Can a 4 banger beat ricers?

Back Seat Driver · 10-25-2001, 05:26 PM

I am wondering instead of right away being slammed with insurance with a 5.0 . Instead of a 5.0 just buy a nice 4 banger and as i get more money just keep adding mods to the lil baby.

so my ACTUAL question is. will a 4 banger Mustang beat the rice rockets.. ( I am wondering because we have a lot of civics and preludes) and every other kinda Sh*ty riced cars there can be.

If they can is it because the 4 bangers are tunred different or bigger engine still or wut?

sum1 help me..

Thanx

Nik

Unit 5302 · 10-25-2001, 06:15 PM

The 1987-1990 4 banger made 88hp, in 1991 it went up to like 105.

The answer is, no. The 4 banger stangs are about as weak as they come. In 1994 the 4cyl was replaced by a V-6, which is also tough to beat much with, just because of the less than impressive 145hp per weight, 3300lbs or so.

10-25-2001, 08:32 PM

If you're gonna buy a 4 cyl. and upgrade it.. you may as well buy an escort(unless you're putting a v8 in there). I hate to say it and I know there are guys with 4 cyl mustangs here but... if it doesn't have a v8(302) it is hopeless. Don't waste your money unless you get it cheap($300-700) and have a donor car.

1969Mach1 · 10-25-2001, 09:15 PM

Gotta love those insurance companies I just turned 17 and I got a 69 Mustang Mach 1 with a 351, I got it 3 weeks ago and plan on driving it next summer. I can't wait tell the insurance decides to rape me. But I may be fine cause I'll put it under a classic so I won't drive it that much just a cruisin car. =) As for the 4 banger stangs. I was not impressed by them, I don't think there is anyway to cheat insurance companies. Fast car expensive insurance.

------------------
1969 Mach 1, 351-4BBL Windsor, 4 Speed.

Moving At The Speed Of Sound.

Old Guy with 87 GT · 10-25-2001, 09:28 PM

he he.....if you get a four cylider car and put a v8 in it .....the vin will still say 4 cyl.....just depends on how honest you are when they ask what size moter is in it......only draw back is if you get in a wreck....4 cyl has about half the book value

------------------
i'm really a not so old guy with 87 gt.......87gt,T top -169,000 on odometer-14.7 qt.m/80 capri(future project)

bri32z · 10-25-2001, 09:58 PM

If you want to keep the 4 banger just upgrade the fuel system, change the head, and put a turbo on it. I have to disagree with you guys...Yes it can beat ricers and most stock gt's. Remember the SVO turbo? It made 200hp with less weight than the GT's. If you have the money to do the mods or find a 2.3 turbo somewhere I think it sounds like a fun project car. I have seen these 4cyl mustangs turn 11's in the 1/4 mile.

------------------
95 gt:347 stroker balanced,edelbrock 150 shot, edelbrock intake and heads ported and matched, 70mm throttle body, 75mm mass air meter, 2040 cam, 1.7 cobra rockers,cold air induction, bbk equal lengths,high flow h-pipe, super chip, 24lb injectors,190lph fuel pump(bbk), under drive pulleys, 4;30 gears,Hurst shifter Has other mods but not too sure what my mechanic did. To see all mods look at my spec page.
R/T .641
60FT 1.57
1/8 6.98
1/4 10.81 @ 127MPH

10-25-2001, 10:45 PM

bri32z, the svo 2.3 turbo engine is not the same at the 2.3 econo engine. The 2.3 turbo engine(w/turbo turned up) can push a pinto into low 11s. The econo 2.3 with a turbo will turn into a pile of broken metal pieces. The svo engine was built to hold the hp of the turbo and if you're gonna spend the money to do that you may as well get yourself a 5.0 and have some torque and more hp capiablities.

P.S. 10.81@127? Man that kicks *** !

