What does Veeky Forums think of the '93 2.3L Stang? Anyone driven one...

Is this the only rwd car your mom will let you buy or something? Go for a truck instead

>pushrod
>i4
It was OHC retard.

enjoy getting smoked by Hyundais

>getting a 4 banger Mustang

unless its a cobra, GET OUT

Weren't the Cobras all V8s? I thought just the SVOs were the Turbo i4s.

and by cobra I meant to say turbo charged

and even then
>buying a muscle/pony car with anything but a V8

There were turbo Mustangs beyond the SVO. An early performance fox not many know of is the Mustang McLaren. And the turbo was an option right up until the SVO was killed off.
mustanglab.com/mclaren-m81-mustang/

My 2.1L prelude makes 110 HP at the fucking wheels (as of 6 months ago), and it's 26 years old.

What the fuck was ford doing?

Wasn't there something about Volvo head swaps on these?

>>buying a muscle/pony car with anything but a V8
The F-body twins are perfectly fine with a V6.
youtube.com/watch?v=B1iGiyYMINQ

It's a giant pain in the ass to get to work. There are only a few that have run. Briefly. The main sticking point is the head is shorter so there needs to be a fabricated block on the back of the head to seal off the top of the block and I don't think anybody has ever managed to get a complete seal there.

Then there's the whole thing with it just being a lot easier to use a Duratec 2.3 if you want to stay with a Ford 4cyl.

No, they really weren't.
t. former v6 turd gen owner

>What the fuck was ford doing?
Reusing a shitty 4 cylinder engine from the Pinto because nobody gives a fuck about anything but the V8. What the fuck do you think retard?

Actual answer from someone that owned one of these:

Don't. You literally have to put your foot to the pedal just to get up to 45mph within 20 seconds. In the 80s they were okay with everyone's other shitboxes that had 80hp, where the highway limit was 55mph, but they have no place in 2017. Shit is dangerous to merge lanes because you can't speed up behind a Prius. Maintenance is okay but fuel economy is probably 18 city and 27 highway. Almost a step up from 4000lbs crown vic with a 4.6L.

Stick with the 5.0L for a Fox, if you want one.

Thanks fellas. Appreciate the help. Looks like this one just isn't the poor man's special I've been dreaming of.

A 5.0 is a poor man's special dude. I just picked up one with pretty decent interior, straight body, and no sikkk mods for 3.5k.

brah, i have a v8 and it aint fast by today standards.
the v8 is 225hp
the i4 is 88 hp
both at the crank and out of the factory
its probably slower than a 90s corolla, im talking about most likely over 20 seconds for a 1/4 mile.

That and people will always come up to you in parkings and red lights:

>Nice 5.0 brah, is it stock ?
>Its the 2.3 4 cylinder actually
:,-(

No way is any 2.3 litre motor with an overhead cam making anything less than 150. Just why. Why do America insist on attempting to build engines.

sounds like you had some serious boost leaks there fella. rwd 2.3 turbo coupe should accelerate rather well.

1.put turbo coupe engine in

2.profit

If it's a manual transmission do it. Find a Mustang axle with 3.73 or 4.10 gears to make it have better acceleration. A 2.3 is a hard engine to kill. I was running 28psi of boost in a turbo coupe. A 2.3 turbo swap is easy, really easy. If it has oil around the valve cover its normal, they all leak use a rubber gasket and not the cork one.

umm buddy...
I think you mean SVO....

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto_engine
Except it did. It was a fucking ancient SOHC engine by the end of the fox body. There are alot of variables that go into an engines power. Why would you think a having an OHC would magically balance it out? Fuck off with your tiny euro bullshit.

These cars are N/A outside of the SVO.

The V8 can hit high 13 second quarter miles stock. All it needs is a cylinder head swap and cam to something modern to push it easily into the mid 300s. I have a V8 fox and it still runs on alot of the shit out there today, which is impressive for an engine that started production in the 60's.

>stock
>head swap
You also will want an intake manifold or carb depending on the car. And gears, and an exhaust. And subframe connectors.

>introduced in 74
>2.3l
>88hp

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumph_slant-four_engine
>sprint engine introduced in 1973
>produced by literally the worst car company to ever exist outside of France
>.3l less displacement
>still one camshaft
>127hp

American engines and people are consistently doing less with more, lazy, overweight and generally unable to cope with the pressures of attempting to succeed.

No, the V8 can hit high 13's stock. It can easily hit high 13's with a headswap.

Literally nobody cares when we have V8s since we aren't cuck'd by displacement punishment. I4s were an afterthought for many many years, while they were all you faggots had.

