One of the most enthusiast-beloved Mustangs was the Fox-body LX 5.0L of the late ’80s and early ’90s, which offered all the performance of the Mustang GT with fewer frills and a lower price. In 1995, Ford tried the same formula again with the Mustang GTS coupe, one of the last of the 5.0 Mustangs, but it didn’t even last a full model year. Let’s take a look at the GTS and why it was so short-lived.
After the 302-cid (4,942 cc) V-8 returned to the Mustang line in 1982, Ford offered the engine as a standalone option for any Mustang, not just the pricier Mustang GT. By 1987, this had coalesced into a 5.0L package for LX that included the GT suspension and tires as well as the 5.0 High-Output engine, but not the GT body kit or graphics.
The Mustang LX 5.0L was too well-known to really qualify as a sleeper, but it offered impressive bang for the buck. By the standards of the late ’80s or early ’90s, the late-’70s-vintage Fox-platform Mustang was crude, its brakes were inadequate, and its low price meant a rental car grade interior, but it would blow the doors off of a lot of newer, more sophisticated four-cylinder sporty coupes that cost thousands more. The LX 5.0L also became a preferred choice of buyers who regard any factory model as only a canvas on which to apply aftermarket performance equipment.
When the SN95 Mustang finally replaced the elderly Fox-body pony car for 1994, Ford decided to limit the V-8 engines to the GT and pricier Cobra. This meant there was now a sizable gap of almost $4,000 between the cheapest V-6 base car and the cheapest Mustang GT coupe.
Someone in the Ford Division product planning department obviously decided that left room for a middle-tier model, which emerged in mid-1995 as the Mustang GTS. Like the old LX 5.0L, the GTS had all the GT performance equipment — 5.0 HO engine, handling suspension, dual exhaust, Traction-Lok axle, 16-inch wheels, performance tires — but it was $1,195 cheaper than a GT coupe. (The GTS wasn’t available as a convertible.)
The cost savings was achieved by trimming some GT standard equipment, including power windows and locks, power decklid release, fog lights, rear spoiler, power front lumbar support, and 4-way adjustable head restraints.
None of this equipment was heavy enough to make much difference in curb weight (the specifications indicate a savings of 24 lb compared to a GT coupe), so GTS performance was the same as a Mustang GT, meaning 0 to 60 in under 6.5 seconds and the quarter mile in around 15 seconds. (Car and Driver managed 14.9 seconds at 93 mph.)
The Mustang GTS wasn’t a stripper: GTS buyers still got power mirrors and an AM/FM radio, and could order other equipment like air conditioning, cruise control, and antilock brakes (all of which were option on the GT as well). The red car in the photos has a preferred equipment package that included air conditioning and a cassette player, plus cruise control, a rear defogger, and floor mats, which brought the total sticker price to $18,355 including destination, only $225 less than a GT coupe without those options. Some buyers probably appreciated being able to get A/C and a cassette player instead of power windows, fog lamps, and a spoiler for roughly the same price (I would have), but it emphasized that the GT and GTS weren’t really all that different.
Personally, I think the SN95 Mustang looked a bit better without the decklid spoiler, but the visual contrast wasn’t as dramatic as it had been with the old Mustang LX 5.0L and GT.
This was perhaps the biggest failing of the GTS. The old LX 5.0L had been easy to spot: Its big alloy wheels and prominent “5.0” badges set it apart from four-cylinder Mustang commuters and gave it a purposeful, non-nonsense look. The 1995 GTS just looked like a Mustang GT coupe with no rear spoiler — it was even badged as a GT.
As for the price, a $1,200 savings wasn’t hay in 1995 (that’s a relative worth of around $2,860 in 2025 dollars), but the GT was reasonably priced to begin with. Also, for a lot of the target audience, I think the bigger barrier to entry was the very high cost of insuring these frequently crashed, frequently stolen cars, and ordering a GTS rather than a GT wasn’t going to help that.
Ford management soon realized that anything the GTS did could be more easily achieved by just adjusting the equipment of the regular Mustang GT, which is what they did for 1996. The 1996 GT coupe kept its 4-way adjustable head restraints, but it was otherwise de-contented to the level of the 1995 GTS, and its base price was cut to $16,088. That made the GTS redundant, so it didn’t return for 1996.
Since the GTS was available for only six months in the latter half of the 1995 model year, it wasn’t very common: Kevin Marti puts production of the GTS package at 7,154 cars; some sources claim only 6,370. Total Mustang production was 174,924 for the 1995 model year.
Edmund’s 1996 New Cars suggested that the rarity of the 1995 Mustang GTS would make it a hot future collectible, but that doesn’t appear to be the case today. The red car pictured here sold for $15,000 at Mecum in October 2023 and $10,999 on Bring a Trailer in August 2025 — decent prices for 30-year-old cars, but not any higher than a nice original 1995 GT will fetch.
Since the GTS didn’t have any meaningful performance advantage or unique identification, I don’t think there’s really much for collectors to latch onto. Even if you remember the GTS (which I must admit I had completely forgotten until about two hours before I started writing this post), recognition produces an “Oh” rather than “Ooh.”
Of course, I’m sure there are still Mustang fans who would prefer a 1995 GTS over a 1996 GT just because the ’95 car still had the 302, whereas 1996 SN95 Mustangs switched to the 4.6-liter SOHC modular V-8. The 1996 4.6 had the same SAE net ratings as the 1995 5.0 HO, but at the time, there was a lot of grousing that the 4.6 wasn’t as strong down low as its 4.9-liter pushrod predecessor. However, if tire-smoking low-end grunt was a priority, even the 302 was no match for an LT1-powered Camaro or Firebird, and the 4.6 was smoother and less breathless when pressed than its predecessor had been. (Incidentally, while the ’95 was the swan song for the 302 in passenger cars, the venerable OHV engine stuck it out through 2001 in trucks and SUVs.)
The modern enthusiast is often fascinated by the idea of strippers and no-frills performance cars, I think in large part because they’ve become so unusual today. Even a base V-6 Mustang in 1995 was very well-equipped by the standards of the ’60s or ’70s (four-wheel discs, power steering, reclining front seats, a split folding rear seat, full instrumentation, tinted glass, intermittent wipers). Yesterday’s luxury options have a tendency to become tomorrow’s basic automotive necessities: You could live without features like intermittent wipers and remote decklid releases — you probably have in the past — but would you want to?
Ultimately, there ended up being less room in the lineup for a middle-tier Mustang performance model than it had initially appeared. When Ford did the math on 1994 Mustang sales, they must have noticed that there was an almost 50/50 split between V-6 base cars and the pricier V-8 models, an enviable sales mix for cars like this. (Usually, the cheaper base models end up having to kind of subsidize the sportier versions the car magazines love.) It was easier to lower the base price of the GT than to try to market a third model.
Looking at the 1996 option list, I get the feeling Ford was also looking to heavily promote Preferred Equipment Package 249A, a $2,532 option group that gave GT coupe buyers the features deleted for 1996, plus air conditioning, ABS, a cassette player, and a power driver’s seat, for an out-the-door price of $518 more than the 1995 GT. Sneaky.
All this left the 1995 Mustang GTS as a minor curiosity, rare without being particularly unusual. If Ford had given it more of a push — perhaps promoting it as a last-of-the-line run-out special for the 5.0 HO engine (which it really wasn’t, since the 5.0 HO was also used in the far more popular 1995 GT) — it would probably be sought-after today. Instead, I think many Mustang fans would rather have the old Fox-body LX 5.0L, which was just as fast and clearer on the concept.
Related Reading
My 1989 and 1992 Mustang LX 5.0s: Meet Thing 1 and Thing 2 – A Dose Of Double Trouble! (by Chris Clark)
COAL: 1995 Ford Mustang GT Convertible – The Last 302 (by James Pastor)
Curbside Classic: 1996 Ford Mustang Convertible – It Still Is What It Was, To Me (by Joseph Dennis)
Interesting article; as much as I like Mustangs, I had no recollection of of the ’95 GTS.
From a marketing point of view, I imagine it makes more sense to offer a de-contented GT at a lower price (and try to push options on buyers) rather than having a separate, lower tier model
On a separate note, I never really liked the horizontally segmented tail lights on the ’94 and ’95s, but they do look good with the red paint; not so much in other colors
They turned them 90 degrees for 1996, which I’m not sure was a great improvement, since they basically just stuck different taillight panels in the existing space. Either way, I agree that the segmentation doesn’t look so great with the contrast of colors other than red.
I have to agree that neither taillight treatment was all that great, but at least this was a return to what is expected for a Mustang.
The New Edge taillights were a major improvement for this generation, as was its sheet metal.
( I still like my 2007 better though. 😉)
I think the panels/bezels don’t flatter either taillight due to the body seams, and it’s especially bad in white. It would have been a much tidier and attractive look if the sheetmetal was cut out for the lenses rather than a big taillight assembly but obviously that would have been costlier to manufacture and with the vertical lenses likely being conceived from the start for a midcycle refresh it’s just the compromise they settled on. Personally I prefer the vertical, but I also prefer this bodystyle in black
The biggest peeve I have with this bodystyle come to think of it are those and the other unsightly seams like them. The C pillars/sail panels are removable for some reason on all 94-04s and sport their own unsightly seams where they meet the roof and quarter panels, presumably to make the convertible sheetmetal modular with the coupe, but the visual result is just messy
“The biggest peeve I have with this bodystyle come to think of it are those and the other unsightly seams like them. The C pillars/sail panels are removable for some reason on all 94-04s and sport their own unsightly seams where they meet the roof and quarter panels, presumably to make the convertible sheetmetal modular with the coupe, but the visual result is just messy”
Let me disagree. In my opinion, these “seams” give the vehicle a hardtop character, which is not unattractive at all.
Tough not to comment on this one, although commenting is unusual, it sometimes gets stuffed to the side, with ads, I can barely hit the submit, I imagine being a member eliminates that.
The 1st two pictures, I had both those cars. 1st was the LX , an ’88 with a 5.0, automatic, was not my favorite. Don’t ask about a heater core replacement. It did one thing well, it was fast. When I offered it for sale, a guy called, asked if it was a LX notch back, I said yes, he was there in 15 minutes. He wanted to drag race it. For that, they were outstanding. Then I got a ‘red ’95, like above, so you can see how uncanny this post is for me. The ’95 was a V6, 5 speed, and was everything the ’88 wasn’t. I loved that car, it was a cruiser. Had to set the speed control on that car, as even with the V6, which had plenty of steam, 75 didn’t feel any different than 55. It should also be noted, and probably covered, many LEOs used the LX as SSPs, with mixed results. I don’t recall seeing any LEOs with newer SN95 Mustangs. Even the Hope. AR. police liked my red Mustang, but he had a Crown Vic.
Huh? Heater cores are as simple to replace on Fox body’s as they are on ’83-’88 Ranger trucks. Simple.
Not with A/C. I was told the entire dash had to come out, well, me and Mr. Sawzall made short work of that project.
Very interesting! I did not know this trim level existed.
I don’t think I ever knew about these. But then I was in my family years when they came out and had lost relevance to me in that stage of life.
I definitely remember the LX 5.0 of the Fox cars. I once rented a 1990 convertible with the 5.0 and an automatic. It was kind of flexy in its structure, but the 5.0 in that state of tune did much to mask the unpleasantness of the AOD transmission. It reaffirmed a basic belief of mine, that more torque can solve a lot of automotive drivability problems.
I’d argue the failure of the GTS is less about content creep and consumer standards for them than it was that it simply wasn’t 1987-1988 anymore, when the cheap LX 5.0s were nipping at the heels of some of the top domestic performance cars of the time. By 1995 those old LXs were no match for LT1 F bodies and the like without mods, and in this SN95 body there was nothing substantially changed with the 5.0 engine(except a debatably worse upper intake manifold) and heavier weight. In other words the LX 5.0s were actual fast budget cars for their time, the GTS was just a value package on a middling Mustang GT.
The GTS is an interesting car though, the lack of actual identification in badging shows how hastily it was conceived, and the name itself is cooler than GT, with images of Ferrari 308/328 GTSs or the Viper GTS coming to mind. The other thing is on the top end of the 1995 Mustang’s lineup you had the 351 powered very limited production Cobra R which apart from that engine was essentially a Cobra GTS, same interior apart from the addition of having no rear seat
I’m not sure I entirely agree. It is true that the performance of the 5.0 Mustang was much more competitive in the late ’80s and early ’90s, when a lot of Camaros and Firebirds still had the 305. However, it wasn’t like the Fox Mustang GT wasn’t fast — it just cost more and had the gaudier body kit and graphics. (It was a little heavier than the LX hatch, but not by any decisive amount, something like 75 lb.) It wasn’t even that expensive, except for the convertible and of course the cost of insurance.
The reason the LX 5.0L had an identity was that it was enough starker looking and enough cheaper than the GT (almost $1,900 in 1989) to make clear that the driver was more interested in going fast than in looking fast. It was a statement of a particular kind of intent, and that made a lasting impression.
Even if the ’90s F-bodies had stuck with the 305 rather than going to the LT1, or if Ford had made the 351 more broadly available, the point remains that the GTS didn’t have a different identity than the regular GT, and there wasn’t enough that Ford could really remove from it to make it either look different or cost enough less to stand out in the way the Fox LX 5.0L had.
There were actually 2 Fox body LX 5.0L’s. Notchback and hatchback. The notchback is the famous one!
One downside of the Fox LX 5.0L’s were the front seats. They got the terrible, cheap base front seats until 1989.
In 1989, all Fox 5.0L’s, including LX 5.0L’s got the excellent GT sport buckets.
Of course Ford redesigned and cheapened those seats starting in 1990 and they weren’t as good.
Actually 3, there was a LX 5.0 convertible as well, which is what the 7-Up and other various special edition packages in the final years were based on. I’d argue that as the less famous one. The notchback is the lightest and structurally the stiffest so it’s the best racer but the LX 5.0 hatches always seemed to be the most common.
Yes, the LX 5.0L was available as a hatchback, and from 1989 as a convertible as well as the notchback.
Never heard of the GTS, but the lead shot just reminded me of how much I appreciated the LX 5.0 A friend bought a 1989 LX 5.0 hatchback with 5-speed brand new. It was such a fun car to drive, really good usable performance. Although it was terrifying in the winter.
He started modifying the engine so it was faster but less pleasant to drive, lost interest and sold it. I think that happened to a lot of them.
My ex and I almost bought one of these to replace her aging Turbo Coupe, only with a V6 and the 5 speed (she liked rowing her own, as did I). It was the same color as this one, but IIRC, the wheels only had 3 spokes instead of the GT’s 5.
We ended up getting another T-Bird instead, a new 4.6L powered ’94 LX in Pearl Opalescent with a blue interior.
I’ve never heard of the GTS so that’s a new one for me.
I do remember that my then brother in law wanted a Mustang V8 so bad he could taste it. His insurance person told him to look for an LX V8 as it would be cheaper to insure than a GT. Don’t quite understand.
Anyway, he settled on a 4 year old GT. However, like some people who don’t know how to deal with power, he had it totaled in two months. He was showing off.
Nice write up.