2.3 liter motors suck... Or do they?????

Fordracing2 · 10-19-2003

MY first car was a 2.3 liter Mustang. It has 88 hp, but that is beside the point. I drove it for three weeks at a time because every three weeks something new would go wrong electronically. After I replaced everything electronic, the car broke a rod and the crankshaft, that is after a headgasket went bad and I had it replaced. I then bought another 2.3 and the head gasket went bad in a week. My cousin bought a 2.3 liter mustang and it had all sorts of electronic problems. They are junk. Sorry if I offended anyone but I am venting my frustrations on the most useless engine.

BKR · 10-20-2003

the 2.s you owned where they abused from a previous owner? how many kms did they have?

BKR · 10-20-2003

2.3s*

Fordracing2 · 10-20-2003

My first car had been totally rebuilt

BKR · 10-20-2003

really, thats not too good to hear seeing as i just bought one, and it is my first car and i'm not gonna have a lot of money ready for repairs...

stang2_3 · 10-21-2003

I have had mine for 2 years and it has 138k miles on it right now. Aside from a minor oil leak (1 qt. per month or so) I have not had any engine problems. Replaced the alternator, and I have replaced the short clutch release cable on the manual transmission too many times to remember. If you have the manual tranny, I recomend removing the clutch release cable and greasing the pins every time you change the oil. If you need help, let me know, and I will try to explain it as best I can. Only complaint I have about the engine is the lack of horsepower.

Cracker289 · 10-22-2003

Mine has 211,000 and has had no electronic problems and no engine problems, just average things you would expect to replace, water pump, alternator.. The transmission just went out and had to be rebuilt, but the engine is still purring. Tune up once a year and oil change every couple of months, that and gas is all I have had to put into it..

XxGATORxX · 10-23-2003

Quote:

Originally posted by Fordracing2
My cousin bought a 2.3 liter mustang and it had all sorts of electronic problems.

Wow...i didnt know the 2.3liter ENGINE consisted of anything "electrical"....

Hmmm....head, cam, followers, pistons, rods, crank....and "electrical....oh yeah its right here in Haynes

Fordracing2 · 10-26-2003

What's the ignition? water, salt, mechanical. That is part of the engine. How about the computer? Yeah.....

Fordracing2 · 10-26-2003

I didn't know the ignition and computer weren't electrical. Without those, your car goes nowhere. Haynes manuels suck. My Chilton manuel is ten times better.

Fordracing2 · 10-26-2003

Thanks Cracker289, Stang2_3, and BKR for the comments. Just wanted to know some others opinions about the motor.

carguy65 · 10-29-2003

I had 1984 Turbo GT and a 1990 Mustang Convertible 2.3 they never gave me any probs, well until I blew the motor in the Turbo GT because I was racing with wayyyyy to much boost.

Sephiroth03 · 11-01-2003

Back in the day, when i was growin up, my best friends mother had one. Dog slow, ugly(it was old) but it ran good, if not terribly slow. She carted us around for a good 3yrs with it.
Now the turbo models, when done right are nothing to laugh at.

mfpmax · 11-07-2003

Haha, Chiltons is better than Haynes?

They both suck. Sorry.

140cilx · 11-11-2003

I've had my '88 for 15 years and my SVO for 2 years.

Sorry for your bad luck - but these engine's are bulletproof.

I've never "blown" anything. I drive them very hard, but I also do all of my own maintenance.