2.3L Turbo swap into 1967 Mustang

[dugan]

Oh come one now whats wrong with hondas![sm=smiley2.gif] but as far as with the project! after further thought i take back everything i said in my original post on this topic..[sm=signs003.gif] although i don't like the idea of a 4 cylinder car in a classic mustang its better than a nissan engine in it!

This ad is not displayed to registered or logged-in members. Register your free account today and become a member on Mustang Forums!

[straight68]

The 1968 coupe was the most produced Mustang. Also referred to as the hardtop, the Mustang coupe had a production of 249,447. The hardtop weighed 2635 pounds and had a wheelbase of 108 inches like the prior year's Mustang. The Coupe boasted a 200 cid engine and cost $2602. [/align][/align][/align]-according to the mustang timeline on this site. from what i understand the 67 and 68 are almost identical so i imagine the weights will be similar. 2600 pounds is actually really light. a hopped up 2.3 turbo will be more than sufficient to move the mustang and quickly at that. foxbody mustangs start at about 3200 lbs +/-100 lbs[/align]

[andrewmp6]

Dugan the 64-68 coupes are around 2600 lbs the fastback and convertibles are pushing 3000lbs the heavist mustang was the 71 with the big block around 3400lbs tell the newest mustang came out thats a pig.I wouldn't give her the mustang as a first car most people have a car wreck with in 6 months of driving get her a cheap beater for the first year then the mustang is what id do.Gas prices who knows what they will be in 5 years could be cheaper or higher.The 'gas shortage" of the 70s prices did jump a lot and limited you to so many gallons.

[SalikDDD]

my 1967 with a 289, 8.8" rear, no ac, no power steering, headers etc. weighed 2840lbs with less than 1/4 of a tank without me in it.

[tyler72]

Yeah, they are heavy cars. I will weigh my 72 the next time I go to the track. It should be close to the same weight since the entire top end of my engine is all aluminum. I have power steering, and ac, but they might add 100 pounds at the most.

[paddy187]

So let talk sense we have an engine with the same power as 2 barrel v8 with less weight so it will be faster than a lot of stock cars and some modded ones too. While i would not do it myselfI more in keeping my car period correct, good luck with it.Wasn't that 2.3L turbo that was used in the EscortRS cosworth at high tune and used in the rally car? So I am sure modded you could do a lot more.

[rst08tierney]

why would you even think of putting a 2.3L in a mustang....thats just insulting? BUT hey its your money and your car good luck and make sure you post lots of pics because this is something everyone would want to see.

[Waffles]

Why the 2.3?

Just go buy a 460 and a c6 tranny, cram it in there, (improperly, of course) and let her start driving when shes 13.



I think its a unique idea, and if you have as much experience with them as you claim, then you should have no problem tuning it in to where you want it.

Good luck. Post pics and stuff as you progress. She'll be a little cutie in High School with the car, but have a hard time finding a boyfriend thats cool with her having a better car than him... [8D]

[vineman]

that engine, according to gov't estimations, gets around the same mileage as my 88 Silverado with a 350. I dunno how much better the mpg of the 2.3 will be in the stang, I know the efi setup im getting for my 72 is estimated at around 18 to 24 mpg. I guess im just laying this out there so in case you can't quite find the 2.3, you know there are other choices form the V8 family that get the same mileage as the 2.3. Plus with it being turbo'd that's going to eat at the mileagetoo, just make sure she doesn't have a lead foot.

www.fueleconomy.gov

[TexasAxMan]

It doesn't matter what you do. The cool thing is that you're doing it with your 12 year old daughter.[sm=happybounce.gif]


HUGE THUMBS UP!!!