Hi guys! I have a quick question that might lead into more but what is the miles/gallon for 1989-93 2.3 turbo coupe? And is it rare to get one with stick shift? I've been looking for a while now and never found a stick one...
Fuel What Is A 2.3 Turbo Mpg?
- Thread starter Undeadknight26
- Start date
-
Sponsors (?)
4cammer72
Likes to drop it and leave it crusty lookin
turbo coupes were made from 83 to 88, 87-88 were intercooled, ive had 5 tcoupes, i averaged 22 in town and 31-33 highway with the 2 87's i had, upper 20's with the 84 and 85...all 5 speeds, the autos got less.....83 to 86 were 155 hp and 87-88 sticks were 190 hp
One more question please! i just found out the the mustang i want has 88-105 HP! Does this include the turbo model? And what other 4cyl motor can i swap in it with the less work to give me a bit more horse power? It has to be a 4 cylinder engine!
91TwighlightGT
Dirt-Old 20+Year Member
The 88-105 HP models are Normally Aspirated - No turbo.
87-90 (I don't recall what the 4-eye models were rated at N/A) have 88 HP and utilize a distributor. 91-93 Models have some head revisions (dual plug head), a different cam, utilize a distributorless ignition system (DIS) and produce 105 HP.
Although you can swap a 2.3L Turbo into any 79-93 Fox Mustang, the easiest ones to do are the 87-90 models. The 91-93 models are more difficult because they have some differences in the wiring, however it can be done and the required modifications to the wiring harness are well documented.
The easiest, cheapest way to improve the performance of an 87-93 2.3L mustang is to swap in a turbo engine from the Thunderbird Turbo Coupe ('83-'88, with the 87-88 models being the most desirable) or to get a turbo 2.3l out of a Mustang SVO or Turbo GT. Although there is little difference, the Mustang parts are generally more expensive.
Why can't you slap a turbo on your N/A 2.3L Mustang engine?
Answer: You could, but the cast pistons are weak (the Turbo engines use Forged pistons) and create a higher compression ratio that creates a higher chance of detonation, which is the number one cause of engine failure in a boosted application.
Your N/A block, rods, and crank are up to the task of supporting a turbo, so if you were to rebuild the engine using quality pistons, then all you have to do is add the turbo drainback to the block (it is already machined in a turbo block) or simply add the drainback to the oil pan.
Some people like to rebuild the N/A motors due to availability, or because they want the increased displacement from a later Ranger 2.5L engine, which is simply a stroker version of the 2.3L.
87-90 (I don't recall what the 4-eye models were rated at N/A) have 88 HP and utilize a distributor. 91-93 Models have some head revisions (dual plug head), a different cam, utilize a distributorless ignition system (DIS) and produce 105 HP.
Although you can swap a 2.3L Turbo into any 79-93 Fox Mustang, the easiest ones to do are the 87-90 models. The 91-93 models are more difficult because they have some differences in the wiring, however it can be done and the required modifications to the wiring harness are well documented.
The easiest, cheapest way to improve the performance of an 87-93 2.3L mustang is to swap in a turbo engine from the Thunderbird Turbo Coupe ('83-'88, with the 87-88 models being the most desirable) or to get a turbo 2.3l out of a Mustang SVO or Turbo GT. Although there is little difference, the Mustang parts are generally more expensive.
Why can't you slap a turbo on your N/A 2.3L Mustang engine?
Answer: You could, but the cast pistons are weak (the Turbo engines use Forged pistons) and create a higher compression ratio that creates a higher chance of detonation, which is the number one cause of engine failure in a boosted application.
Your N/A block, rods, and crank are up to the task of supporting a turbo, so if you were to rebuild the engine using quality pistons, then all you have to do is add the turbo drainback to the block (it is already machined in a turbo block) or simply add the drainback to the oil pan.
Some people like to rebuild the N/A motors due to availability, or because they want the increased displacement from a later Ranger 2.5L engine, which is simply a stroker version of the 2.3L.
91TwighlightGT
Dirt-Old 20+Year Member
IMO, yes because even though the swap is fairly simple, I wouldn't call it "common" by any means. If you limit your search to notches it is even less common.
65ShelbyClone
Founding Member
Firstly, there were no Thunderbird Turbo Coupes after '88; the first generation was from '83-86 and the second was from '87-88. Some people have reported over 30mpg on the highway with a 5-spd Turbo Coupe. I think high 20s is more realistic. I averaged about 26mpg in my '84 SVO at 70mph and the TCs are a little more aerodynamic than a Mustang.
I get the impression that you're confusing terminology for a "turbo mustang notchback," of which there were no factory-offered ones, with the original turbo 2.3L Thunderbirds, which were called Turbo Coupes.
Yes thank you...but i was asking if it was hard to get one with the engine already swapped in...now that i read back my comments i understand what you mean.
4cammer72
Likes to drop it and leave it crusty lookin
Swapped Mustangs are hard to find, Turbo Coupes are a little easier to find but unfortunately nowadays they are anywhere from 25-30 years old which means they may not be in the best shape.
I used to get 26 mpg highway in my '87 Turbo Coupe, and around 20 in mostly city driving.
I used to get 26 mpg highway in my '87 Turbo Coupe, and around 20 in mostly city driving.
Shawneebear93
Dirt-Old 20+Year Member
Hi beeker...That sounds like a beautiful car. Do u mind posting a pic? Also is it rare to find a 1986 svo? What would the mpg be of a stock one? Is it true it gets around 200 hp stock?
as to the MPG, i just got 20MPG on the last tank, which was mainly city commuting. my best highway is 26.5, and that was at 75 with the windows down. ive got a big-valved head with a BoPort 2,1 kit, T3, 3" DP to dual 2.5" exhaust, Large NPR and VAM. i have serious drivability issues with my setup and the LA3, but i am expecting the MPG to get even better with the PIMP, eliminating the VAM and the ported/gutted/port matched intakes and 94-95 TB i have on the way
Similar threads
