hey guys, ive posted 2 threads so far and havent gotten any replies but im sure this one will get quite a few. What do you guys think is the better engine of the 2. the 5.0 or the 2.3. not just saying technically just maximum horsepower and torgue ratings but also dependability, weight, longevity, ect. Give me some info on them, maybe then i can get other replies from you guys on other topics,lol... BTW, im all for 2.3's i was originally for the 5.0's just cuz of its share dominance over the 2.3s n/a. but after really looking into them and seeing their potential, and also being mainly in the crowd of imports( 1.8's-3.0's) ive been converted.....
oh yeah, my best friend has a 5.0, and its mostly stock. I told him about everything im doing to it( porting/polishing, new header, new intake, new throttle body, bigber turbo, custom exhaust(3" all the way back), ne suspension. new rear end( 8.8) with 3.63 gears, ect) and even with all that, he still think at a 3 rpm start hes goign to kill me. I would like feedback on that too, so i can show him how wrong he really is and how stupid it would be to even think about racing me at that point...
If he's running a stock 5.0 and you are modifying your 2.3 the way you say, here's what I'd do. I'd try to keep a straight face as I bet my buddy $100.00 that all he'll be seeing is your tail lights. Then as you console him at the local burger joint with his $100.00, tell him he would be better off adding a few mods to his 5.0 if he he wants to run against one of the best and most reliable turbo motors made.
I've had this happen with my son. Exact scenario. Him stock 90 5.0, Me, minorly modified 2.3 T/C motor. Him 1/4 mile, 14.4 -Me, 13.6.
I pulled the original 2.3 out of my '74 Mustang II last month, STILL RUNNING! She smoked out the tailpipe and had a little bit of a knock, but hell, she also had over 300,000 miles! (I managed to confirm through a lot of detective work the odometer's rolled over three times... gawd, what did I get into with this car??? Good thing I love it!) Besides that, I've put over $5000 into REPAIRS alone on my '87 Mustang GT 5.0... In the same amount of time I replaced a serpentine belt, the radiator hoses, and an alternator on a 2.3 '88 Mustang LX that had a blown up A4LD when I got it... I drove it for two years as my in-town backup car (heck, couldn't trust the 5.0 THAT far!) and even with only two working gears in the tranny, and the engine regularly being revved well into the 4500-5000rpm range in second to keep with traffic, nothing else ever broke! The longblock out of that car (itself having clocked at least 150,000) is now in my '74 Mustang II and is what breathes the fire out of my side-exit exhaust today!
Don't get me wrong, I get a big smile when I smash the loud pedal in the 5.0 and the chassis turns to taffy... but I get a bigger smile when I smash the not-so-loud pedal on one of my 2.3s and don't have to worry about what's gonna break as a result!
You also won't see stock bottom-end 5.0s handling the amount of boost that a stock turbo 2.3 bottom-end will (regular 2.3 bottom end won't tolerate much boost, remember it was an economy/dependability engine through-and-through), the 2.3 is just nearly indestructible, as, in most ways, it's seriously overbuilt, with big main caps (main caps on a 2.3 are as big as a lot of small-block V8s, I wish my Chevy 400 had caps that big by comparison to displacement!), a GREAT oiling system (can't say that about a lot of Ford V8s, especially Clevelands!) and impressive overall design (easy to work on, simple to tune, VERY forgiving of mistakes (such as when I had the camshaft in 180* out... and it RAN! or when I was first learning about the things and messed-up the firing order... and it likewise ran... without backfiring!) Also, pull a plug wire off of a 2.3 and a plug wire off of a 5.0 and start both... the 5.0 will damn near break your ribs from the rough ride with a misfire like that, a 2.3 will just keep chugging along, I actually drove that '88 LX with a misfire for two weeks waiting on payday to do the tuneup... I parked the 5.0 with a misfire because I couldn't stand to drive it anymore after five minutes!
I'll always wish I had more power with my little 2.3s, but I'll never miss not being able to pass gas stations or auto parts stores with my 5.0.
__________________
1976 Ford Mustang II Ghia: 302 with a 600cfm Edelbrock carb, Edelbrock Performer 289 intake, Dynomax Blackjack headers, 2.5" exhaust with Flowmaster Super 44s. RJS 11-gallon fuel cell, C4 tranny, chrome 16" pony wheels, fuzzy dice, brown vinyl half-top, and painted in the tackiest color ever (harvest gold, that's why I call it "The Goldenrod").