------------------
Rick
My 89lx(updated 7/20/2001)

84LX89GT · 10-25-2001, 11:47 PM

The answer is yes....depending.
An '84 to '86 SVO mustang beat one and is easy to modify as well, but costs a bit to purchase because they are pretty rare. In the early 80's they made carbureted turbo mustangs and in '83 and '84 i believe they had fuel injection but only 140 horsepower for the non-SVO mustangs.
As for the run of the mill 2.3L mustang, don't waste your time or money. A mustang, although pretty light in general, is too heavy to easily move a 2.3L mustang even one with a turbo has to spool up to get moving. You need the torque of a V8 to really move the car.
Another option you have is to get an '87-'88 Thunderbird Turbo coupe, which is a "fox" chassis car like the mustang and accepts ALOT of the mustang bolt-on parts. Other plusses is that it has decent gears (but not enough if you want to really have a revving powerhouse turbo), 4 wheel disc brakes, lots of options, (leather seats) and should easily be moddified to kill everyday ricers.

The reason why the ricers car can even move is because they have lower friction engines that are basically designed to have a powerband higher in the rev range, as well as the fact that the 4 cylinder is the "most powerful" engine in that car, whereas in a mustang the engine was mostly a stop-gap emissions and gas mileage measure to boost sales and maintain their emissions status. Good luck on whatever you decide,

------------------
Mustang Parts Specialties ripped me off, it could happen to you as well.
'84 Mustang 5.0 LX
my LX
'89 Mustang GT
my GT

Unit 5302 · 10-26-2001, 12:47 AM

This looked like a budget oriented post to me, and as such, I really doubt Back Seat has the 6-8k to pick up a decent SVO. The non intercooled, weak turbo 2.3L isn't gonna beat up on too much. The 2.3L Turbo is very much different from the standard 2.3L. It starts with a forged crank, rods, and pistons. Add an intercooler for the top units, a different intake, camshafts, turbo unit, exhaust, and head.

The intention I saw was to take a stock 2.3L and throw some mods on it. While it's possible to get the little 2.3L to push some more power, it's a VERY weak engine to start with, and for the money, there are better performance cars out there. LOL. Not that one of the 4 bangers really costs much.

PKRWUD · 10-26-2001, 03:31 AM

Take care,
-Chris

------------------
Retired Moderator
MustangNet

My site: Peckerwoods Pit Stop

My teams site: Jim Porter Racing

RACECAR spelled backwards is RACECAR

HEY !!! Are you ASE Certified ??? If you are, ask me about iATN.

88workcar · 10-26-2001, 06:28 AM

If it is any bit of a confidance builder, I went to the IHRA world finals in Shreveport, LA. last sat. The most impressive thing I saw was a 2.3 FORD motor, no turbo, the rest I don't know. It was on a rail, weight I don't know. Anyway it ran. If I said 8.70s @ 149.7mph who would think I'm full of it? It was more impressive than 64 year old Mancusso running the whole quater on the back tire of a Harly at 210mph. GOOD LUCK Have fun

------------------
88workcar
1988 Mustang LX - 12.17 @ 112 MPH!

[This message has been edited by 88workcar (edited 10-26-2001).]

joe4speed · 10-26-2001, 12:35 PM

My sister had a '91 4cyl stang, it was awful! I've never been in anything so slow! Bad choice of engines IMO!

------------------
Joe! 1988 GT, 167,000 miles!!! 13.58@105mph Check out my listing! Click here! Or my website:www.joe4speed.com
99 Ninja ZX-6R:10.32@135mph!
1993 Olds Eighty Eight LSS 16.40@88.8mph

10-25-2001, 05:26 PM	#1
Back Seat Driver Registered Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Leamington Ontario Canada Posts: 103	Can a 4 banger beat ricers? I am wondering instead of right away being slammed with insurance with a 5.0 . Instead of a 5.0 just buy a nice 4 banger and as i get more money just keep adding mods to the lil baby. so my ACTUAL question is. will a 4 banger Mustang beat the rice rockets.. ( I am wondering because we have a lot of civics and preludes) and every other kinda Sh*ty riced cars there can be. If they can is it because the 4 bangers are tunred different or bigger engine still or wut? sum1 help me.. Thanx Nik

