MotorWeek | Retro Review: 1992 SAAC Mk1 Mustang

[@daveg9002]

Beautiful rare and collectable

[@joshn938]

Still can't understand why Ford never put the 351W in the Mustang GT or Cobra...would have been a street monster compared to the 5.0 and later 4.6.

[@fwh79FOXR6]

Josh Nixon: The 5.8 has a taller deck height and it would have required a new hood design. Plus, the 5.0 was selling so well, there wasn't really a "need" for it. However, I do completely agree with you that Ford should have made the Mustang with a 5.8. Would have been a very interesting car!

[@GyroPyro121212]

Josh Nixon They did in the 1995 SVT Cobra R. They were limited production though, so finding one now is difficult and costly.

[@jborgatti1234]

You can spin a 5.0 faster and better then the 5.8.

[@falconater68]

@@fwh79FOXR6 I've put a few 351ws in foxbodies...without hood modification.

[@fwh79FOXR6]

@@falconater68 Were you running EFI or a carb setup?

[@ErwinSchrodinger64]

Just checked the CPI inflation calculator. $39,000.00, today would be approximately $67,000.00. All of sudden that would make the pricing for the GT350 not bad (not considering deal mark-ups, of course). However, is this car equivalent to today's GT350, considering the performance figures given?

[@klasseact6663]

+Kaiser ....Be gone with thee you Troll.

[@TheCarCrazyGuy]

+Kaiser Beat it asshat!

[@justdoinit2378]

Of course it’s not equivalent to today’s gt350. The figures for the saac are for their time period and what was around then. Same goes for today’s gt350 n etc

[@abcsd1254]

I love that the last line he says is, "newer isn't always better," as if John Davis already knew of the 1994 Mustang

[@Arayig1982]

I think what he meant to say is that the Mustang even in the year 1992 was considered old and archaic, but a hoot to run, hence why he likes it. 1994 wasn't all new either.

[@abcsd1254]

+Arayig1982 no that is exactly what he meant. I was tongue in cheek referring to the fox body being revered much more than the car that came after it.

[@Hot80s]

sn95 is hideous

[@blakerh]

I am surprised one of these sold for 100k recently. I know they are rare but 100k for a Foxbody Mustang is crazy. I bought a new GT350 for way less. But I am sure someone will tell I am wrong.

[@555Tbird]

Wait. I had no idea Shelby built a Fox Body.

[@TheMattc999]

Trapt right? Having owned 8 fox-bodies how the hell have I never heard of this?

[@DominatorGarage]

@@TheMattc999 if you want another "shelby" there's a section of predators made by Tom Solomon who helped create the gt 350

[@christiancontreras5349]

Those wheels are nice

[@gorgeusjames]

I bet with a better driver this car could well be faster than whatever they state, maybe low 5's to 60 easily since a 93 cobra stock does same 60 times with just 235 hp and 285 of torque

[@ParadoxdesignsOrg]

if I had a dollar for every "special edition" mustang I'd be able to buy a Ferrari.

[@robertelmo7736]

If I had bought one of these back in the day and stuck it in the garage I could get a nice Ferrari for trade. I remember seeing one out one day at a car show and sat in it. They were built at Watson Engineering and the late great Steve Grebeck worked there and built a drag car out of one. Wonder where that thing is?

[@Sinn0100]

@@robertelmo7736 I don't think they're worth quite that much yet...maybe in another 10 years. Both my special Trans-Ams are climbing in value but not yet. Addendum: I have a 1994 25th Anniversary Trans-Am LT1 w/6-speed and a 2002 Firehawk Trans-Am LS1 w/6-speed. Since then, I have flipped (sold for a profit) so many Camaro's and GTO's it's absurd. I just parked my 2012 SS Camaro as my daily as I'm turning it into my pure track car. My Challenger RT Classic is my daily.

[@jdubskiwright2380]

@@Sinn0100 nice a classic R/T as a daily that's sweet

[@Sinn0100]

@@jdubskiwright2380 Thanks man!

[@bryanlawrence5045]

I like to consider myself knowledgeable about 80's and 90's cars but I don't remember this stang at all. I'm now headed to eBay to see if I can find one for sale. must own one!

[@justdoinit2378]

Maple motors

[@maxstainlesssteelr]

Nice! do you have the review of the 2001 Ford Ranger Edge? I would love to watch it

[@nategrady]

I'm building my 84 gt350 with one of these in mind!

[@stephenbianchi7141]

It has a smiley face.

[@darrenhall7990]

love it.