Also have a 2003 Dodge Ram (lightly modded daily driver/tow rig/office/dining room/home away from home/workshop... I call it "The Big Blue Dawg".)
With the same service, the 5.0L will outlast the 2.3L Turbo or N/A versions. Geez, you're comparing Ford's venerable stroked 289 (302) small block to the lowly econobox Pinto motor. I ran both motors in oil test lab and there's no comparison wrt cylinder wear and bearing lifecycle.
My 5.0L HO reached 300K mi before I turned the key off & parked it due to excessive chassis rust. NO KNOCK, NO SMOKE, NEVER REBUILT. This car saw 40K track miles (HPDE/SCCA/Open Track) and it still ran EXACTLY the same wrt acceleration. fuel economy and it always started and ran smoothly. The timing belt never even broke (lol). I changed the oil once every 25K mi or so.
Why would anyone would compare psi boost capabilities of these two motors when one is twice as large??? The 5.0L motor will produce over 400 HP with no boost. Don Walsh was running 8's over 10 years ago in a 5L Fox without boost. Add some boost and 7's or better are achieveable.
I'm sure a bunch of guys on the Chevy Citation Forum will argue their 2.5L iron duke motor is superior to a 283 or 327 mouse.
This is the wrong place to get a non-biased answer....although I owned a few of both. The 5L cars were always more reliable.
I have been told time and time again "If you're looking to buy a 5.0, people beat on them and as a result, they dont last as long"
So my opinion is, if you dont beat on either engine, they will last 200k+
Sure... Preventive maintenance, a few breakdowns, but thats going to happen in ANY car.
The prior owner of my car said he never let it hit 3k rpm (which is hard to believe)
Most of the time, I am at 2k rpms because I dont have a lead foot.
But 5.0s do seem to turn more heads than 2.3s
But like 74stangtogo said, 2.3s get GREAT GAS MILEAGE
After replacing a lot of stuff and changing the oil, my 2.3 n/a gets 25mpg average, and 32 mpg highway (at 65mph)
That's not bad, and I can even take out a few civics on my way to work
Off topic, but what do people see in civics? I just dont like them...
.............But like 74stangtogo said, 2.3s get GREAT GAS MILEAGE
After replacing a lot of stuff and changing the oil, my 2.3 n/a gets 25mpg average, and 32 mpg highway (at 65mph)...
The N/A EFI cars get numbers like you qoute, but the SVO is only on-par with 5.0L fuel ecoonomy. Real-world owner claims and EPA estimates bear this out.
My LT1 Vette got a repeatable 31-32 MPG at a steady 70-75MPH, so it kicked the Pinto motor out of the park. I only got 18 MPG in average driving, but that's after leaving occasional 275 rubber stripes on the asphalt. Friends driving 944T & M3 to the track used to be amazed when we arrived after 4 hrs drive and everybody topped off....they always took more gas to feed fewer cylinders.
My Mustang 5L HO SEFI got around 25 MPG on the same trip....not stellar, but surely acceptable. It got 18 MPG around town. After owning Mustangs with 2.3, 2.3T, 2.8 V6 and three 5L cars (2bbl HO, 4bbl HO and SEFI HO), I prefer V8 torque & response with ANY induction. The '82 2bbl 5.0L with silly RUG/SROD 4spd ran 15.8 sec 1/4 mi, virtually same as the SVO (tested by Super Ford, Motor Trend, Fabulous Mustangs, Hot Rod Mag etc). These days a 2.3 Focus 4dr will scare either of those cars.
They always took more gas to feed fewer cylinders.
I can believe that, it used to royally piss my dad off that I could get 14-16mpg in town with a 400 small-block in my Chevy pickup while he was getting 11-14mpg in town with his 4.2L V6 F150... and I was driving harder, faster, and needed a tune-up! It didn't help that a friend of ours with a 4.6 was beating him for in-town mileage too! (of course, my dad's 22-24 highway mpg was very impressive for a pickup, but it took a cold air intake and Dynomax muffler to get there).
