That’s hard to say without knowing more and I’m sorry if you have posted your engine specs.   My personal experience is the feel of how it drives can vary depending on the driver and what they like or feel.  To say that a certain setup has to be X gear ratio doesn’t work.  To many variables.

It's all about CAFE, Billy.  As the feds keep rasing the Corporate Average Fuel Economy requirements the mfgs keep doing every thing they can to get better mileage.  The Fox 5.0 needed some tall (3.00 or 2.72) rear gears to get good economy...even with the .68 OD of the five speed.  Butt (TS&T), it couldn't be a dog around town and still be a Mustang.  So the put low (wide ratio) gears in the stock T5 so it would get out of it's own way with the high rear gears. The 90 that I got from my brother, and sold to JKB, had 3.73 rear gears but also had the close ratio T5Z.  Worked great around town and still got nearly 30 mpg on the highway.
 

93 5.0L had 3.35’s.

As for rear axle gears, the 3.08 was an option, even in ‘86.
2.73’s were base fuel efficient standard.

If you have transmission tag…look it up:
https://www.therangerstation.com/tech_library/T5ID.shtml

My 92 GT had 13-52-208 factory T5…the 65 has it now.

Last edited by Nos681 (12/18/2022 11:05 PM)