92 Mustang LX Sedan 2.3L

Mustang LX · 06-15-2000, 10:44 PM

What is the rated HP and Torque of a 92 Mustang LX Sedan 2.3L? And is it as good as a 5.0L mustang, not in engine specs but overall?

Mr 5 0 · 06-15-2000, 11:33 PM

Your '92 2.3 engine has 105 HP.

The 2.3 is basically the same as a 5.0 in terms of body/interior (LX version only) and a lot of the mechanical equipment is identical, such as the radiator, rear axle, transmissions, etc.
The suspension is softer (weaker) and lacks the anti-sway bars the V-8 has, and of course the tires are smaller and you don't have the duel exhausts and other V-8 accessories. Many of the suspension upgrades can be added to a 2.3 as all the holes exist in the body/frame to accept the extra pieces and bigger wheels and tires are an easy option to add for better stability and appearance.

I'm against attempting to build a 'fake 5.0' out of a 2.3 Mustang but there is still a lot you can do to improve the 2.3 version without attempting to pass it off as a V-8.
The other option is to simply do the 2.3 to 5.0 engine switch. Not easy but fairly common and effective if you want the V-8 power.

[This message has been edited by Mr 5 0 (edited 06-16-2000).]

Mustang LX · 06-15-2000, 11:50 PM

only 105 hp? what was ford thinking. . .

Mr 5 0 · 06-16-2000, 03:39 PM

Question: 105 HP? What was Ford thinking?

Answer: CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) which is about 27.5 mpg.

For every V-8 Mustang, Crown Vic and SUV Ford sells with relatively low gas mileage numbers, they need to sell a ton of 4 and 6 cylinder vehicles with high mpg numbers to hit the federal 'average' mpg requirements imposed on them. So far, so good.

06-15-2000, 10:44 PM	#1
Mustang LX Registered Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Lakewood, WA, USA Posts: 4	92 Mustang LX Sedan 2.3L What is the rated HP and Torque of a 92 Mustang LX Sedan 2.3L? And is it as good as a 5.0L mustang, not in engine specs but overall?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Safety Issue 64 - 70 Mustangs	Mach1 Cobra Jet	Classic Mustangs	20	07-11-2005 08:06 PM
Yellow Mustang Stampede TULSA OK August 17	stylin99	Ford Show & Go	2	11-09-2004 11:19 PM
t-5, is it the same in the 4 cylinder and V8	ex-lt1-guy	Windsor Power	12	03-03-2002 01:59 AM
Changing Brake Calipers on 88 Mustang LX	MustangRacerx801	Small Ponies	1	07-06-2001 02:56 AM
86 mustang lx 4 cyl	ozmosis111	Small Ponies	3	04-25-2001 02:41 PM

06-15-2000, 11:33 PM	#2
Mr 5 0 Conservative Individualist Join Date: May 1997 Location: Wherever I need to be Posts: 7,487	Your '92 2.3 engine has 105 HP. The 2.3 is basically the same as a 5.0 in terms of body/interior (LX version only) and a lot of the mechanical equipment is identical, such as the radiator, rear axle, transmissions, etc. The suspension is softer (weaker) and lacks the anti-sway bars the V-8 has, and of course the tires are smaller and you don't have the duel exhausts and other V-8 accessories. Many of the suspension upgrades can be added to a 2.3 as all the holes exist in the body/frame to accept the extra pieces and bigger wheels and tires are an easy option to add for better stability and appearance. I'm against attempting to build a 'fake 5.0' out of a 2.3 Mustang but there is still a lot you can do to improve the 2.3 version without attempting to pass it off as a V-8. The other option is to simply do the 2.3 to 5.0 engine switch. Not easy but fairly common and effective if you want the V-8 power. [This message has been edited by Mr 5 0 (edited 06-16-2000).]

06-15-2000, 11:50 PM	#3
Mustang LX Registered Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Lakewood, WA, USA Posts: 4	only 105 hp? what was ford thinking. . .

06-16-2000, 03:39 PM	#4
Mr 5 0 Conservative Individualist Join Date: May 1997 Location: Wherever I need to be Posts: 7,487	Question: 105 HP? What was Ford thinking? Answer: CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) which is about 27.5 mpg. For every V-8 Mustang, Crown Vic and SUV Ford sells with relatively low gas mileage numbers, they need to sell a ton of 4 and 6 cylinder vehicles with high mpg numbers to hit the federal 'average' mpg requirements imposed on them. So far, so good.