Noob to 2.3L

I don't know about my MPG - Mine doesn't run well so its not a good example.

I believe its usually between 25-27 if the car is running well and stock. I'm sure someone else can give you more info on that.

Its strongly affected by how hard you drive it though.

I hear the mileage can get pretty high on these cars and still going strong.

It depends on how the car has spent its life. If you're rebuilding the engine it won't be much of a problem if the body is good.

I would guess the engine being about $400+ to rebuild - Depending on what work needs done. The transmission would be about $250+ also depending if any gears need replaced - etc.

I'll go ahead and warn you the thing is rather slow. You'll be starting up a slight incline - the RPMs will rise till its roaring - You will feel fast - and then look around and notice you are barely moving. Its pitiful - I laughed my ass of the first few times but I still love the car.

I'm pretty sure the 93's have a little bit more power.

Durable engine - decent gas mileage - will get you around fine - and its not too bad to work on.

I used to get 30 mpg on my '90 until it got a cracked, head, then averaged around 25 mpg.

Also I parked mine with 150K on it...still ran great but the body was rusting out and the engine had some gremlins (i suspect a bad TFI module). Also if you get a 5 speed car you should be able to drive it as is unless it's burning a quart of oil a day. My car would get 2 quarts low before it reached 1500 miles on an oil change (couldn't figure out where the hell it was all going) but I never had any real problems with it aside from regular maintenence and the wiper motor dying on me.

Well if my 00 3.8 theoretically gets 20mpg city, then my 93 2.3 gets about 25mpg city I would estimate. It has a smaller gas tank, and lasted me longer. These cars, if maintained correctly, can be ran into the ground without many issues. Worst problem was a burned valve. 150,000 miles, only leak I had was from the radiator and some stopleak fixed that up. Only reason I have the 2000 is for something to drive when I stick a nice 2.3T in that bay for some serious horses.
Oh and if you see an iratically moving tach with a check engine light, it's the ICM, usually nothing else.

Sick96Stang said:

Hey guys,

I own a 96 GT right now as you can see from my signature. Looking at picking up a 93 2.3L for a daily driver. Not sure how many miles it has on it will find that out tommrow. Few questions for you. What kind of MPG do u guys get? Any problems I should be looking out for? How many miles would you say the maximum is before it becomes more of a pain to fix up then worth having? Say I want to rebuild the engine and transmission how much you think that would cost me? Any other info you guys can give me would be appreciated.

Thanks in advance for the advice.

Click to expand...

are these engines popular in any other models? i'd like to get a notchback 5sp 2.3

A notchback 2.3L makes an excellent driver. They're a tad lighter, and therefore slightly faster (less slow ). I've owned both coupe and hatchback, and the coupe feeled more solid and peppier. Plus you get a trunk that stores things out of sight......

Notch 2.3's are just like notch 5.0's though...tougher to find!

tomustang said:

are these engines popular in any other models? i'd like to get a notchback 5sp 2.3

Click to expand...

Ranger, FWIW.

FWIW, both 'Stang & Ranger 2300s are running the 1/4 at about 20 seconds @ 65mph, give or take.
Stock they have "all of the acceleration of a bowling ball pushed by a 4-year-old"-MM&FF