Ford Mustang Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

New 1993 Mustang Owner! How reliable is a 2.3 engine with 109,000 miles?

10K views 17 replies 14 participants last post by  harrist7 
#1 ·
I am looking to buy this 93 2.3 convertible great shape. I am new to the mustang world and ford 2.3. How is the engine, block and head? It has 109000 mi. Car has been well maintained, what should i look for before purchasing this car.

Thanks
kbarb
 
#3 ·
I reecently bought a 92 Mustang convertible with 2.3L engine and 121,000 miles on it...is in excellent condition and very well maintained.

I had a couple of old Pintos with the 2.3L and a Ford Courier Pickup with the 2.3. My brother-in-law had a Cougar with a turbo 2.3L. All were super vehicles with great little engines. Of course, MPG is pretty good.

One of the Pintos was a station wagon that I drive over 225,000 miles and never had an issue...the body was rusty, but it ran lilke new. I sold it to a teenager down the street for $100 and he drove it a long time after that.

A coupe I had alwasy used a quart of oil every 1500 miles...never could figure out why and it never used any more or less...city, hiway, stop and go....nothing made a difference. Still, I have well over 100,000 on it when I traded it and it ran fine.

The turbo Cougar threw a rod at 90,000, but he drove it like he stold it all the time...I was supprised it lasted that long...ha
 
#4 ·
How reliable is it? With 109k it's just starting to break in! Seriously, 2.3's are bulletproof. Most of mine are and have been turbos. My '87 TC was at 175k and still going strong, my '88 TC was at 200+ and starting to wear out. My current '86 TC is at 168k and in top notch condition! My N/A '89 Mustang was at 140k and running great when I took it off the road to drop in a turbo motor. Many guys are waaay over 200k. I've even heard of a couple at 300+! Like I said, bulletproof!
 
G
#5 ·
I pulled the much-abused 2.3 out of my 1974 Ford Mustang II last year....

300,000 miles on it... 32 years old.... still ran like a scalded dog, but it was smoking pretty badly from a worn set of valve stem seals.

I dropped in a 2.3 from an '88 Ranger that had already seen two years of abuse with me in an '88 Mustang, and it's what rumbles under the hood of the '74 now... that engine has over 150,000 on it now, no knocks or rattles. The 2.3 is the anvil that Ford's modern American four-cylinder engine program was forged on.
 
#7 ·
I have a 91 2.3L convertible with 150,000 miles on it. engine and transmission work like new - no oil leaks at all. It uses a quart of oil every 2,500 miles and gets 29 mpg when driven gently on the highway. driveline is a bit loose and suspension is shot. When the pump for the topped failed I disconnected the pistons and operate the top manually. I live in Canada so I removed the air con when it failed as I don't really need it. My car is reliable and parts, breaks etc are cheap. I use Mobile 1 synth oil and change it every 6 mo (about 6,000 mi). I use injector cleaner with every other tank of gas. Buy a code reader so you can monitor what is going on with your engine control systems etc. I read the codes regularly every 3 months. Good luck with your car and enjoy it.
 
#8 ·
you have to worry about the oil pan gasket on the 91 and newer 2.3 as the gasket that mates to the aluminum pan may breaK up and plug the oil pump,,,thats what i have heard,, i have three 2.3s all pre91,I tell my buddies thats the best engine Ford made,may not burn tires being NA but i don't give a F,,If i had to drive around the world ,a 2.3 would be my choice of engine,,any other engine v8 or l4 whatever would not be an option they would leave me stranded,i don't trust any other engine out there
 
#9 ·
2.3L's are fairly reliable

Just wanted to say that I've had three four mustangs since the time I was 16 I am now 21 still have one of the 2.3L's and bought a 5.0L
but I've been running my 2.3L for 3 years on the same engine and its got about three hundred and thirty four thousand KM's on it, and I haven't treated it the nicest over three years most of the time I drive it nice but its had its fun and its still running good haven't had to throw any money into it besides regular maintenance but yea as for your question I think there dependable engines and u should buy the car in my opinion!!
 
G
#11 ·
So... did Kbarb ever buy the car???

Seriously... inquiring minds want to know, the 2.3 is great, I'm going for another one as we speak (turbo this time!!!) I was going to V8 my '74 Mustang, but instead I'll wait on the '78 I'm trading for to do that and put the 2.3T in my '74... that's how much I like the 2.3... so much I can't bear to hack and cut my '74 Mustang to switch to a V8 when a 2.3 can MORE than do the job.
 
#12 ·
2.3 reliability

One item not addressed as far as I could tell is the timng belt. (valve timing) I'm pretty certain they are supposed to be replaced at 100,000 miles. I bought my mustang LX that had about 130,000 miles on it.
Not knowing the maintenance history on it; I bought a timing belt for it.
I just changed the belt this past week and the old (original?) belt was torn half way through in one place. I xpect it would not have lasted another 50 to 100 miles or so. So if you can find out if its had its belt replaced ( and when ), I would look into it and if it hasn't been replaced or you can't find out, I'd get one and either replace it or have it replaced if you can't do it your self. Timing belt repacement is not for
the inexperienced so be aware there. Its better to get it replaced, else you may find yourself broke down who knows where at some future date. Other than that , these 2.3L engines are a good engine.

Janstang
 
#13 ·
the timing belt failed on my VIN M 8 plug 2.3L as i was driving it to the garage to have it replaced. thankfully the VIN M engine is a non interference engine so no engine damage was done. The symptom that tipped of the mechanic to the failure was the fact that the engine turned over rapidly when he tried to start it - no compression as the valve timing had been lost. the timing belt is fairly easy to get at but it is not for an "amateur to fool with. i replaced the water pump and thermostat at the same time. my hoses were almost new and in good shape. as a matter of interest, the teeth on the old belt had begun to separate from the belt.
 
#16 ·
well i wudnt no how reliable the 2.3 is at 110,000 miles cuz my 93 only has 56,000 miles.and already had to do the timing belt.but i guess it was more age then milage that caused the problem bieng how it only had 56,000.but bieng how it doesnt take but just a min to check the timing belt on a 93 2.3.it is a very good idea to check it!!
 
#18 ·
If you don't care to drive really quickly, these are good engines.
My '93, bought new, and serviced by me, has 194,000 miles on it, and has never had a drop of oil needed.
Heck, I finally just quit checking it, to keep dirt, dust out of the dipstick, ha.
It runs just like new....I had wanted to buy a newer car..but it's too nice to have no car payments.
I only had to change my timing belt once..it broke. I got the other one off easily, but I could not get the bottom of the new one onto the small gear at the bottom. There is not much room at all.
I have a mechanic shop I use that is downhill from my house, so I rolled it to him and he put the belt on the sprocket real cheap since I had it all opened up...I put everything back together.
I may have to drive this car far another 10 years, dang.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top