MustangForums.com - View Single Post

tyler72 · 06-17-2008, 10:10 AM

No "close to stock" 2.3 is going to be fast. I have worked on several in foxbodies and thunderchickens (T-Birds) that had these engines, and all of them have been really slow. You can floor them and they just putt along like you have all day to get there. Of course, they were all bonestock, and had most had close to 100k on the odometer, but overall, they left a bad taste in my mouth. Maybe a fresher engine with a few good improvements would be better, but there is no way a stock 2.3 turbo will out do a 289 or 302.

06-17-2008, 10:10 AM	#26
tyler72 3rd Gear Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Apison, TN Posts: 912	RE: 2.3L Turbo swap into 1967 Mustang No "close to stock" 2.3 is going to be fast. I have worked on several in foxbodies and thunderchickens (T-Birds) that had these engines, and all of them have been really slow. You can floor them and they just putt along like you have all day to get there. Of course, they were all bonestock, and had most had close to 100k on the odometer, but overall, they left a bad taste in my mouth. Maybe a fresher engine with a few good improvements would be better, but there is no way a stock 2.3 turbo will out do a 289 or 302. __________________ Tuners are like Tampons... Every Pussy has one! 72 Mustang Coupe. 347 stroker with Edelbrock Performer RPM Heads. Coast High cam. RPM air gap intake with a 650 Demon. Ceramic coated headers. MSD billet distributor, 6AL box, Blaster 3 coil, MSD wires.