Fox Mustangs

[EMB1230]

weren't they also a lot more expensive?

I just got back from looking at a Maroon 90 Hatchback, grey interior, 2.3 auto :\ only 46K and it was in excellent shape, asking $1695 for it. A/C even worked.

 

[Explorin94]

Yes, there was one. They had turbo lubrication issues, and many of them are gone now. They were available 80-82 IIRC, but Ford dropped it because of the issues.

Posting from the Galaxy.

79-81 had Turbo Mustangs, 82-84 were the Turbo GT's. The SVO's did start late year 84 and ended in 86. The 79-84 (non SVO) were problematic due to the fact that nobody took the time to figure in the boost that the turbo was supplying to and through the carburetor , which lead to detination problems. I have seen a bunch and they are neat cars ahead of there time.

 

[Ranger-rick]

Yes, there was one. They had turbo lubrication issues, and many of them are gone now. They were available 80-82 IIRC, but Ford dropped it because of the issues.

Posting from the Galaxy.

You could get a Turbo GT in 1984, and it didn't have to be an SVO. 84 was the last year for the Turbo GT though.

 

[EMB1230]

Came across this: http://lasalle.craigslist.org/cto/3875448842.html He really liked my Ranger. Weird color combo though, silver and dark red

 

[EMB1230]

So when it comes down to it, which is the lesser of 2 evils? A 2.3 automatic or a 3.8 (with either tranny)? My buddy says the 4 cyl auto.

 

[shane96ranger]

A 3.8 as in the carbed version from the early 4 eyed Fox Body's? Those were junk. If you ever plan a 5.0 swap, you can't use that K-member. However, the 2.3 uses the same K-member.

 

[EMB1230]

I was referring to the 94+ 3.8, but in all honesty, ALL Ford 3.8's are head gasket blowing/head cracking, pieces of shit.

 

[shane96ranger]

There's lots of aftermarket support for the 2.3 - it gets my vote between the two.

Sent from my Quad Core Acer A210

 

[Explorin94]

A 3.8 as in the carbed version from the early 4 eyed Fox Body's? Those were junk. If you ever plan a 5.0 swap, you can't use that K-member. However, the 2.3 uses the same K-member.

You can use the K member that the 3.8 V6 was in. You can't use the K member from the 200 inline 6. IIRC the 3.8's were TBI also. But for a real sleeper you take the mustangs with the 3.8 V6 and put you a 3.8 V6 Super Coupe T-Bird motor in it and you would have something there.

 

[shane96ranger]

You can use the K member that the 3.8 V6 was in. You can't use the K member from the 200 inline 6. IIRC the 3.8's were TBI also. But for a real sleeper you take the mustangs with the 3.8 V6 and put you a 3.8 V6 Super Coupe T-Bird motor in it and you would have something there.

My bad, it was the straight six that was different K-member. A friend of mine had an 83 with a 2 barrel carb. Maybe it became TBI later.

 

[Explorin94]

My bad, it was the straight six that was different K-member. A friend of mine had an 83 with a 2 barrel carb. Maybe it became TBI later.

Really? I have never seen one with a carb. I always thought they were TBI's.

 

[shane96ranger]

Really? I have never seen one with a carb. I always thought they were TBI's.

To double check, because it's been a few years, I looked and Autozone lists 83 with a carb and 84+ with TBI. **shrug**

Posting from the Galaxy.

 

[6.2]

Go turbo 2.3.

No question.

You can crank out a ton of power for those suckers. Faster than 5.0's and if you can keep it outta boost you can still get a good 25-30 mpg from em.

 

[shane96ranger]

Go turbo 2.3 - Faster than 5.0's

Bring it.

 

[RANGERROD]

I used to daily drive my parents old 89 2.3 manual mustang baby poop yellow. I got 27-29 with it regularly never broke 30 though. Kind of miss that ugly thing.