[@klasseact6663]

What's the point of any special car sitting around collecting dust in a garage somewhere...DRIVE THEM! Talking about how special a car is easy when reading the build sheet, driving them and giving a first hand account carries much more weight! Read the story on Jalopnik about driving your classic car....THIS MEANS YOU, you know who you are!

[@GNXperimental]

I had a neightbor not long ago with one of these with a Paxton supercharger on it

[@Dave711701]

0 to 60 in 5.8 seconds was a very conservative number for this car, 5 seconds flat was a more accurate number. The convertible version of this car ran it in 5.2 seconds which is about 200 pounds heavier than the hardtop.

[@whoohaaXL]

Why the MAJOR slowdown in Retro Review uploads? Been going through withdrawal, over here!

[@FRESNOSTATE1559]

i like these year mustangs enough room for me all the newer ones after these are small.

[@DaltonTk423]

Awesome video! Do you have a retro review of the Suzuki Samurai or Geo Tracker?

[@Daehawk]

Ahhh the old chick cars.

[@thomgomez2799]

👏👏👏

[@ThePhotographyHobbyist]

5.8 to 60? That's just a tiny bit faster than my truck. Times have changed a lot ;-)

[@tomjones1727]

That's quick back then. And numbers on paper don't mean shit. I promise this will stomp your truck, unless you've got some insane highly built drag truck.

[@ThePhotographyHobbyist]

Tom Jones Trucks in general are much faster these days...and even more comfortable than they used to be. I have the 2014 Ford F150 with the twin turbo V6. Advertised 0-60 is around 6.2. The newer aluminum body version is even quicker at around 5.6, totally stock (and that'a a 4 wheel drive truck by the way): www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/2015-chevrolet-silverado-vs-2015-ford-f-150-2015-ram-1500-2014-toyota-tundra-comparison-test-2015-ford-f-150-vs-2015-chevrolet-silverado-1500-2015-ram-1500-2014-toyota-tundra-final-scoring-performance-data-and-complete-specs-page-6 .

[@tomjones1727]

Hooked on Photography I realize trucks are quicker than they used to be. They are also way more expensive too. I'm in no way trying to put down todays trucks. I'm just sayin it how it is. But I'm saying, numbers on paper aren't everything. While today's trucks are much closer to straight line performance of sports cars of 20 years ago, I'd be this Mustang would still walk all those trucks. Digs, roll-ons, top end. And those trucks are three times more expensive too. I've been drag racing all my life. I've got a lil some experience and knowledge in this area.

[@SOLOIIguru]

mmmmmmm foxy goodness

[@eaglewi]

even when it was new the engine looked a little dirty. cool car

[@tmmurphy]

Yes, my GT has 20k on it and has always been garage kept, was never a daily driver and hardly ever saw even rain, yet the engine does indeed appear dirty. Something I always hated, however back in the day we bought them for what was under the skin and the ease and cheapness of modification. Believe it or not, 14.8 in the 1/4 mile was quick back then. Now my daily Accord 6-6 would stay with the Mark I in the 1/4. Such is progress.

[@yuriypodgorniak2728]

Amazing vehicle definitely but you can build your own GT a lot cheaper with very similar performance

[@jdubskiwright2380]

Very similar?? With the amount and quality of parts and the advancement in suspension upgrades motor upgrades weight reduction ect.. you can build a foxbody to do anything...drag car, track monster, time attack and autocross beast..anything hell you can even make a rally fox if you wanted to lol even tho there's much better options for a rally car out there but still it would be pretty awesome see a rally foxbody...call it the rallybody or a rallyfox lol..

[@TheZProtocol]

I would like to see how a Miata fares against those Mustangs on the corners. Obviously its no contest on the straights

[@TheMailmanOfSteel]

As someone who owns a foxbody, I really doubt it.

[@gorgeusjames]

Thes mustangs are not bad on corners unless it is wet dude I own many of them and a miata could be quick on corners but slow as hell comin out of them

[@TheZProtocol]

1996 Olds Cutlass Supreme SL please!

[@alfamonk]

kinda cool, but 2:27..that's not a looker. Bodykit by Stevie Wonder.

[@impulsivedesigns]

They changed the block for 300HP?!? What a waste. Not one of Carroll's finer moments. Granted , that was a lot of power for then, but it certainly didn't need more than a head/cam swap to get these numbers, let alone if you do it right and have a proper intake and exhaust added to the car, and it's tuned decently.

[@robertelmo7736]

Listen again lol, said from the block up. GT40 heads and top end. We all had nitrous anyways so not worried lol..

