93 LX

[KingPaul]

Hey guys, Im looking to buy a 93 LX for $900 with no body damage. I obviously want more horses so I would like to ask your oppinions on whether I should swap out the old engine for a lower mileage 4 cyl with a turbo or go with the 5.0 conversion. What is more cost effective and what do I need to look out for when doing these changes. I would just like to see everyone elses oppionions on it

Im tied all in knots about it.
love the 5.0 sound and power but loved my brothers SVO which was also pretty damn powerful.

 

[RustBucket]

Dollar for dollar? 2.3 turbo. Unless you've got a 5.0 donor car sitting nearby to grab all of the 5.0 specific parts (and there's a bunch of 'em).

For the most part, if you get a complete 2.3t including the computer and VAM, It drops right in with a little intake/exhaust plumbing, A little ECU harness wiring and some engine harness wiring. That's a vague description at best but you get the general idea.

Being just as vague, here's what you're looking at to do a 5.0 swap.

Fuel line rerouting, rear end swap, rear brake line rerouting, engine wiring harness swap, computer swap, tachometer swap, if the 4cyl car in question is an automatic you're looking at a trans, crossmember and driveshaft, if it's a 5spd, you'll only need a 5.0 spec 5spd. You'll need a complete exhaust system, different coolant recovery tank, do you have A/C? You'll be swapping the drier, lines and compressor. The 4cyl has lighter front springs, so you'll probably want to change those too. You'll be adding a little weight up front and those small 4cyl brakes may not get you stopped like they used to so you'll be looking for some 5.0 spindles, rotors and calipers, or if you decide to go 5 lug, you'll be hunting a set of 94 and later spindles, hubs, calipers, and rotors.

Depending on the smog Nazis in your area, you may have some issues getting it to pass visual with 4 more cylinders than the VIN says it's supposed to have.

I had the same dilemma you've got now when I first got my '91. I've got an '88 Turbo Coupe motor on the stand now that's waiting to be rebuilt. As soon as I can scrounge up the rest of the funds to get the small parts and the cyl head done, I'll be dropping it in my '91. After talking to a couple of local guys who talked me out of dropping an EFI 514 in it I found this site and Turboford, and that's all I needed I was hooked on the 2.3T. All my V8 hot rod, pro street, show car buddies think my little project is cool and can't wait to see it finished.

 

[Chewievettte]

I've gotta agree with rustbucket. I briefly looked into a 5.0 swap on my '87, even talked a buddy out of a wicked roush turbo engine and t56 combo for dirt cheap, but when I started adding up all the parts and what it would cost to put it all together I decided against it. Besides the SVO engine that I'm rebuilding dropped into my lap for pennies and will be a great base for future power mods. Run some searches for 2.3 mods and you'll be surprised what's out there.

and before anyone asks the roush engine combo is going into my buddies shelby cobra.

 

[KingPaul]

You believe for me ot insure a 93 mustang LX with the 2.3L no turbo is 300 a month!!! and i have never been stopped speeding or in an accident. what kind of **** is that.

Whats it cost to put the 5 lug set up on one o these things??

btw I think Im goin with the turbo. to convert to a 5.0 is just more money than I got. budget is like 4000 so no 5.0 for me

 

[RustBucket]

300 a month? Where the hell do you live?

The cost to do a 5-lug swap depends on how you go about it.

1. Cheap and easy, no performance improvement, just an extra lug nut on each corner.

2. Easy, not as cheap, Slight braking improvement, Basically 5.0 Fox brakes on a 2.3

3. Kinda easy, not cheap, but money well spent, improved braking performance.

4. Moderate difficulty, not cheap, complete revamp of braking system 4 wheel discs, and 13" rotors up front. Requires at least a 17" wheel.

Costs on all of the above can be offset by junkyard crawls or ebay.

 

[50 Proof]

You believe for me ot insure a 93 mustang LX with the 2.3L no turbo is 300 a month!!! and i have never been stopped speeding or in an accident. what kind of **** is that.

Whats it cost to put the 5 lug set up on one o these things??

btw I think Im goin with the turbo. to convert to a 5.0 is just more money than I got. budget is like 4000 so no 5.0 for me

300 a month? Is that for full coverage? How old are you? My 93 2.3 Notch cost me 1000 bux. I do liability only and pay about 120 bux once every 6 months.