Sometimes a larger engine will get better gas mileage in a certain situation. The Chevy 4.3 V6 vs the 305 V8 in the 88-98 pickups is proof enough of that for me, those little 4.3s are THIRSTY but the 305 gets pretty good mileage (even if the reliability is below average).
__________________
1976 Ford Mustang II Ghia: 302 with a 600cfm Edelbrock carb, Edelbrock Performer 289 intake, Dynomax Blackjack headers, 2.5" exhaust with Flowmaster Super 44s. RJS 11-gallon fuel cell, C4 tranny, chrome 16" pony wheels, fuzzy dice, brown vinyl half-top, and painted in the tackiest color ever (harvest gold, that's why I call it "The Goldenrod").
Also have a 2003 Dodge Ram (lightly modded daily driver/tow rig/office/dining room/home away from home/workshop... I call it "The Big Blue Dawg".)
I own two 5.0s one from a 88 mustang that we installed in my 69 Mach the other in a 86 econoline,, i know the roller H.O5.0s are very durable with the blocks having high nickel content in the iron and have great potential ,but i also own three non turbo efi 2.3's,for regular daily use the 2.3's are my choice ,you will never get the smooth idle a 2.3 from a 5.0,they are way easier to work with,run cooler in the summer,tuneups are a breeze,my buddys 5.0 had a hard time cranking over when the temps hit like 60 below with the wind chill one day, my 2.3 cranked over like a charm,,i really do think the 2.3's will outlast the 5.0 in durability they are tough engines,with no pushrods,there is very little that can go wrong in these engines,
I own two 5.0s one from a 88 mustang that we installed in my 69 Mach the other in a 86 econoline,, i know the roller H.O5.0s are very durable with the blocks having high nickel content in the iron and have great potential ,but i also own three non turbo efi 2.3's,for regular daily use the 2.3's are my choice ,you will never get the smooth idle a 2.3 from a 5.0,they are way easier to work with,run cooler in the summer,tuneups are a breeze,my buddys 5.0 had a hard time cranking over when the temps hit like 60 below with the wind chill one day, my 2.3 cranked over like a charm,,i really do think the 2.3's will outlast the 5.0 in durability they are tough engines,with no pushrods,there is very little that can go wrong in these engines,
Sounds like your 5.0L engines have driveability & service issues relating to your motor swapping. Try one OEM, as installed & properly operating in a Ford vehicle.
I can assure you a properly-functioning 5.0L HO motor idles Lincoln-quality smooth. I've watched my wife grind the starter thinking the engine was not running at a stop light. Lincoln-Mercury used this motor in luxury cars like Mark VII, not the 2.3L. Admittedly the 5.0L idle quality is not quite equal to 4.6L V8 standards. The 2.3L Ford 4 cyl was one of the roughest, vibrating economotors ever made. They can only be described as smooth under no-load idle or under load between 2K and 3K RPM. The 2.3L thrashes...NVH really stinks between 1K and 2K RPM or over 4K. The automotive press always commented about it's primitive behavior. The 5.0L HO is smooth between idle and 6K RPM and it does not shake when loaded heavily or lugged. If a 5L feels rough, it needs a tuneup or somebody foolishly installed the wrong imbalance flywheel on it during a motor swap.
The 5.0L cars do not overheat in the summer, unless they are defective. We ran Kenne Bell supercharged Mustangs on 2+ mile road racing tracks for thousands of miles without overheating issues. The car did not need a radiator or fan upgrade and temps were fine at 95 degree ambient.
The 5.0 cam chain will outlast a 2.3 timing belt. Pushrods & hydraulic roller lifters outwear non-roller followers.
Cylinder and bearing wear is a function of RPM, amongst other things. The 2.3L rev's & works harder to propel a vehicle of similar size because it has far less torque. The higher average RPM required by the less powerful 2.3L motor accelerates wear of all moving engine parts.
After doing lifecycle testing as an engineer for Gulf & Chevron, I learned the 2.3L will wear out long before the 5L, assuming the same duty cycle and oil quality. The V8 easily lasts 25% longer. Both of these Ford motors were used as industry-standard oil test hardware by all major R&D oil facilities.
