6th Aug 2010, 16:19
"Particularly when compared with V8 versions of the same year, (which had less power, might I add)."
I am pretty sure the 5.0 had around 200 HP compared to your 190, and I know the torque on that 5.0 was way more than your 2.3 puts out. I had an '88 LX 5.0 and raced my cousins Turbo Coupe... well it wasn't really a race as much as me counting how many seconds until he disappeared in my rearview mirror. It was about 15 seconds. Of course, I had 225 HP and 300 lb. ft. of torque, so no 2.3 turbo was going to be much of a match up for me.
12th Jan 2011, 19:08
I wouldn't say that a 2.3 cannot beat a 5.0, because I've seen some guys put in a front mount intercooler and a manual boost controller, and make 225 to 265 hp, depending on octane, so watch out.
13th Jan 2011, 11:30
You are now talking a modified engine, so there is no longer an accurate comparison. I could throw a supercharger on a 5.0, and you still wouldn't have a prayer.
Plus, to modify one of these old 2.3 liter engines is taking a huge chance, as they weren't very reliable, putting out the 190 or so HP they came stock with.
10th Feb 2012, 15:11
If your 87 5.0 Thunderbird is making 200 HP, it is not stock at all, seeing as they came from the factory with only 150 HP.
8th Jan 2015, 21:53
I beg to differ, the 2.3 had more output stock for stock compared to the 5.0. Why do you think Ford stopped the last of the TCs in '88, because the TCs were eating everything alive, including the Mustang, which was Ford's flagship, and they couldn't have the (family sedan) taking over.
Please do your homework before you post about the Mustang being more reliable as well. The 2.3 can safely hold 600 HP on stock internals and only a studded head, and are known to be pretty much bulletproof. That is all...
6th Aug 2010, 01:15
The fuel limiting switch is not just a boost controller, it also limits timing to reduce the power and chance of detonation. Two very good resources for these cars are www.turboford.org and www.turbotbird.com.