Skip to main content

1995
Ford Mustang

Starts at:
$14,530
Shop options
New 1995 Ford Mustang
See ratings
Consumer rating
Owner reviewed vehicle score
Not rated
Safety rating
NHTSA tested vehicle score
Consumer rating
Owner reviewed vehicle score
Not rated
Safety rating
NHTSA tested vehicle score
Shop Cars.com
Browse cars & save your favorites
Dealers near you
Find & contact a dealership near you
Listings near 43272
Change location See all listings

Available trims

See the differences side-by-side to compare trims.
  • 2dr Coupe
    Starts at
    $14,530
    See all specs
  • 2dr Coupe GTS
    Starts at
    $16,910
    See all specs
  • 2dr Coupe GT
    Starts at
    $18,105
    See all specs
  • 2dr Convertible
    Starts at
    $20,995
    See all specs
  • 2dr Convertible GT
    Starts at
    $22,795
    See all specs

The good & the bad

This vehicle doesn't have any good or bad insights yet.

Use our comparison tool to look at this model side-by-side with other vehicles or view the full specifications list .

Start your comparison

Expert 1995 Ford Mustang review

our expert's take
Our expert's take
By
Full article
our expert's take

THIS IS a story about black and white. But it has nothing to dowith race. It is about two convertibles — a black 1996 Chevrolet CamaroZ28 and a white 1995 Ford Mustang GT.

In most respects, both were created equal. But only one could winmy heart — the one that provided the most affirmative action on theroad.

It is understandable that some might find the comparison unfair.The Mustang, after all, belonged to a fading model year. And Ford haspromised that the 1996 Mustang GT convertible will be improvedsubstantially.

But the 1996 GT convertible wasn’t available. I took what was inFord’s garage.

Surely, the Camaro Z28 had certain advantages — a more powerfulengine and a definite, no-compromise, in-your-face,knock-you-‘cross-the-head, urban attitude.

By comparison, the Mustang came across as a suburbanite on anexotic excursion to the inner city — quite acceptable, but somewhatclueless.

Those differences notwithstanding, I used the RepublicanCongressional Standard of Evaluation in choosing my favorite of the twoconvertibles. Those standards are color-blind, unaffected by culturalnuance and personal bias, and are based solely on merit.

Background: Both the Mustang and Camaro are “pony” cars, but theCamaro has always been more of a horse.

The Mustang was introduced April 17, 1964, as a mid-1964 model. TheCamaro came out Sept. 26, 1966, as a 1967 model. Because the Camaro wasa late entry, General Motors Corp., its maker, figured that it had topump the car up with more muscle and gusto to attract attention. The GMstrategy worked.

In retrospect, the Camaro has always been more of a blue-collar carthan the Mustang, which seemed to sell better than the Camaro inwine-and-cheese neighborhoods.

But GM and Ford lately have been trying to aim their products moretoward America’s upper-middle class. Ford generally has been moresuccessful in that endeavor — which would be good, if we were talkingabout a family sedan or a sport-utility vehicle. But we’re talkinghotblooded convertibles, which are all about attitude. The Z28 Camarowins that contest hands down.

The Z28 is sleeker, sexier, faster and tighter than the Mustang GTconvertible. It’s free of any crossover pretensions. It aims for the thegut.

Some comparisons:

Styling: The Mustang goes for body panel scoops, a la the 1964original. It’s attractive, but smacks of artifice, especially with thatwhalelike air spoiler atop the trunk lid. But the smart, dual-podinterior styling of the Mustang beats the Darth Vader-like interior ofthe Z28 Camaro big time. The Mustang’s exterior/interior styling willremain the same for 1996.

The Z28’s exterior styling kicks butt — smooth, super fine. Theair spoiler atop the trunk lid literally flows into the car’s bodylines.

Engines: The 1996 Z28 runs with the Corvette-derived 5.7-liter V-8rated 285 horsepower at 5,200 rpm. Torque is set at 325 pound-feet at2,400 rpm.

The 1995 Must ang GT is equipped with a 5-liter V-8 rated 215horsepower at 4,200 rpm. Torque on the current Mustang engine is set at285 pound-feet at 3,400 rpm.

For ’96, the Mustang GT convertible gets Ford’s new, modular4.6-liter V-8, which has practically the same horsepower and torque asthe current GT 5-liter V-8. The difference is that the new engine islighter and more fuel-efficient.

Other mechanicals: The Camaro Z28 and Mustang GT convertibles bothhave standard power four-wheel disc brakes. But the Z28 comes with astandard anti-lock system. On the ’95 and ’96 Mustang GT, anti-locks aresold as an option.

The standard transmission in the Mustang GT for 1995 and 1996 is afive-speed manual. A four-speed automatic is optional. The Camaro Z28comes with a standard six-speed — repeat, six-speed — manual gearbox.A four-speed automatic is optional in the Camaro.

Safety: Both convertibles are very stable cars, which means thatyou are not likely to roll them over and lose you r head. Both areequipped with dual-front air bags and all of the appropriate side-impactcrash protections. Both run faster than the law allows.

Complaints: A squeak emanated from the left rear side of the 1995Mustang GT whenever the top was down. Hated that noise!

The Z28 could use a bit less testosterone and a bit more finesse,especially in the engine-roar department. It’s kind of adolescent to leteverybody know you’re coming.

Praise: Both convertibles are hot runners and mostly fun to drive.

Head-turning quotients: Camaro Z28 — “Ooh, baby!” Mustang GT –“Good morning, honey.”

Ride, acceleration and handling: Better front-passenger ride in theMustang GT, which has better front-passenger foot space than the CamaroZ28. Better behind-the-wheel feel in the Z28. Both cars offer onlymarginal comfort for rear-seat passengers, even though the Mustang GThas a slight edge in that area.

All-around better handling in the Z28, and I don’t think it justwas because it was a ’96 model. The ’95 Camaro convertible also handledbetter than the somewhat wobbly-in-curves ’95 Mustang GT.

Excellent braking in both cars.

Mileage: Nothing to cheer about in either car. The Camaro Z28 gotabout 19 miles per gallon (15.5-gallon tank, an estimated 280-mile rangeon usable volume of recommended premium unleaded), combinedcity-highway, mostly driver only.

The 1995 Mustang GT also got around 19 miles per gallon(15.4-gallon tank, an estimated 278-mile range on usable volume ofregular unleaded), combined city-highway and mostly driver only.

Sound systems: AM/FM stereo radio and cassette in Mustang GT, FordMach 460 system. Totally righteous. Optional Bose sound system with fivespeakers arranged in cross-firing pattern in the Camaro Z28. Boss boogiehere too.

Price: Base price on the 1995 Ford Mustang GT convertible is$22,795. Dealer’s invoice is $20,538. Price as tested is $27,430,including $4,135 in options and a $500 destination charge. Ford willattempt to run as close as possible to this pricing in 1996.

Estimated base price on the 1996 Chevrolet Camaro is $24,000.Estimated dealer invoice is $21,500. Estimated price as tested is$28,000, including an estimated $3,500 in options and a $500 destinationcharge. Prices on the ’96 Camaro were not firm at this writing.

Purse-strings note: Both Mustang GT and Camaro Z28 convertibles are”want” cars, as opposed to “need.” Still, I want the Camaro Z28.

1995 Ford Mustang review: Our expert's take
By

THIS IS a story about black and white. But it has nothing to dowith race. It is about two convertibles — a black 1996 Chevrolet CamaroZ28 and a white 1995 Ford Mustang GT.

In most respects, both were created equal. But only one could winmy heart — the one that provided the most affirmative action on theroad.

It is understandable that some might find the comparison unfair.The Mustang, after all, belonged to a fading model year. And Ford haspromised that the 1996 Mustang GT convertible will be improvedsubstantially.

But the 1996 GT convertible wasn’t available. I took what was inFord’s garage.

Surely, the Camaro Z28 had certain advantages — a more powerfulengine and a definite, no-compromise, in-your-face,knock-you-‘cross-the-head, urban attitude.

By comparison, the Mustang came across as a suburbanite on anexotic excursion to the inner city — quite acceptable, but somewhatclueless.

Those differences notwithstanding, I used the RepublicanCongressional Standard of Evaluation in choosing my favorite of the twoconvertibles. Those standards are color-blind, unaffected by culturalnuance and personal bias, and are based solely on merit.

Background: Both the Mustang and Camaro are “pony” cars, but theCamaro has always been more of a horse.

The Mustang was introduced April 17, 1964, as a mid-1964 model. TheCamaro came out Sept. 26, 1966, as a 1967 model. Because the Camaro wasa late entry, General Motors Corp., its maker, figured that it had topump the car up with more muscle and gusto to attract attention. The GMstrategy worked.

In retrospect, the Camaro has always been more of a blue-collar carthan the Mustang, which seemed to sell better than the Camaro inwine-and-cheese neighborhoods.

But GM and Ford lately have been trying to aim their products moretoward America’s upper-middle class. Ford generally has been moresuccessful in that endeavor — which would be good, if we were talkingabout a family sedan or a sport-utility vehicle. But we’re talkinghotblooded convertibles, which are all about attitude. The Z28 Camarowins that contest hands down.

The Z28 is sleeker, sexier, faster and tighter than the Mustang GTconvertible. It’s free of any crossover pretensions. It aims for the thegut.

Some comparisons:

Styling: The Mustang goes for body panel scoops, a la the 1964original. It’s attractive, but smacks of artifice, especially with thatwhalelike air spoiler atop the trunk lid. But the smart, dual-podinterior styling of the Mustang beats the Darth Vader-like interior ofthe Z28 Camaro big time. The Mustang’s exterior/interior styling willremain the same for 1996.

The Z28’s exterior styling kicks butt — smooth, super fine. Theair spoiler atop the trunk lid literally flows into the car’s bodylines.

Engines: The 1996 Z28 runs with the Corvette-derived 5.7-liter V-8rated 285 horsepower at 5,200 rpm. Torque is set at 325 pound-feet at2,400 rpm.

The 1995 Must ang GT is equipped with a 5-liter V-8 rated 215horsepower at 4,200 rpm. Torque on the current Mustang engine is set at285 pound-feet at 3,400 rpm.

For ’96, the Mustang GT convertible gets Ford’s new, modular4.6-liter V-8, which has practically the same horsepower and torque asthe current GT 5-liter V-8. The difference is that the new engine islighter and more fuel-efficient.

Other mechanicals: The Camaro Z28 and Mustang GT convertibles bothhave standard power four-wheel disc brakes. But the Z28 comes with astandard anti-lock system. On the ’95 and ’96 Mustang GT, anti-locks aresold as an option.

The standard transmission in the Mustang GT for 1995 and 1996 is afive-speed manual. A four-speed automatic is optional. The Camaro Z28comes with a standard six-speed — repeat, six-speed — manual gearbox.A four-speed automatic is optional in the Camaro.

Safety: Both convertibles are very stable cars, which means thatyou are not likely to roll them over and lose you r head. Both areequipped with dual-front air bags and all of the appropriate side-impactcrash protections. Both run faster than the law allows.

Complaints: A squeak emanated from the left rear side of the 1995Mustang GT whenever the top was down. Hated that noise!

The Z28 could use a bit less testosterone and a bit more finesse,especially in the engine-roar department. It’s kind of adolescent to leteverybody know you’re coming.

Praise: Both convertibles are hot runners and mostly fun to drive.

Head-turning quotients: Camaro Z28 — “Ooh, baby!” Mustang GT –“Good morning, honey.”

Ride, acceleration and handling: Better front-passenger ride in theMustang GT, which has better front-passenger foot space than the CamaroZ28. Better behind-the-wheel feel in the Z28. Both cars offer onlymarginal comfort for rear-seat passengers, even though the Mustang GThas a slight edge in that area.

All-around better handling in the Z28, and I don’t think it justwas because it was a ’96 model. The ’95 Camaro convertible also handledbetter than the somewhat wobbly-in-curves ’95 Mustang GT.

Excellent braking in both cars.

Mileage: Nothing to cheer about in either car. The Camaro Z28 gotabout 19 miles per gallon (15.5-gallon tank, an estimated 280-mile rangeon usable volume of recommended premium unleaded), combinedcity-highway, mostly driver only.

The 1995 Mustang GT also got around 19 miles per gallon(15.4-gallon tank, an estimated 278-mile range on usable volume ofregular unleaded), combined city-highway and mostly driver only.

Sound systems: AM/FM stereo radio and cassette in Mustang GT, FordMach 460 system. Totally righteous. Optional Bose sound system with fivespeakers arranged in cross-firing pattern in the Camaro Z28. Boss boogiehere too.

Price: Base price on the 1995 Ford Mustang GT convertible is$22,795. Dealer’s invoice is $20,538. Price as tested is $27,430,including $4,135 in options and a $500 destination charge. Ford willattempt to run as close as possible to this pricing in 1996.