Also the intake manifold is not the main restriction, it's literally the head. The head has always been the problem.

I see you've mounted the goal posts on your pathetic 8 litre v8 powered car, making less power than an awful 2 litre

I have no idea what you're trying to say there. Do you frequently get riled up by American displacement and freedom. Does it bother you that we displace air like refugees displace you?

>we displace air like refugees displace you?
eurocucks fucking REKT

>he believes the memes
I've had a V8, it was glorious, Japanese, and as a result of the latter quality, not regularly beaten by engines a third of the size, a third of the weight and using a third of the fuel.

Don't get me wrong, I like classic cars. I like that they aren't as powerful, or as good on fuel, because they're of the era. But I don't like an engine that would have been laughed at in the 50s being in a 70s car, and it's even more embarrassing when it's in a 90s car. You guys need to shape up. What's the latest American "innovation"? The FiST? Europe has had them for over a decade :^)

>muh superior Japanese v8
You mean a new vehicle with a newer engine and technology is faster than Windsor V8, hold the fucking phone Ahkmed.
>But I don't like an engine that would have been laughed at in the 50s being in a 70s car, and it's even more embarrassing when it's in a 90s car
I have no idea what you're trying to say here. I don't think you know much about any car except euroshit.

Don't forget to tip your fedora and waitress on the way out.

Lima engine
2.3l
418lbs
88hp

Slant-4 engine
2.0
290lbs
125hp

What metric will America lose at next?

Both are SOHC. Assuming the Lima is on single point injection if it's a 93?

90s turbo Lima engine
200hp

70s works n/a Slant-4 engine
200hp

Can someone take over and post the stats for BMW and Alfa 70s engines pls, they both had great offerings which, as usual, pissed all over the shite that America knew they had a captive market for

Lima
8v
88hp
So good it was used until 2001
11hp/valve

Slant-4
16 valves
127hp
Triumph died in 1984
7.9hp/valve

>finally, a metric Americans can marginally win at, and it only required removing all relevance from the statistics

On a scale of 1 to Merkel, how hard were you triggered tonight?

NO!
NO!
NO!
NO!

Please OP, don't buy a 2.3l Mustang.

I bought one as my first car almost 14 years ago. $1400 turned into $4000 in repairs almost instantly, and the damn thing had NO power.

Spend an extra $500 and get a 5.0

>defeated by triumph
How did you even manage that

Ha, I got one for my first car too. I was lucky though, it was 3k and was driven by an older guy exclusively on the highway for his job. The service history and maintenance was impeccable. Too bad I fucked up and turned infront of a car and totaled it the 3rd day I had my license.

>delusions of triumph
FTFY

>the heavier engine that makes less power and requires more displacement to even do that is better
Are you an automotive engineer for an American company?

Intake doesn't hurt as long as you're doing heads though.

>turned into $4000 in repairs

How the fuck?
2.3's are some of the easiest engines to ever work on.

>hp/valve

>implying he knows how to wrench

(i don't either)

The Lima was designed to last until the heat death of the universe. Do you think the engineers were going for power when they made it SOHC and low compression?

This.

Demo guys love them for the RWD compacts, because these things can reach nuclear meltdown temps and not give a fuck.

Hell I picked up a 79 Fairmont that had been abandoned for half a decade, quickly repaired the duraspark wiring, poured some gas down the carb and it fired right up. Lima's are such great engines.

I own a 1992 Fox body with the 2.3. It's a reliable little thing, but it's slow as fuck. It sounds pretty nice, though. It's not bad if you don't expect much.

I own a 1990 4 banger stanger. Gutless but decent MPG. It's solid enough to last you a while, and hey. At least it doesn't sound like a civic.

We couldn't into new emissions laws at the time. The 80s were really dark times really as a whole. Crime was fucking huge, drugs was huge, cars were fucking garbage. I just pretend the 80s never happened

Synthwave is here to remind you
succ

Nigga the lima block was designed to be used in Europe FIRST. Was brought over to America to be used in the pinto.

See

I was talking about the na normal LX. Owned a SVO, shit was significantly faster. Matter of fact to the OP I recommend the SVO if anything for a 4 cyl mustang.

>190 hp
>0-60 in 9.6 seconds
>$25k

Mfw

the 5.0 would be the best imo to build off of cheap, easy power

Stupid post is stupid.

I forgot about those but isn't a v8 sn-95 easier to find anyway. In my area foxbodys are more expensive and rarer than the sn-95. I guess that drifters are starting to use them.