The pushrod 5.0L is not difficult to service, unless you're comparing it to a Model A. It easily fits in a Fox engine compartment. They are easy to service like a 60's vintage 289 Mustang. The EEC wiring harness and sensors are similar complexity, compared to 2.3L electronics of similar vintage. The 2.3L overhead cam design adds repair complexity that basically offsets the simplicity of a single cylinder head.
It is silly to argue that a econobox Pinto motor (or descendant) is more durable or offers better longevity than a venerable small block Chevy or Ford V8. This occasionally happens, but only because duty, service & lubricants vary widely from owner to owner. My 5L runs great at 300K mi, no rebuild.
not trashing the 5.0 its a well built motor, but again a 2.3 will outlast a nonroller 5.0 ,, i have seen it numerous times,you will see 5.0s with high milege throw number eight rod,lifters concave, ihave yet to hear of a 2.3 throw a rod,there is less weight stress with all the pistons weights on the crankshaft bearings in a four compared to an eight ,the 2.3 was designed in Europe as the first all metric belt driven overhead cammed motor. they are built tough,hey my first belt change was at 125,000m not bad,so easy to change no timing cover to remove,no draining the coolant. no need to remove,waterpump,ac,,no timingcover crankshaft seal to replace, can change the belt in half hour,try that on a 5.0,on a v shaped engine the pistons actually rest a bit sideways in their bores,on the inline motors there is less side wear stress in the bores,,,here in chicago i see alot more 2.3s on the road than 5.0s wonder why so many listings for 5.0s for sale,i guess its people that want a gas saver,hey 5.0s are cool but i love the 2.3 more,all my 2.3s and 5.0s have distributors and efi,no d.i.s please,thats another topic,hey guys whats the highest milege in the odometer in a 2.3 you's have seen
........... a 2.3 will outlast a nonroller 5.0 ,, i have seen it numerous times........
You indeed may have seen a few 5.0L non-roller motors wear out while some other 2.3L cars last longer. This means nothing because lifecycle is a function of service behavior, lubricants and duty. There are simly too many variables on the street to make such a conclusion with any accuracy.
I performed lifecycle testing in the oil industry as an engineer. Industry-standard test methods and engines involved in these tests included non-roller 289, followed by 302/5L and the 140/2.3L 4 cylinder. The V8 motors invariably lasted longer under similar duty when variables like lubricants & driving behavior were eliminated. The dyno & chassis simulator engine loading was even reduced on the smaller motors to account for lighter chassis & payloads! Bearings showed less wear and cylinder walls lasted much longer. Lifecycle of certain early V8 rockers was sometimes an issue, but these could be changed quicker than a timing belt & for similar cost. A V8 non-roller cam & lifters generally outlasted the block.
This V8 vs 4 cyl lifecyle phenomenon is seen across mfrs and models. Smaller motors rev higher to produce useful torque, so they see more wear in the same miles. For every 4 cyl Toyota that beats 400K mi, you will find several Ford, Chevy and Mercedes V8 with 500K+ mi. Bigger motors with more cylinders generally last longer.
trust me im not hatin on the 5.0's i own a few of em, and they arent exactly stock, but damn i was lookin at an svo the other day jus to buy as sumthin fun to drive and that thing suprised the hell outa me i know with some money put in it it will keep up or atleast maybe stay close to my other cars.......so in othere words....i like em both but only the 2.3's when they are turbo'd they are striaght turds without it
not sure on bigger engines lasting longer ,yes they are under less stress but also have greater heavy rotating mass weight on the bearings/rods,,hey how do you explain the 4.9 straight six,they seem to be the toughest longest lasting ford gas engine,,, when have you heard of 2.3 throwing a rod? yes non turbo 2.3s are slugs off the line , mine does 75 easy on the freeway,besides they keep you in safe driving habit mode ,the car's body will die before the 2.3ohc engine will,,hey my 69Mach has a 88efi 5.0 rollerblock converted to carb,no goodies on it yet ,doing lots of welding on it as it was a rust bucket when i got it,but its coming out fine,just dandy,can't wait to shutup all those copycat new mustangs out there that copy the 69mach styling,oh thats another topic,the new stangs are nice but again hate copycats
5.0 vs. 2.3 
This is the wrong place to get a non-biased answer....although I owned a few of both. The 5L cars were always more reliable.