Estimated base price on the 1996 Chevrolet Camaro is $24,000.Estimated dealer invoice is $21,500. Estimated price as tested is$28,000, including an estimated $3,500 in options and a $500 destinationcharge. Prices on the ’96 Camaro were not firm at this writing.

Purse-strings note: Both Mustang GT and Camaro Z28 convertibles are”want” cars, as opposed to “need.” Still, I want the Camaro Z28.

Available cars near you

Certified Pre-Owned program benefits

Age / mileage
Fords and many non-Ford vehicles up to 10 years old with less than 150,000 miles
Basic
90-Day / 4,000-Mile (whichever comes first) Comprehensive Limited Warranty
Dealer certification
139-point inspection

Compare similar vehicles

Select cars to compare for more detailed info.
  • 1995
    4.5
    Ford Mustang
    Starts at
    $14,530
    -
    MPG
    -
    Seat capacity
    -
    Engine
    -
    Drivetrain
    Compare
  • 2002
    4.7
    Chevrolet Camaro
    Starts at
    $18,415
    19 City / 30 Hwy
    MPG
    4
    Seat capacity
    Gas V6
    Engine
    Rear-wheel drive
    Drivetrain
    Compare
  • 1996
    4.7
    Ford Mustang
    Starts at
    $15,180
    20 City / 30 Hwy
    MPG
    4
    Seat capacity
    -
    Engine
    Rear-wheel drive
    Drivetrain
    Compare
  • 1997
    4.6
    Pontiac Firebird
    Starts at
    $17,174
    19 City / 29 Hwy
    MPG
    4
    Seat capacity
    Gas V8
    Engine
    Rear-wheel drive
    Drivetrain
    Compare
  • 2006
    4.8
    Ford GT
    Starts at
    $149,995
    13 City / 21 Hwy
    MPG
    2
    Seat capacity
    Gas V8
    Engine
    Rear-wheel drive
    Drivetrain
    Compare
  • Compare more options
    Use our comparison tool to add any vehicle of your choice and see a full list of specifications and features side-by-side.
    Try it now

Consumer reviews

4.5 / 5
Based on 26 reviews
Write a review
Comfort 4.4
Interior 4.2
Performance 4.6
Value 4.7
Exterior 4.8
Reliability 4.5

Most recent

Head Turner!

Beautiful, All original perfect paint, Excellent Interior, Overall Beautiful car that doesn’t hurt the wallet! Ready to go cruise on Sundays with the top down! Hard to find in this condition! Candy Apple Red!
  • Purchased a Used car
  • Used for Having fun
  • Does recommend this car
Comfort 5.0
Interior 4.0
Performance 4.0
Value 5.0
Exterior 5.0
Reliability 5.0
16 people out of 19 found this review helpful. Did you?
Yes No

where the cupholders at

a phenom of a car but needs cupholders, i aint finding em. But besides that, muah muuah hah. I have a boy that uses all four of his cupholders, and he would use more if he had more
  • Purchased a Used car
  • Does not recommend this car
Comfort 5.0
Interior 1.0
Performance 5.0
Value 5.0
Exterior 5.0
4 people out of 8 found this review helpful. Did you?
Yes No

Latest news from cars.com

See all news

Ford dealers near you

FAQ

What trim levels are available for the 1995 Ford Mustang?

The 1995 Ford Mustang is available in 3 trim levels:

  • (2 styles)
  • GT (2 styles)
  • GTS (1 style)

What are some similar vehicles and competitors of the 1995 Ford Mustang?

The 1995 Ford Mustang compares to and/or competes against the following vehicles:

Is the 1995 Ford Mustang reliable?

The 1995 Ford Mustang has an average reliability rating of 4.5 out of 5 according to cars.com consumers. Find real-world reliability insights within consumer reviews from 1995 Ford Mustang owners.

Is the 1995 Ford Mustang a good Convertible?

Below are the cars.com consumers ratings for the 1995 Ford Mustang. 92.3% of drivers recommend this vehicle.

4.5 / 5
Based on 26 reviews
  • Comfort: 4.4
  • Interior: 4.2
  • Performance: 4.6
  • Value: 4.7
  • Exterior: 4.8
  • Reliability: 4.5

Ford Mustang history

Your list was successfully saved.
Your comparisons
 
 
 
 
Save list Compare