By on May 6, 2019

After since early 2007, I just realized that the newest discarded Mustang I’d documented was . As you’d imagine, Mustangs from the and eras are easy to find in North American wrecking yards, so I resolved to shoot the next interesting one I found… which turned out to be this much-abused ’95 GT I spotted in a Silicon Valley self-service yard.

1995 Ford Mustang GT in California wrecking yard, hood scoop - ©2019 Murilee Martin - PaardensexPerhaps “abused” is the wrong word to use here, because at least one previous owner loved this car for its awesome Mustangness.

1995 Ford Mustang GT in California wrecking yard, RH rear view - ©2019 Murilee Martin - PaardensexThe ’95 Mustang GT had 215 horsepower moving 3,280 pounds, resulting in a power-to-weight ratio of 15.69 pounds per horsepower. The ’95 Acura Integra GS-R boasted a slightly better ratio (15.26 lbs/hp) but sold for $20,680 versus the Mustang GT’s $17,905 (that’s about $35,000 and $30,300 in inflation-adjusted 2019 bucks, respectively).

1995 Ford Mustang GT in California wrecking yard, intake manifold - ©2019 Murilee Martin - PaardensexA new Mustang Cobra had 240 horses in 1995 and cost $21,300, and an owner of this car (we’re going to suggest it was the final owner) opted to perform a backyard Cobra-ization process with blue and white paint. Actually, the lower part of the intake manifold looks to be painted yellow.

1995 Ford Mustang GT in California wrecking yard, steering wheel - ©2019 Murilee Martin - PaardensexYou can just make out the clutch pedal in this photograph. Yes, it’s a legit five-speed car.

1995 Ford Mustang GT in California wrecking yard, spare parts - ©2019 Murilee Martin - PaardensexWith all the spare parts inside the passenger compartment, this car shows many of the signs of a project that got sidelined and, eventually, dragged off for that final tow truck ride.

Sure, the convertible ’95 Mustang GT was cooler than the coupe, but it was a lot heavier as well.

If you like these junkyard posts, you can reach all 1600+ at the Junkyard Home of the Murilee Martin Lifestyle Brand!


Recommended

23 Comments on “Junkyard Find: 1995 Ford Mustang GT...”


  • avatar
    R Henry

    Swan song for the Windsor engine in the Mustang.

  • avatar
    dividebytube

    Specs I could find online lists a 0-60 mph 6.8 and a quarter mile of 15.1

    “Pretty fast” for the era… and of course the 5.0L engine was eminently modifiable. But that was actually comparable to the Impala SS / Roadmaster, both much heavier cars.

    • 0 avatar
      JMII

      I had a ’96 Mitsubishi Eclipse GS-T, just half the cylinders but Mustang’s like this only saw my tail lights. 0-60 was 6.4 with 210HP/214TQ out of the turbo.

    • 0 avatar
      formula m

      Camaro of that generation was 6sec 0-60mph, 14.4 in the 1/4 mile from the factory. I had a 94′ Z28 6spd that with upgraded tires, intake, exhaust and Hiper Tech programmer to bumper the rev limiter would run 13.7 in the 1/4 mile. These Mustangs weren’t very fast until the very late 90’s

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      Even by ’95, the most aggressive (rear end) gear set you could get were 3.08s, although you (or the dealer) had to know to order them, or they defaulted to even more ridiculous 2.73s.

      Those ratios were pathetic Mustang gears in the ’70s and ’80s. 3.73s are optimal and normal (rear end) gearing on current or 2011+ Mustangs.

      Curiously, back then, every other performance oriented car had way more aggressive gears, especially FWDs (that require them).

      You can chart how every following generation of Mustangs got progressively faster, as more aggressive (rear end) gearing became available or standard, starting with 3.27s by the late ’90s.

      Any stock, late ’80s 5.0 with 3.73s will absolutely knock your socks off!

  • avatar
    CobraJet

    Looks like a homemade X pipe. Very questionable welding skills.

  • avatar
    MRF 95 T-Bird

    Looks like it made its last Cars and coffee run.
    The 95 Mustang was the last with the 5.0 the modular was introduced in the 94 Thunderbird as well as other models.

  • avatar
    Mnemic

    Knew a guy that had an orange 1996 GT that he bought brand new, the first year with that dog of a 4.6L SOHC. It probably looks about the same these days if it even lasted this long, he beat the crap out of that thing.

    • 0 avatar
      JimZ

      I was amazed they managed to cram the Modular into the MN12s.

      • 0 avatar
        MRF 95 T-Bird

        The first two years, 89-90 MN-12 were only available with the 3.8 MPI and the 3.8SC because Ford could not fit the 5.0 in it. The 91-93 models were offered with the 5.0 that was able to fit with a lower profile intake manifold. The 4.6 modular was able to fit because it was more compact but it’s fairly tight.
        When I do an oil change I have to use a band wrench and maneuver the filter around the cross member. A few years ago I had the PVC changed and my mechanic had a heck of a time because it’s wedged between the firewall and intake.

    • 0 avatar
      Steve S.

      I had an orange ’96 GT convertible. Ford only made about 800 Mustangs in Bright Tangerine.

      Best modification was 3:73 gears in the rear end. The engine still turned only about 2200 RPM at 70 mph, and on a long road trip I got an honest 27 MPG on the highway. I also put in Eibach lowering springs and a Borla X-pipe (that’s what’s inside this one).

      With all that it was fast enough. I had it up to 140 mph on that long straight stretch of I-5 just south of the Oregon border. I’d still have it if some jagoff hadn’t have plowed into it when it was parked on the street. I loved that car.

  • avatar
    -Nate

    If ever there was a ‘Crabspirits Car’ this is it…..

    -Nate

  • avatar
    cimarron typeR

    I remember in 2000 I was having trouble finding a clean Fox body LX to satisfy my urge to own “the car I wanted in high school”, and test drove a mildly modified 95 GT. It had a King Cobra clutch that was borderline undriveable it was so stiff. It didn’t feel any faster than any stock Fox body, but it was in good shape. It was a more solid structure and better brakes (rear discs). The interior was only slightly better quality.
    It was a good hour away from the city , so I think that a rural life without traffic was the only way the owner could put up with it as she weighed maybe 130lbs.
    I just missed out on a 95 Cobra with high miles (5.0l 2v), but ultimately found a very clean emerald green LX 5.0 /5spd with a fresh motor rebuild and all of the bolt-ons I would have put on anyway. I sold it was for what I paid for it in 2005.With Maximum Motorsports susp., stiffening etc., it had great turn in and on a flat surface had tons of grip.
    Foxes will have some value going forward but the SN95s-except the Cobra R and maybe Cobra, will end up like this one

  • avatar
    Ion

    I was gonna say that there’s a nice 5-lug/ disc brake swap for a foxbody but it looks like the rear diff is already gone.

  • avatar
    SoCalMikester

    dont worry about liliana, kid. there will be others.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Steve S.: She was a hot Asian chick who dumped him for a guy with a “DSM” Eclipse Turbo with a chip.
  • Steve S.: That’s a Borla X-pipe. Probably a catless off-road version that some hack put cats on.
  • Steve S.: I had an orange ’96 GT convertible. Ford only made about 800 Mustangs in Bright Tangerine. Best...
  • Jerome10: I wanna see a 2.5L-3.0L V8! Honestly, they’re probably just brainstorming and that’s as far as...
  • mcs: You don’t need a garage. Just off-street parking and an outdoor outlet of some sort.

New Car Research

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States