I'm gonna vote for the 5.0 swap. Find yourself a 93 5.0 parts car and swap everything over, it's all plug n play except for the fuel lines. If your smog laws are anything like california's, you'll never pass smog with a 93 2.3 turbo. Plus, I'd take a killer sounding 5.0 with torque over a 2.3 any day and you can beat the snot out of it without having to worry about it breaking. I know those 2.3's are reliable but I'm not convinced they can last as long as a 5.0 without tearing into the engine to replace things along the way. If I didn't drive 1200 miles a month, my 93 Notch would have a 5.0 sitting between the fenders right now.

 

[evintho]

5-lug swap info is here........................
http://www.svo73mm.cjb.net

BTW, the 2.3 turbo is the way too go! Parts availability, cost and superior gas mileage are just a couple of factors. However, the deciding factor for me is seeing the facial expressions of the 5.0 guys you just blew the doors off of, when they realize they've just been beaten by half a V8! Priceless!!

 

[50 Proof]

5-lug swap info is here........................
http://www.svo73mm.cjb.net

BTW, the 2.3 turbo is the way too go! Parts availability, cost and superior gas mileage are just a couple of factors. However, the deciding factor for me is seeing the facial expressions of the 5.0 guys you just blew the doors off of, when they realize they've just been beaten by half a V8! Priceless!!

I get an average of 18.5-19.5 MPG on my 93 LX 2.3 for city/hwy combined, and that's with keeping my foot out of the gas. I got a best of 21.5mpg once and that was driving slow enough to piss off at least 10 cars behind me.

My 86 GT gets on average 15-19 MPG, the gas savings on a 2.3 is not that spectacular, unless you do a lot of straight line driving on VERY long highways with literally no hills and no stoplights. But then again I know someone with a 5.0 who gets 20-23mpg on average with his.

For 300-600 dollars, you can pick up a used 5.0 Explorer engine(96-01) with GT40 or GT40P heads and GT40 intake. For less than 1k more, you can swap in a cam, upgrade the valve springs/rockers, swap in an HO oil pan, timing chain cover, HO oil pump/pick up tube, and balancer. With a little tweaking, the right tires and the right driver, you're in the 12's easily for easily less than 2,500 dollars.

My 86 GT has an explorer engine with a TFS1 cam, I just roast my street tires through out first and most of second. As is, with good tires, my 86 GT will smoke the crap out of my 96 Cobra, absolutely no competition. I'd like to see you get a turbo 2.3 setup that fast for that cheap.

The 2.3 is a great motor and you can do a lot for it. But when you start talking dollar for dollar/cost and parts availability, it's hard to beat the 5.0.

 

[351wcoupe]

For reference I spent a few thousand by the time I built a mild windsor an dgot it in and running.

I took an identical car and spend roughly $500 to swap to a 2.3 turbo and put full exhaust on it. I got it to go high's with slicks and everything else stock.

As for the insurance, I used to pay outrageous amounts like that. Now my lightning is about $350/yr and the 87 coupe is $300/yr for base coverage. My dually only cost $1300/yr for full coverage. However by the time you insure 5 vehicles and a big trailer you still end paying paying $550 every 3 months.
I'm 22 with 1 improper driving ticket and nothing else.

 

[Stinger]

I took an identical car and spend roughly $500 to swap to a 2.3 turbo and put full exhaust on it. I got it to go high's with slicks and everything else stock.

You might want to mention what "high's" that was

 

[Stinger]

I get an average of 18.5-19.5 MPG on my 93 LX 2.3 for city/hwy combined, and that's with keeping my foot out of the gas. I got a best of 21.5mpg once and that was driving slow enough to piss off at least 10 cars behind me.

My 86 GT gets on average 15-19 MPG, the gas savings on a 2.3 is not that spectacular, unless you do a lot of straight line driving on VERY long highways with literally no hills and no stoplights. But then again I know someone with a 5.0 who gets 20-23mpg on average with his.

For 300-600 dollars, you can pick up a used 5.0 Explorer engine(96-01) with GT40 or GT40P heads and GT40 intake. For less than 1k more, you can swap in a cam, upgrade the valve springs/rockers, swap in an HO oil pan, timing chain cover, HO oil pump/pick up tube, and balancer. With a little tweaking, the right tires and the right driver, you're in the 12's easily for easily less than 2,500 dollars.

My 86 GT has an explorer engine with a TFS1 cam, I just roast my street tires through out first and most of second. As is, with good tires, my 86 GT will smoke the crap out of my 96 Cobra, absolutely no competition. I'd like to see you get a turbo 2.3 setup that fast for that cheap.

