Fox Mustangs

[6.2]

Bring it.

Well if I had a built 2.3 turbo fox I'd definitely bring it lol.

Been looking for one for ages. But all the 2.3's for sale are Junkers.

 

[Explorin94]

Bring it.

I'll be right behind you with my 85GT. 2.3T (unless upgraded) will not pass a 5.0.

 

[shane96ranger]

I'll be right behind you with my 85GT. 2.3T (unless upgraded) will not pass a 5.0.

Pretty much. I always hear these stories of how the turbo's kept up with the 5.0's. BS. I'll be gone by the time the notoriously slow turbo spools up.

 

[6.2]

Pretty much. I always hear these stories of how the turbo's kept up with the 5.0's. BS. I'll be gone by the time the notoriously slow turbo spools up.

Stock turbo 2.3's sure.

Modded turbo 2.3's can destroy a 5.0. I've seen 9second 2.3's all over YouTube. Lighter, comparable power, means faster. Plain and simple.

Can a 5.0 be built up to be faster? Obviously. I don't think anyone is denying that. But to say a 2.3 turbo is slow is just retarded. A turbo 2.3 will keep up with an be faster than a stock 5.0 is what I'm saying. And can be done cheaper since they're so cheap to buy initially.

2.3 stangs are going for under a grand in good shape up here. 5.0's are in similar shape are going for $6k+

 

[Ranger-rick]

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.

Says who? Those turbos were more money from the factory and slower than the 5.0. Thats why Ford never sold any of them, because why would you pay more for a slower car?

Plus they were known to have a lot of issues. The Turbos were junk on them and also they leaked oil like a faucet.

Mod for mod they were also WAY slower. There is only so much potential a 2.3 has. The 5.0 is nearly endless.

I would NEVER buy a 2.3 and im a HUGE mustang guy.

 

[shane96ranger]

Best bang for your buck is a 5.0 hands down. Give me dollar for dollar what you get to mod your 2.3 with, and we'll see who comes out ahead and which one lasts longer. And..... and.... the 5.0 sounds WAAAAAY better than any 2.3 thought of. I'd bet we'd be pretty close on mpgs too.

A 5.0 weighs approximately 450 pounds. What does the 2.3 and turbo weigh?

 

[6.2]

For the record, I'm a 5.0 guy myself.

But you may Sayers dissing the turbo 2.3's are hilarious.

Best bang for buck is a 5.0? Hardly. I can buy a 2.3, turbo it running 25+ lbs of boost making killer power for cheaper than I can buy a clean stock 5.0.

Maybe it's a different story where you guys live, but where I live that's the way it is.

And 30+ mpg from a 5.0? Give me a break.

 

[shane96ranger]

For the record, I'm a 5.0 guy myself.

But you may Sayers dissing the turbo 2.3's are hilarious.

Best bang for buck is a 5.0? Hardly. I can buy a 2.3, turbo it running 25+ lbs of boost making killer power for cheaper than I can buy a clean stock 5.0.

Maybe it's a different story where you guys live, but where I live that's the way it is.

And 30+ mpg from a 5.0? Give me a break.

This "may Sayer" has been around Fox Body Mustangs for over 20 years. I've yet to see this 30 mpg out of a heavily modded 2.3, period. I don't know if this link will work below, but the turbo 2.3 was only rated at 2 more mpgs. In my experience, modding a 2.3 usually hurts mpgs, and typically stays the same for a 5.0 version. You can't hardly find those turbo 2.3's around here, and when you do, they are always more than a 5.0 is.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=1821&id=5380

Edit: Another point I'd bring up is all of the 2.3's require higher octane fuel. I still run 85 octane in mine.

 

[bigmark303]

Best bang for your buck is a 5.0 hands down. Give me dollar for dollar what you get to mod your 2.3 with, and we'll see who comes out ahead and which one lasts longer. And..... and.... the 5.0 sounds WAAAAAY better than any 2.3 thought of. I'd bet we'd be pretty close on mpgs too.

A 5.0 weighs approximately 450 pounds. What does the 2.3 and turbo weigh?

Ill let you know what an NA 2.3 weighs when I scrap it. Its not much less than the 5.0. With the 2.3 Head removed and just the block and rotating assembly it weighs almost as much as the 5.0 block and rotating assembly.

I can just lift the 5.0 block and rotaing assembly up to my waste. the 2.3 block and rotating assembly I can get just a little higher to my stomach and put it on the tail gate.

Those 2.3s take a beating as well since they only run on turbo. A local garage runs a 2.3 turbo for the touring races at our local speedway. Only 4-6 races a season and they eat a rotating assembly each year. I supply the 2.3 block every year and help them set the engine back up.

I havent supplied a 5.0 in I think 3 or 4 years now. The 5.0s are in the stock cars that get raced every weekend June-Mid Sept.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

5.0 weighs approximately 450 pounds. What does the 2.3 and turbo weigh?

IIRC they weigh about the same so that is pretty much a moot point.

Best bang for buck is a 5.0? Hardly. I can buy a 2.3, turbo it running 25+ lbs of boost making killer power for cheaper than I can buy a clean stock 5.0.

Not if you shop around. Just on a whim I found a nice looking 5.0 that runs great and needs a clutch for $1600.

It is really hard to find a "clean" 5.0 let alone the cheaper beater models (that are not convertables) around here. I know of three guys that paid big money for super "clean" foxbody's only to learn they were hack jobs.

Personally that is why I kinda shied away from them...

I used to have a turbo Eclipse, that boost is a fun thing. I have never been around a turbo 2.3 but my stock 4G63T didn't have much of a flat spot before the boost hit. With a quiet exhaust the jetlike whoosh rivaled the V8 cackle for coolness too.

 

[shane96ranger]

Yeah, I thought the 2.3 was a pretty heavy motor. IIRC it's in the neighborhood of 350 lbs. which really is a moot point as 85 pointed out.

This is what I see here. When these things pop up, they want more than what 5.0's are going for.

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?sid=13...=Ford&model=Mustang&yearFrom=1979&yearTo=1993

Same era here, with a 5.0:

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?sid=13...=Ford&model=Mustang&yearFrom=1979&yearTo=1993

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?sid=13...=Ford&model=Mustang&yearFrom=1979&yearTo=1993

 

[Flash Gordan]

With a quiet exhaust the jetlike whoosh rivaled the V8 cackle for coolness too.

Hate to bust your bubble, nothing compares to a V8 cackle. Except maybe a Rolls Royce V12 in a P-51 mustang doing a flyby at 100 ft.

 

[shane96ranger]

^ Agreed.

Posting from the Galaxy.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Hate to bust your bubble, nothing compares to a V8 cackle. Except maybe a Rolls Royce V12 in a P-51 mustang doing a flyby at 100 ft.

Again, don't know anything about the 2.3 but with my Mitsubishi 2.0 it was something like a 4bbl opening but it was more drawn out rather than all at once. More like a spring coming unwound and somehow powering the car. And all the while as you were being pushed harder into the seat as the car reared back. All you could hear was a woosh... like a jet. There was more to it than just the noise, what the car was doing as it made the noise was part of it too. It was pretty neat to feel and for sure different to experiance than a V8.

Nothing against V8's (that is all I have in my fleet) but the turbo 4s can be a lot of fun and very economical too. I could drive mine however I wanted (and I do mean however) and never got worse than 20mpg in the city and it would flirt with 30mpg on the highway. It was kinda neat to watch the boost needle dance to maintain speed with the cruise on too. Aside from the hidious insurance it was a pretty fun college car.

I would take a P&W radial (like a P-47/F4U/F6F) over a RR V12 for sound too. They sound big, they sound burly and they sound like they mean business. We have a yellow low wing cropduster around here with some big radial and even he sounds cool.

 

[Explorin94]

For the record, I'm a 5.0 guy myself.

But you may Sayers dissing the turbo 2.3's are hilarious.

Best bang for buck is a 5.0? Hardly. I can buy a 2.3, turbo it running 25+ lbs of boost making killer power for cheaper than I can buy a clean stock 5.0.

Maybe it's a different story where you guys live, but where I live that's the way it is.

And 30+ mpg from a 5.0? Give me a break.

This "may Sayer" has been around Fox Body Mustangs for over 20 years. I've yet to see this 30 mpg out of a heavily modded 2.3, period. I don't know if this link will work below, but the turbo 2.3 was only rated at 2 more mpgs. In my experience, modding a 2.3 usually hurts mpgs, and typically stays the same for a 5.0 version. You can't hardly find those turbo 2.3's around here, and when you do, they are always more than a 5.0 is.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=1821&id=5380

Edit: Another point I'd bring up is all of the 2.3's require higher octane fuel. I still run 85 octane in mine.

Well this also "may Sayer" has had mustangs since the late 80's. I am a 5.0 guy too, but my dream car is an 86 SVO Comp Prep. I have an 85 GT that gets 22 MPG and still has the factory carburetor on it . I have had this car for 24 years and am the third owner .

You an talk up the 2.3T all you want and that is fine. But if you do want to go head to head with these two fine cars then you need to put money for money in each. You are boasting a modified 2.3T against a stock 5.0. Yeah the 2.3T will win every time. Put a 5.0 on 25 LBS os boost and the 2.3T don't stand a chance.