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
This is Why Ricers say they beat stangs....	1969Mach1	Blue Oval Lounge	18	12-17-2002 11:27 PM
Ricers Invade Ford Nite at the Track....Bad Idea	JaxTheDJ	Stang Stories	18	09-18-2002 04:02 PM
Can some ricers not be so bad?!?!	1969Mach1	Blue Oval Lounge	12	08-18-2002 10:59 PM
A Chance To Beat Up On Ricers....	crewzin	Blue Oval Lounge	2	03-10-2002 07:57 PM
Us vs. Them: why ricers suck!	fiveohpatrol	Blue Oval Lounge	10	12-13-2001 09:55 AM

10-25-2001, 06:15 PM	#2
Unit 5302 Registered Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 5,246	The 1987-1990 4 banger made 88hp, in 1991 it went up to like 105. The answer is, no. The 4 banger stangs are about as weak as they come. In 1994 the 4cyl was replaced by a V-6, which is also tough to beat much with, just because of the less than impressive 145hp per weight, 3300lbs or so.

10-25-2001, 08:32 PM	#3
rbatson Guest Posts: n/a	If you're gonna buy a 4 cyl. and upgrade it.. you may as well buy an escort(unless you're putting a v8 in there). I hate to say it and I know there are guys with 4 cyl mustangs here but... if it doesn't have a v8(302) it is hopeless. Don't waste your money unless you get it cheap($300-700) and have a donor car.

10-25-2001, 09:15 PM	#4
1969Mach1 HEY I CAN SET A NAME NOW! Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 2,556	Gotta love those insurance companies I just turned 17 and I got a 69 Mustang Mach 1 with a 351, I got it 3 weeks ago and plan on driving it next summer. I can't wait tell the insurance decides to rape me. But I may be fine cause I'll put it under a classic so I won't drive it that much just a cruisin car. =) As for the 4 banger stangs. I was not impressed by them, I don't think there is anyway to cheat insurance companies. Fast car expensive insurance. ------------------ 1969 Mach 1, 351-4BBL Windsor, 4 Speed. Moving At The Speed Of Sound.

10-25-2001, 09:28 PM	#5
Old Guy with 87 GT Registered Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Posts: 379	he he.....if you get a four cylider car and put a v8 in it .....the vin will still say 4 cyl.....just depends on how honest you are when they ask what size moter is in it......only draw back is if you get in a wreck....4 cyl has about half the book value ------------------ i'm really a not so old guy with 87 gt.......87gt,T top -169,000 on odometer-14.7 qt.m/80 capri(future project)

10-25-2001, 09:58 PM	#6
bri32z street racing junkie Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 231	If you want to keep the 4 banger just upgrade the fuel system, change the head, and put a turbo on it. I have to disagree with you guys...Yes it can beat ricers and most stock gt's. Remember the SVO turbo? It made 200hp with less weight than the GT's. If you have the money to do the mods or find a 2.3 turbo somewhere I think it sounds like a fun project car. I have seen these 4cyl mustangs turn 11's in the 1/4 mile. ------------------ 95 gt:347 stroker balanced,edelbrock 150 shot, edelbrock intake and heads ported and matched, 70mm throttle body, 75mm mass air meter, 2040 cam, 1.7 cobra rockers,cold air induction, bbk equal lengths,high flow h-pipe, super chip, 24lb injectors,190lph fuel pump(bbk), under drive pulleys, 4;30 gears,Hurst shifter Has other mods but not too sure what my mechanic did. To see all mods look at my spec page. R/T .641 60FT 1.57 1/8 6.98 1/4 10.81 @ 127MPH

10-25-2001, 10:45 PM	#7
rbatson Guest Posts: n/a	bri32z, the svo 2.3 turbo engine is not the same at the 2.3 econo engine. The 2.3 turbo engine(w/turbo turned up) can push a pinto into low 11s. The econo 2.3 with a turbo will turn into a pile of broken metal pieces. The svo engine was built to hold the hp of the turbo and if you're gonna spend the money to do that you may as well get yourself a 5.0 and have some torque and more hp capiablities. P.S. 10.81@127? Man that kicks *** ! ------------------ Rick My 89lx(updated 7/20/2001)