The 2.3 is a great motor and you can do a lot for it. But when you start talking dollar for dollar/cost and parts availability, it's hard to beat the 5.0.

The turbo version of the 2.3 gets 25-30mpg...much better than the n/a version.

Oh, and smoking a 96 Cobra isn't much to brag about...they run mid-high 14's.

This car: www.stinger-performance.com/bolton.html has about 1500 in engine mods (counting the engine, trans and rearend purchase price) and that is for NEW peformance parts, not used stuff...and it has went 11.0...will go 10's this weekend. Just beat your 12 second 5.0 by $1000 and 2 seconds in the 1/4 mile...

I'm not trying to be an ass...just stating that you shouldn't talk about things you don't have a firm grasp on...

 

[50 Proof]

The turbo version of the 2.3 gets 25-30mpg...much better than the n/a version.

Oh, and smoking a 96 Cobra isn't much to brag about...they run mid-high 14's.

This car: www.stinger-performance.com/bolton.html has about 1500 in engine mods (counting the engine, trans and rearend purchase price) and that is for NEW peformance parts, not used stuff...and it has went 11.0...will go 10's this weekend. Just beat your 12 second 5.0 by $1000 and 2 seconds in the 1/4 mile...

I'm not trying to be an ass...just stating that you shouldn't talk about things you don't have a firm grasp on...

speaking of people who don't have a firm grasp on things, a stock cobra will run 13.8 in the 1/4.

You know, we both can bench race and go back and forth about what you can do with a 5.0 vs a 2.3, but what's the point? All this **** has been argued before, it's not like we'll get anywhere with eachother. And my "12 second 5.0" is with only a cam, no other performance parts. How far from a stock turbo 2.3 is your "10 second car" you just linked me too? Not really an equal comparison if you ask me. Plus, we'll see how long he can go with that setup before he starts breaking things on his high mileage 240k+ mile engine and weak ass T5.

 

[evintho]

The turbo version of the 2.3 gets 25-30mpg...much better than the n/a version.

Oh, and smoking a 96 Cobra isn't much to brag about...they run mid-high 14's.

This car: www.stinger-performance.com/bolton.html has about 1500 in engine mods (counting the engine, trans and rearend purchase price) and that is for NEW peformance parts, not used stuff...and it has went 11.0...will go 10's this weekend. Just beat your 12 second 5.0 by $1000 and 2 seconds in the 1/4 mile...

I'm not trying to be an ass...just stating that you shouldn't talk about things you don't have a firm grasp on...

The defense, rests!

 

[50 Proof]

The defense, rests!

dude i'm not saying the 2.3 sucks. Anyone can make anything fast. It's all a matter of preference. Hell why not fix up honda's while we are at it.

 

[Jimmy2.3Mustang]

I picked up my 86 Mustang notchback for $700 with 45,000 miles on the car, and a new crate engine with less than 300 miles on the clock. It pulls 35mpg on the highway. I then turned around and traded a bone stock chevy 305 long block for a complete 86 TurboCoupe. After parting the Turbocoupe I've made a solid $300 profit and I haven't sold all the parts yet. Even after I buy all the extra parts I need to put the 2.3 turbo into the Mustang, I'll have less then $1,500 cash invested in the entire car. Oh, and the Turbocoupe had 10-holes, a 15:1 steering rack, a 8.8 posi rear end with quad shocks, 33mm front sway bar, a rear sway bar, and an exhaust that will mate up with my stock tailpipe/muffler system when the Turbo is installed.

When I bought the Mustang I knew about the Turbocoupe rotting on a buddies farm and I new about a 5.0 Cougar rotting on another buddies farm. I could have got either car for about $100 cash. On the flip side, I watched another buddy spend close to $3,000 to put a virtually stock carbed 302 into his 4cyl notch.

Do whatever will make YOU happy and don't worry about everyone else. Just research it first, don't take anyone elses word. Free advice is worth what you pay for it.

View attachment 420037

 

[50 Proof]

I then turned around and traded a bone stock chevy 305 long block for a complete 86 TurboCoupe. After parting the Turbocoupe I've made a solid $300 profit and I haven't sold all the parts yet. Even after I buy all the extra parts I need to put the 2.3 turbo into the Mustang, I'll have less then $1,500 cash invested in the entire car. Oh, and the Turbocoupe had 10-holes, a 15:1 steering rack, a 8.8 posi rear end with quad shocks, 33mm front sway bar, a rear sway bar, and an exhaust that will mate up with my stock tailpipe/muffler system when the Turbo is installed.

