Eh?
Weren't the 92-93's different? I thought 93 got the new style wheels while the 92's had the older ones? I would have clumped 89-93 and 94-95. When you get down to it I'm sure the only years that really did not change at all were 89-90.....surely the rest of them all had some minute change that is worthy enough (to some) for each year to receive it's own catagory.
That being aside....I shall state my opinion on the matter.
I don't think anyone can argue that the 94/95 SC's look more modern. And some would even say that that 89-93's look dated....especially from an interior standpoint. I think the 94/95 interiors look more than just a bit nicer. Unfortunately, they are not as roomy/functional. Some space is lost around the leg area...and when you are 6'8" you notice every inch baby. So to me, function outweighs looks in that department....and I shall call it a draw on interior (still giving Kudos to the looks of the 94/95 not only cosmetically, but it appears to be better quality) Aside from my height it would otherwise be a +.
Outside...I think the trim around the car looks way more modern on the 94/95. IT looks more refined. I like the look of the black stripe that wraps around the entire car of the 89-93, but the newer trim looks smoother. Unfortunatly the trim was all color coded in the 94/95's, but envisioning a titianium 94/95 with the trim black....I think It would look cooler. So I give the 94/95's the + there.
Rear valence....I think the 89-93 style makes the car look lower and wider than the 94/95. Plus I like how the 89-93 style is totally cut through whereas the 94/95 is a sticker/painted or something? That's kind of a no-no in my books. Plus I am not nuts about the way the 94/95 bulges around the exhaust cut-outs....I definitely give the 89-93 the + there.
Front ends....hmmm. No doubt the 89-93 has more "edge" to it whereas the front of the 94/95 is smoother. Areodynamically the 94/95 would be better....just how much better is to be debated? I think the newer headlights look better proportioned to the front end, but then again after years of staring at the 89-93 I happen to think the older ones look agressive. The 89-93 headlights definitely make the car look lower and wider...which again is a good thing to me. One thing between the two that I really prefer however is how the hood sits flush with the bumper (between the lights) whereas the newer style hood meets a little grill. I like the 89-93 style better....it just seems like they tried to shove a grill in the 94/95 where they really didn't have room. So...that would be the only factor to me that gives the + to the 89-93.
As for wheels....I think the 89-93 look more solid, but also look more dated. For some reason the 94/95 look...dare I say, cheaper? BUT---I think the bulge in the 94/95 style add to the wider look again, whereas the 89-93 really don't. Otherwise both style are pretty similar.....I don't care for the plastic caps in the 94/95....but still give the 94/95 the +
I think that is about it without getting nit picky over doorhandles and taillights, etc... Overall I guess I would say the 93 is the best looking year. It keeps the front end and valence which I prefer, the interior is more functional for me, and it's got the newer style wheels.
Then again, I've got a freakin' ram air hood and Cobra R's...like I even need to like a car in stock trim?!?
Micah