10-25-2001, 11:47 PM	#8
84LX89GT Mustangs Join Date: Jul 2000 Posts: 1,938	The answer is yes....depending. An '84 to '86 SVO mustang beat one and is easy to modify as well, but costs a bit to purchase because they are pretty rare. In the early 80's they made carbureted turbo mustangs and in '83 and '84 i believe they had fuel injection but only 140 horsepower for the non-SVO mustangs. As for the run of the mill 2.3L mustang, don't waste your time or money. A mustang, although pretty light in general, is too heavy to easily move a 2.3L mustang even one with a turbo has to spool up to get moving. You need the torque of a V8 to really move the car. Another option you have is to get an '87-'88 Thunderbird Turbo coupe, which is a "fox" chassis car like the mustang and accepts ALOT of the mustang bolt-on parts. Other plusses is that it has decent gears (but not enough if you want to really have a revving powerhouse turbo), 4 wheel disc brakes, lots of options, (leather seats) and should easily be moddified to kill everyday ricers. The reason why the ricers car can even move is because they have lower friction engines that are basically designed to have a powerband higher in the rev range, as well as the fact that the 4 cylinder is the "most powerful" engine in that car, whereas in a mustang the engine was mostly a stop-gap emissions and gas mileage measure to boost sales and maintain their emissions status. Good luck on whatever you decide, ------------------ Mustang Parts Specialties ripped me off, it could happen to you as well. '84 Mustang 5.0 LX my LX '89 Mustang GT my GT

10-26-2001, 12:47 AM	#9
Unit 5302 Registered Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 5,246	This looked like a budget oriented post to me, and as such, I really doubt Back Seat has the 6-8k to pick up a decent SVO. The non intercooled, weak turbo 2.3L isn't gonna beat up on too much. The 2.3L Turbo is very much different from the standard 2.3L. It starts with a forged crank, rods, and pistons. Add an intercooler for the top units, a different intake, camshafts, turbo unit, exhaust, and head. The intention I saw was to take a stock 2.3L and throw some mods on it. While it's possible to get the little 2.3L to push some more power, it's a VERY weak engine to start with, and for the money, there are better performance cars out there. LOL. Not that one of the 4 bangers really costs much.

10-26-2001, 03:31 AM	#10
PKRWUD Junior Member Join Date: Mar 1999 Location: Ventura, California Posts: 8,981	Take care, -Chris ------------------ Retired Moderator MustangNet My site: Peckerwoods Pit Stop My teams site: Jim Porter Racing RACECAR spelled backwards is RACECAR HEY !!! Are you ASE Certified ??? If you are, ask me about iATN.

10-26-2001, 06:28 AM	#11
88workcar Registered Member Join Date: Oct 1999 Location: Pierre Part, La. U.S.A. Posts: 1,850	If it is any bit of a confidance builder, I went to the IHRA world finals in Shreveport, LA. last sat. The most impressive thing I saw was a 2.3 FORD motor, no turbo, the rest I don't know. It was on a rail, weight I don't know. Anyway it ran. If I said 8.70s @ 149.7mph who would think I'm full of it? It was more impressive than 64 year old Mancusso running the whole quater on the back tire of a Harly at 210mph. GOOD LUCK Have fun ------------------ 88workcar 1988 Mustang LX - 12.17 @ 112 MPH! [This message has been edited by 88workcar (edited 10-26-2001).]

10-26-2001, 12:35 PM	#12
joe4speed He said Member...heh, heh Join Date: Sep 1999 Location: Jupiter, Florida U.S.A. Posts: 3,718	My sister had a '91 4cyl stang, it was awful! I've never been in anything so slow! Bad choice of engines IMO! ------------------ Joe! 1988 GT, 167,000 miles!!! 13.58@105mph Check out my listing! Click here! Or my website:www.joe4speed.com 99 Ninja ZX-6R:10.32@135mph! 1993 Olds Eighty Eight LSS 16.40@88.8mph