conversion is it worth the time

Discussion in '2.3L (N/A & Turbo)' started by 8.8mustang, Apr 9, 2008.

  1. 8.8mustang Member

    Member Since:
    Aug 20, 2006
    Message Count:
    72
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    washington
    i have a 90gt
    now here's the question. how dose the 2.3 turbo performe in relitive stock form. will i get close the the same power and driveabilaty. (sorry for the spelling of that)
    what im really looking for is gas mileage. im sure that the stock 5.0 is going to get mid 20's but ive never had a stock one before or should i pull it and put the 2.3 turbo out of the 84 t-bird in that i have
    i have the motor trans and rear end from the t-bird will it pass smog
    im really looking for 30mpg or better
  2. Dr_EluSivE Founding Member

    Member Since:
    Apr 24, 2002
    Message Count:
    2,387
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    56
    Location:
    Central Illinois
    I would leave the 5.0 a 5.0 and if you want to build a 2.3, start out with a 2.3 It will be alot less complicated. 5.0 wiring, motor mounts, transmission bells, and fuel lines were all different. An i dont think you would get 30 on a 2.3t, I think I get about 25 on mine.

    Dr.
  3. Red_LX Doubt I could be of much help, unless you need por

    Member Since:
    Aug 21, 1998
    Message Count:
    10,498
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Location:
    Morgantown, WV...where couches meet their doom
    Keep the turbo engine in the '84 bird!

    They're getting harder to find. Unless it's a heap, of course.

    BTW 2.3 Turbo's really don't get that great of mileage, I get about 21 city/26 highway with mine, although it is pushing a 3400 lb car around. And you have to run 93 octane.
  4. 85_SS_302_Coupe it sucks (I know) to be on the receiving end

    Member Since:
    Nov 11, 2003
    Message Count:
    7,277
    Likes Received:
    125
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Northern KY
    My Merkur only weighs 29xx lbs and it only gets about 25mpg average. That's with 93-94 octane and 16psi.
  5. 8.8mustang Member

    Member Since:
    Aug 20, 2006
    Message Count:
    72
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    washington
    wow i would have thought the 2.3 would get better milage then that.
    but how do they do as far as performance compaired to the 2.3t
  6. Red_LX Doubt I could be of much help, unless you need por

    Member Since:
    Aug 21, 1998
    Message Count:
    10,498
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Location:
    Morgantown, WV...where couches meet their doom
    Well...the 2.3 Turbo has about 1 1/2 times the horsepower the n/a 2.3L does.


    BTW on my old '90 2.3L-5 speed I was averaging 28-30 mpg on mostly open road driving. I never really did "stop & go" so I don't know how it woulda done with that.
  7. 65ShelbyClone Founding Member

    Member Since:
    Sep 9, 2000
    Message Count:
    4,562
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Location:
    Antelope Valley, SoCal
    If you want 30mpg+, especially if you want that kind of mileage for an average and not highway only, you need a different car. I only manage about 26mpg highway with the SVO.

    If you want more power, you can't have the better economy. They are, for the most part, mutually exclusive.

    Power-wise, the intercooled 2.3T performs like a small V8.

Share This Page