conversion is it worth the time

8

8.8mustang

Member

Aug 20, 2006

67

0

6

washington

Apr 8, 2008

#1

• Apr 8, 2008

• #1

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

 

Dr_EluSivE

Founding Member

Apr 24, 2002

2,155

0

56

Central Illinois

Apr 9, 2008

#2

• Apr 9, 2008

• #2

8.8mustang said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

 

Red_LX

I’m not much help unless you’re looking for ****!

Founding Member

Nov 29, 1999

5,896

73

129

Morgantown, WV...where couches meet their doom

Apr 9, 2008

#3

• Apr 9, 2008

• #3

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.

 

85_SS_302_Coupe

it sucks (I know) to be on the receiving end

15 Year Member

Nov 11, 2003

6,945

1,597

223

Northern KY

Apr 9, 2008

#4

• Apr 9, 2008

• #4

My Merkur only weighs 29xx lbs and it only gets about 25mpg average. That's with 93-94 octane and 16psi.

 

8

8.8mustang

Member

Aug 20, 2006

67

0

6

washington

Apr 10, 2008

#5

• Apr 10, 2008

• #5

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

 

Red_LX

I’m not much help unless you’re looking for ****!

Founding Member

Nov 29, 1999

5,896

73

129

Morgantown, WV...where couches meet their doom

Apr 11, 2008

#6

• Apr 11, 2008

• #6

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.

 

65ShelbyClone

Founding Member

Sep 9, 2000

4,675

38

119

Antelope Valley, SoCal

Apr 11, 2008

#7

• Apr 11, 2008

• #7

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.