[@impulsivedesigns]

From the block up. I took that to be including it, but yea it might have been a brainfart on my part. lol

[@me3333]

Yeah I think he should have said "everything on top of the block" instead of "from the block up"

[@Gabrielvargas-dt4or]

February 28 1992

[@billjoang]

Sounds like he had a cold 🤧

[@stevenarseneault1972]

Wrongly matched rear axle gears? That's a slow car for $40k back in the day.

[@Dragunov302]

I love the looks and sound except the mirrors. the mirrors are ugly

[@joshthemediocre7824]

I'll love a nice fox body until the day i die. they aren't the fastest car but are fast enough, they aren't the prettiest car, but they sure can come close, they ain't the best handling car but they handle good. No they ain't the best but they will always be good enough for me, besides i am Mr. Mediocre.

[@MidnightinSavannah]

For $39,000 I would have waited till 1993 when the new T/A came out. It also an 14.20 at $18,000 less dollars. I bought a 1994 T/A automatic and it ran 14.0s with only a couple thousand miles on it.

[@DimitriosChannel]

As I owning many muscle cars and my friends I have to say the only two good things about the 5.0 is sound and more simple to work on. But anyone that drove TPI, LT1, LT4, or the LS1 there was no going back to the 5.0 or the horrible weak 4.6 when grandpa's 3.3L and 3.8L Buick had not the same but more power then the two engines that Ford had. Just sad. Hell the V6 Camaro 3.8 can keep up with those engine.

[@gorgeusjames]

Lol what an idiot! Those 3.8 had 170 hp and no way a v6 slomaro could do under 9 seconds to 60, tell me what kind of weed are you smoking? I agree the lt1 was just a bit faster but never a slomaro from before 1992 was any better or faster than any 5.0, I own a bone stock 92 gt and it is as quick as it sounds lol

[@DimitriosChannel]

Average 3.8l 205HP, Also here all the 0-60 time frames from all kinds of Buicks a lot of scrolling but there making Mustang look stupid.www.zeroto60times.com/vehicle-make/buick-0-60-mph-times/

[@soiledseat3255]

40k would be like what, 80k today? They couldn't even get over 300hp?? Sad!

[@richardmiller6422]

All that money to still get beat in every category from a stock Z28 with the 5.7tpi. !!!

[@tomjones1727]

Uhhh.. no. They've got a few retro reviews on here of a few Fox Body's vs 80's/early 90's Camaros. The stang was quicker and more top end than the Camaro and Trans Am.

[@Sonnywitdamoney]

+Tom Jones C4 ZR1 with 405HP. What was Ford making to compete?

[@richardmiller6422]

Tom Jones Your telling me that a stock IROC/Z28 with the 5.7 TPI was slower than a stock mustang 5.0 !!!

[@richardmiller6422]

sonnywitdamoney Nobody is comparing a zr1 ... to a mustang!!

[@tomjones1727]

sonnywitdamoney Ford GT90!

[@redchris97]

so let me get this straight, i have to be a member of a "club" to buy a fox body mustang with just a different interior and a couple of extra stripes? and never mind it makes the same power as an LTD crown victoria? ( keep in mind my daily driver is a 99 mercury towncar) you cant polish a turd , a foxbody is still a foxbody and the fact that to buy one you need to be in a "club" makes it pretty stupid.

[@tmmurphy]

The engine was modded to make 295 horses at the crank. Up from 225. I thought '92 Crowns made 190 (210 with duals). Plus the 4.6 in the Crown was not known for being a torque monster. I test drove a '94 Mustang GT and the step back in torque left me flat.

[@2006gtobob]

0-60 in 5.8? Back then that was decent. My V-6 Accord Coupe for FAR less money, 31k now money vs 39k 1992 money, handily beats that Mustang. Then, for 32k 2006 money, there is my GTO. Lights out, not even close. Progress is a good thing!

[@charlies.5777]

ACTUALLY, a 5.8 Sec ZERO to 60 time WAS PRETTY amazing back then , and it's still pretty impressive today -- as is the 100mph speed in the ¼ mile; which is a pretty good benchmark for a quick car.

[@AntonSander]

Yea but 2000's cars are ugly as shit. Too much jellybean going on. I'll take the '92 Stang thanks.

[@Star-fc4ni]

I have seen fake ones

[@Sinn0100]

And then Shelby went to Dodge....yuck.

[@Kaiser187]

That's it? could of made the video longer......... anyways that car is mismatched from LX / Cobra/ GT. It looks like shit to be honest.

[@Hot80s]

overpriced baloney a 87-93 lx 5.0 5-speed sedan would destroy it