop.

 

[Dartastic]

It doesn't take much weight to make a difference; the rule of thumb is 100lbs of weight difference is worth ~10hp. According to Edmunds, the '90 GT Convertible is 2975 lbs, and the '04 LS V8 is 3755 lbs, which is a difference of 780 lbs--which effectively gives the GT a nearly 20hp advantage over the LS. That's also why the 5.0 LX models were quicker than the GTs; the same powertrain moving less mass equals quicker acceleration.

The '90 is rated at 300 ft-lbs, but I don't know if that's true of the '89s. The 302 makes its torque at lower revs, which will make a difference in acceleration from a stop.

89 thru 93 a darn near identical. I think Edmunds got the convertible numbers wrong. I do understand the weight diff though but seriously doubt its 780 pounds.

 

[SoonerLS]

89 thru 93 a darn near identical. I think Edmunds got the convertible numbers wrong. I do understand the weight diff though but seriously doubt its 780 pounds.

I'm not so sure. My '89 T-Bird SC weighed in at a shade over 3600 lbs, and it was decried as being severely overweight. And it was a very heavy car for the time (but, oh, for 320 ft-lbs of torque at 2600rpm ).

I thought that might be the weight of the normal GT, so I checked that, too: it was somewhere around 200 lbs lighter than what was listed for the GT 'vert, so I'm guessing that it's probably fairly accurate. Don't forget that we're comparing what was essentially a '70s-vintage econobox chassis to a late-'90s luxury platform carrying hundreds of extra pounds of mandated safety equipment. (As a point of reference, the '96 SHO weighs ~300 lbs more than the '95 SHO, so I have no trouble believing that an '89 Mustang weighs 780 lbs less than an '04 LS.)

 

[Dartastic]

I'm not so sure. My '89 T-Bird SC weighed in at a shade over 3600 lbs, and it was decried as being severely overweight. And it was a very heavy car for the time (but, oh, for 320 ft-lbs of torque at 2600rpm ).

I thought that might be the weight of the normal GT, so I checked that, too: it was somewhere around 200 lbs lighter than what was listed for the GT 'vert, so I'm guessing that it's probably fairly accurate. Don't forget that we're comparing what was essentially a '70s-vintage econobox chassis to a late-'90s luxury platform carrying hundreds of extra pounds of mandated safety equipment. (As a point of reference, the '96 SHO weighs ~300 lbs more than the '95 SHO, so I have no trouble believing that an '89 Mustang weighs 780 lbs less than an '04 LS.)

Are we the only 2 up reading and posting? :Beer . I almost bought a Tbird. Felt funny though buying an american car with a japanese motor. Bought that supercharged yamaha screamed. If I find something else on the Mustang's weight Ill post it but for now Ill leave it where we are. Nice discussion my compadre.