[stang_racer420]

i kinda did my own test and i reset the trip mile and got 310 miles to the full tank thats through town and highway after tune up but my next tune up im going to fill-r-up again and if your familiar with cincinnati, ohio there is a highway the circles completely around (275) and im just going to drive and drive around it at 65 - 70 mph until i get to "E" and see what the miles is after that i will post it when i do that

[93stangfutr5.0]

think at least you dont have a geo storm they 93 at the crank and like 70 at the wheels but your talking about an engine made for fuel economy and towing it was in the rangers form 88 to like 99

[J. Rhapsody]

Yeah Im keeping my 2.3 n/a with people like racerwalsh make sit all worth it. Can you say Boss 140?

[ford-a-natic]

hey guys,
to answer the question of hp the 88hp at the crank is very accurate, but if it is any consolation the touque values are a bit higher 105 lb per foot at 3800 rpm. This by no means denotes the engine's potential.I i'm way more familar with the un-popular 2.0 pinto engine, which starts off at 95-98 hp at the crank and 128 lb per foot at 3500 rpm a fair bit more, even though it is 300ccs less than the 2.3. The pinto engine found it self in many popular British Ford cars in the early 80,s and has been modified in every way possible, and won year after year in the ever successful ford escort rs 2000. (ureopean model)
What make's the engine a little more potent is it's high compression and "over square" design, I myself built and modified many 2.0 engines that stomped v-tec civics and other equivelants. After carefull cosideration I dicided to just settle for the 2.3 turbo motor and began modding it, about a year later, and a lot of stress and time, I can safely say that i'm yet to have a stock 4.6/5.0 fellow stang beat me on the short haul. (1/8 mile) The 2.3 pinto has lots of potential and is built like a "brick **** House" strong as can be....any one intrested in moding these stock naturally asperated engines let me know and i'll apply some of the same principles to it as I did the 2.0 liter.

[J. Rhapsody]

A stock 2.3 will never see 3800 rpms. Unless you ment 380rpms. 2.3's have like a 9.10:1 ratio or however its put and something similar. which is what most v8's have. Any rwd inline engine vehicle has lots of torque, for everything is spinning in the same direction and an inline doesnt have the oposing force v ans w engines have, which also why flat engines are pretty good.

[Pedal2TheFloor]

My stock 92 stang gets 25mpg almost all the time except for when I was using the remote starter I put on it back in December then I was getting like 13mpg because I was letting it run 15-20 minutes every morning LOL! I was told that it has 110 hp at the wheels.. I know 1 thing I'm never racing an Evo.. them Evo's were eating up 5.0's with Nitrous.. But who knows what all they did to the Evo's..

[93stangfutr5.0]

ofcourse an evo is going to beat a 5.0 tose things are all wheel drive with 280hp 75 more hp than a 5.0 and the evo is lighter dew to its 4cyl

[J. Rhapsody]

AWD sucks for dragracing or trafic light racing and they wiiegh just as much or more than a foxbody 4banger or not its a sedan with awd and emissions, creature comforts, safty devices. Hell it may wiegh just shy if 4000lbs.

[NavySVO]

Originally Posted by 93stangfutr5.0

the evo is lighter dew to its 4cyl

I was just reading an article on the 2008 Evo yesterday in the Dr's office. Almost 3900 lbs.
My SVO weighs in at 2990 stock. Add 100 more pounds or so to a fox with a 5.0....heck, add 300 more and it's still lighter than an Evo

[93stangfutr5.0]

i ment the old evo's

[jgt58]

I had a 91 Lx Hatch that had 105 Hp. Man , i payed 1500.00 for that car and it lasted 4 years and got 26 mpg in town....

[Turbosnake]

The old Evos are quite a bit lighter than the new ones, and the make almost as much HP.