Was the 86 Turbocoupe modified? 86 Turbocoupes do not come with an 8.8 rear end from the factory. Only 87/88 Turbocoupes had an 8.8. The 86's still had a 7.5.

 

[Stinger]

And my "12 second 5.0" is with only a cam, no other performance parts. How far from a stock turbo 2.3 is your "10 second car" you just linked me too? Not really an equal comparison if you ask me. Plus, we'll see how long he can go with that setup before he starts breaking things on his high mileage 240k+ mile engine and weak ass T5.

You mean because the engine I linked to you has the STOCK unported head, STOCK cam, STOCK lower intake, STOCK internals, STOCK air meter, STOCK injectors, etc. (I'd go on but you should get the point). I don't know what "not really an equal comparison" means. You said a 5.0 could go 12's for 2500 bux and that you'd like to see a 2.3 do better than that. I showed you one (of many) and now you are saying it's not fair?

He made over 50 passes in that car this year...and we actually figured out the engine had over 300k miles, not 240k. I'm not trying to argue things that have already been argued, I was simply pointing out a vehicle that did just what you said wasn't possible. I'll point you to more if you aren't convinced it's "possible".

And those "weak ass T5's" have been raced in the low 10's without issue...even if they are "rated" at a pretty low torque value. Have you heard of an engineering "safety factor"? Parts put up with alot more stress than they are rated to because of the safety factor.

 

[50 Proof]

You mean because the engine I linked to you has the STOCK unported head, STOCK cam, STOCK lower intake, STOCK internals, STOCK air meter, STOCK injectors, etc. (I'd go on but you should get the point). I don't know what "not really an equal comparison" means. You said a 5.0 could go 12's for 2500 bux and that you'd like to see a 2.3 do better than that. I showed you one (of many) and now you are saying it's not fair?

He made over 50 passes in that car this year...and we actually figured out the engine had over 300k miles, not 240k. I'm not trying to argue things that have already been argued, I was simply pointing out a vehicle that did just what you said wasn't possible. I'll point you to more if you aren't convinced it's "possible".

And those "weak ass T5's" have been raced in the low 10's without issue...even if they are "rated" at a pretty low torque value. Have you heard of an engineering "safety factor"? Parts put up with alot more stress than they are rated to because of the safety factor.

Wow I didn't realize ford was packing 10 second engines into their SVO's and turbocoupes. That's pretty sick man. Yea I guess these 2.3's are just normally capable of running 10's right out of the box.

You don't need to lecture me about how strong a T5 is, I run a side business rebuilding them. I have a buddy running high 12's who was using a T5Z. Needless to say, the tranny is no longer in his car. I'll probably end up rebuilding it with him so he can learn how to do it himself. I realize it'll do the job, all I'm saying is don't expect it to last that long, especially with the kinda power/torque your guys stock turbo 2.3 is putting out.

 

[Stinger]

Wow, way to completely misunderstand (or more specifically, misinterpret to be a smartass) what I said. Of course, the ENGINE and all of it's internal parts (along with injectors and ignition) are stock.

T5's don't have to last long when you've got 6 or 7 of them laying around ready to be swapped in...some day it may get converted to a C4...

 

[351wcoupe]

I can list some more facts.
You pull a known good 2.3 turbo motor out of anything, don't so much as pull the valve cover, set it in my tagged/insured street driven mustang and I can run easy 11's all day.
As for the T5's. Working as a ford tech I've seen 1 T5 that I put back together but mostly the newer trans that have a higher torque rating. With somewhere around 400-450 track passes and daily driving over 40k per year. I wont bust a T5. I never have, took a little time to learn to drive. Amandas brother has been through 11 and the fastest he has run was 7.6 with a 5.0 hatch, gutted everything, then good heads, cam, headers only, tube suspension, plus a 100shot.

The stock everything car I got to run 7.81@88 as in my sig and it will go alot faster for the spring. I'm still getting 30mpg highway and a 7.8 converts to about 12.2. I gave $75 for the car, $350 for engine, trans, rear and any swap parts. So that leaves alot of budget left

My question for you is: How fast can you run with a 100% untouched 5.0 and nitrous? How much will it handle?