i was wondering???

my next door neaghbour has a 1987 base model mustang for sale no rust nothings wrong with it itz a 4 cylnder i was wondring what the hp would be on it and she's selling it for 200 dollars i waqs wondering what after market parts would be for it answersw would be apreciated?!?!?!?!?!?

90 HP at 3800 rpms. Nothing special, and not fast at all. There are aftermarket parts available for 2.3L's to help make them a little faster. Take a look at these sites for more info.
www.racerwalsh.com
www.turboford.org

thanks hi flow and whats the point of a mustang having 90 hp itz actually funny!?!?!?

Originally posted by mustang_man11
thanks hi flow and whats the point of a mustang having 90 hp itz actually funny!?!?!?

The extremes of gasoline economics.

Originally posted by Los


The extremes of gasoline economics.
That pretty much sums it up. Trying to market the mustang as a fuel friendly car towards a different crowd, opposed to a gas guzzling hotrod.

i wonder why they tride and market the mustang as a fuel eficient car instead of a muscle car like it was made 2 be the gas prices that year must have sky rocketed or something i bet u there profit when down a fair amount changing the mustang 2 fuel efficent not speed demons would be stupid the old mustang owners wouldn't want it and the new crowd would stick with there old compinies like volvo and buick?!?!?!?!?!?!!

'Cmon kid, you don't know about the gas crunch?!?!?! It was huge! Gas prices did more than skyrocketed, there wasn't even a price on it! We just didn't have enough gas to sell. There was very little gas, and the stations only let you have a certain amount, no matter how much money you put down.(which was alot for a little!) So it was a big deal, fuel economy.

The Mustang was conceived as a cheap, sporty, economical car. Not some rampaging street monster. The Mustang II was a return to the roots of the car during a "gas crunch." The 2.3L made 88hp from 1987-1989, upgrading to 105hp with the HSC heads in 1990.

It was light, and the EPA couldn't find their butt with both hands when it comes to accurate fuel economy ratings so the 2.3L made out well in that regard, and with only two engine options, the 2.3L sold well. The 2.3 made almost no torque, and every component in the engine and drivetrain was cheap.

I've owned 2 of them, and neither got good fuel economy. All my V8 Mustang GTs have gotten better fuel economy than the 2.3's, but then again, all my GTs have been sticks.

I converted my '89 2.3 to an EFI 5.0 thanks to a properly-hit parts car.Even with 302,000 km on it and an AOD behind it gets MUCH better economy than the 2.3 that was in it.Probably because the 2.3 requires foot-to-the-floor driving just to keep up with traffic,while the 5.0 needs you to hold it back.

Don't waste time OR cash on a 2.3 unless it's a Turbo Coupe.

for 200 bucks, get it and then when you're older drop a bigger engine in there. you'll learn so much by doing it and you'll end up with a pretty sweet ride that you can truely call your own. The car in my sig was my uncles with a 383. It was his in highscool and he sold it to me for one dollar when i was 12. Me and my friends spent two summers figuring out how to restore it and put the 440+6 under the hood. Best summers ever. I'd get that car of your neghbours for sure.

:iagree: