How Much Power Does A 2.3L 4-Cylinder Fox Body Mustang Make? 1993 Calypso Coupe Dyno

[@imbadwrench]

Did it really need to be strapped down or could you have put a loaf of bread under the front tire to hold it in place?

[@90foxmustangguy49]

😂☠️ This is the Comment 😂😂

[@latemodelrestoration]

Pinning this for making us chuckle 😆

[@imbadwrench]

@@latemodelrestoration Im a lifelong diehard 2.3 guy so thanks.

[@anthonylaudano9751]

A LOT OF THE 4 BANGERS ARE BEING TURNED INTO 5.0

[@anthonylaudano9751]

BACK IN THE 90S WHEN I WAS OUT IN MY 87 MUSTANG GT I SAW OTHER FOX BODYS EVERYWHERE AND TODAY IN 2022 WHEN I HAVE MY 93 COBRA OUT I GET A LOT OF LOOKS.

[@jaycobyhyde2742]

THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE 2.3L CONTENT!!!! Lol!! Yesssssssss!!!

[@N-Scale]

2.3 is great and do not make any excuses for the great looking Stang !!!!!

[@gr8tfoxes617]

It is great you guys are putting it all on the dyno. Really answering the mysteries of what different cars make. Awesome!!!

[@cyclonekevin6199]

That’s a clean coupe.

[@jaycobyhyde2742]

That thing is BEAUTIFUL!!!

[@moklock]

Back in 2001 bought a ‘90 2.3 to learn manual. Was my education on how to work on cars. It was not fast by any means but was impressed on how well it would accelerate being used to a tractor like GM 2.5L in the square body S-10 I learned to drive on

[@21camaleonte]

I love the 2.3 engine... that would be nice to see the evolution... ignition and injection maps... all the secrets !!!

[@SaveAmerica-TRUMP2024]

Why would you love an engine that only makes 90hp and gets at best 26mpg? LoL

[@GoGoggansGo]

@@SaveAmerica-TRUMP2024because they probably believe it’s the same engine in the Ecoboost lmfao till this day i get people that say it’s the same engine like yeah no it’s not lmfao

[@maicondicasetutoriais387]

​@@SaveAmerica-TRUMP2024 Midget and mini stockers are making 290hp with the iron heads out there, and they sound good. There are some turbo dragster with 900hp with iron heads too. Its not that bad, after you mess with it of course.

[@aturboford1]

@@SaveAmerica-TRUMP2024it made more hp with less weight that the 5.0s in the SVO. The 2.3 slander will not be tolerated 😂

[@331Grabber]

​@@SaveAmerica-TRUMP2024 My 1986 SVO GOT 29 MPG when I drove it nice.

[@dr.jellyfinger8132]

That exhaust welding @1:18 👌

[@vonnsnyder2481]

🤣

[@spencerleeb]

Ray Charles did it with his feet.

[@latemodelrestoration]

BRO 💀

[@msk3905]

Ha yeah right what a mess

[@aswadmalik1740]

Im about to restore a 4 banger myself! Thanks for the ideas.

[@hankashworth1969]

I had the 4 banger in my mustang the 93 hatch back

[@muleoutpost8156]

I've wanted one of these for a LONG time. I have fast rigs. A summer daily is what I need.

[@edster6901]

Heek yeah that's a very nice 4 banger coupe in the right color combo yes keeping it with a rear turbo i hopes you go all out on suspension stance and braking chassis or leave at is either way its a sweet ride 👍👍

[@hotrodray6802]

I had a new 80 Mustang hatch 2.3 ac, at I had a new 82 Capri hatch 2.3 ac, 4 spd stick OD. Each got 24 mpg at 55 mph and did 0-60 in 20 seconds. My 85 XR4Ti was a superior vehicle in every way except got 21 mpg on premium TOPS. LOVED IT. Four drunk teens hit me head on and that retired the XR.... My favorite car that needed a 5.0 HO swap 👍👍

[@SVTAdamSVT]

That is one cool notch! To be honest I had no idea you were making a pull.. was waiting to hear it open up lol.. I'd keep the 2.3 too.. makes it more special.

[@expels]

rear mount turbo..? tell this man to document that cause he wildin. working on a turbo coupe swap for my 2.3, first head was cracked. Waiting to hear back on this second one.

[@Kirk_Lazarus97]

Hey I have a 89 r banger and I've been waiting for a video like this

[@aaronliddell4280]

Gorgeous coupe, I’d just leave it as is 👍

[@gt1982mustang]

Sweet! I have a 93 LX Reef Blue Hatch 2.3 5speed which was originally sold in Texas, now in Cali. Mine will prob always be 2.3, since I have a 90GT Hatch & obviously 82GT(hence my user name). The 93 is a fantastic car except for the stupid double clutch cable. Please post a vid once the turbo is installed and show what parts are needed...I might be interested in buying the same setup from you guys! Thanx for the great vid!

[@Gunsforfreedom]

Back in 2000 I had a 1993 Calypso 5.0 hatch. It was originally owned by a Ford tech. It had most of the Ford Racing catalog installed on it. Headers, gears, cam, GT40 intake and heads. etc..miss that car everyday!

[@Dabber422]

Want to see more of this build after the rear mount turbo

[@musclecargarage8882]

Nice i just got me a 92 lx coupe with a 4 banger that's going to be my daily driver.

[@Jella-ji6pi]

That’s my plan as well, gotta few more minor issues and then we’re on the road

[@musclecargarage8882]

@Jella-ji6pi Nice I end up doing the 2.3 ecoboost swap to it now

[@Jella-ji6pi]

How much power does the eco boost have

[@musclecargarage8882]

@@Jella-ji6pi 270 to 310 horsepower and 310 to 350 pound-feet of torque.

[@Black_GTcs5.0]

@@musclecargarage8882 I would love to have more power in my Foxbody, but it’s hard to get parts in Germany. An EcoBoost swap would be possible, but then the car wouldn’t be street legal anymore. Are there any alternatives? Is the EcoBoost swap very complex?

[@302hobronco]

I would deff daily that. Especially with today's fuel prices

[@A.S.00662]

I saw one of these on marketplace for 8k and it looked very tempting especially in today's market and prices. A foxbody is definitely one of those dream cars I might not be able to find in decent shape when I have the money :/

[@njseashorechas2698]

Great find! I cant wait to see the turbo results. I'm considering a 4cyl convertible.

[@starek1701]

I have a 1993 2.3 Turbo, with the original engine, internals and no intercooler. Feels like a 5.0! However the T5 transmission for 2.3 is not strong enough.

[@RaindropConstruction]

I've got a 93 Calypso 4 banger lowered 2" all around and it handles SO WELL, way better then the 5.0

[@Jella-ji6pi]

Just got started on our 2.3 93 fox , thanks for the info

[@davidkilner207]

I have a 93 hatch, 2.3l, a4ld combo. Red on red. Currently doing a sn95 suspension swap. With stock sn spring and KYB struts and shocks, slotted rotors and ceramic pads and low buck 245/45r17 tires, it handles like its on rails. Plan on swapping the trans, head, intake, exhaust, adding an intercooler and a lighter front clip. This thing should be fun and not out of gear in a block anymore.

[@Mustang5L5]

Kept thinking to myself when the car was rolling on the dyno. “When is he going to jump on the throttle” Then I realized he already did

[@derrickkimsey1921]

please keep us up-to-date whenever he puts this boost on there also is there prochargerror Supercharger kits for this type of engine

[@Tigerfire75]

Fox bodies with a 2.3l turbo are fun. I have a 88 Thunderbird turbo coupe

[@MustangGuy6501]

Awesome I wish yall had some 2.3 engine parts, I could have mine built with Brew2ls giveaways lol

[@Jella-ji6pi]

I’m gonna con him into lowering my 2.3 stand just watch 😂😂😂

[@joshc606]

I have to say, I even like seeing this haha

[@themrfabio2459]

Beautiful car

[@R.Es1]

Fellas, awesome vid. Question, How could one add significant HP to these 1990- 1993 LX 4Cyl 2.3L Automatic Stangs? What can be done to the stock engines without extreme mods. Can it be tuned?

[@latemodelrestoration]

Thanks for watching! I'll shoot you straight, we're not well-versed in 2.3L performance. I'd poke around on the Internet or join some dedicated 2.3L Facebook groups for more info. -Landan

[@robertlachmayer7460]

I got 93 rag top 2.3 same color. Everyone gives me thumbs up

[@2.3fox]

I was told if you put a turbo in a 2.3 it can wear down the engine real bad and most likely break it.. true or false

[@BraveBlueSnowTundra94GP]

Very likely it would be a harsh truth.

[@brianclifford9597]

A 2.3 l 4 cylinder is better than it having a Chevy motor

[@latemodelrestoration]

PREACH

[@jeffschwartz5199]

So would a Hamster 🐹 on a wheel

[@that_one_dude_3541]

If you think this is better than an LS then you’ve never sat in a chevy

[@tacticalidiot175]

@@that_one_dude_3541 any engine that doesn't belong to the car's brand is blasphemy

[@flyingpancake7790]

What rear came in 93 4 bangers?

[@joshup1275]

Gonna do any mods to it if so love to see dyno numbers n mods

[@jimmyprater7546]

Our Chump car 2.3 made 151HP NA, my SVO should make 500 HP at the wheels, 67mm turbo, 3.1 Tall Deck block, Esslinger SVO head, love the 2.3

[@Blowntricycle]

Did u have to use spacers to run them wheels on front ? I just bought a set from u guys today for a 92 4 cylinder

[@slandrum7350]

I've been messing with the 2.3 turbo for 10 years now. That n/a motor is going to crack the ring lands or spit rods at 7-8 psi not worth the trouble. Going to need a forged short block from a turbocoupe/xr7/svo. Mines been holding 20 psi for years now on 93 octane. Its quick but still sounds like a pist off tractor

[@Justdriv3]

The rods are the same n/a to turbo. The pistons in n/a are the only difference being cast.

[@ohc23001]

I hate to be one of those guys who disagrees for no reason, but you are incorrect in this case. I have been building/ boosting these engines for decades now. The bone stock engine with cast pistons, holds up just fine under boost if you know how to tune your engine. I have a 93 2.3 hatch, daily driven, 186K on original engine, 14 PSI through a Borg Warner S200SXE. everyone assumes it's a V-8. I'd love to see a conversion of that coupe.

[@slandrum7350]

@@ohc23001 how much timing are you running at 14lbs? Batch fire or sequential?

[@johnmcmullen456]

The 2.3T short block was same as regular block, other than having a boss provision for turbo oil return line fitting and forged pistons. Crankshaft & rods were not different.

[@thewiseguy3529]

Jarred was wrong lol 😆 Good job jarred 👍🏼

[@aaronburratwood.6957]

I got one of these sitting out back but it’s a hatch and a little worse for wear.

[@Fredness2300]

1989 2.3L A4LD 70.1HP 100.1TQ But that's a slider cam, distributor, square-toothed timing belt, single plug head, Speed Density set up.

[@Slowgroovin]

80's SVO setup would be nice in it.

[@dcgellin2221]

does LMR have svo mustang stuff for the turbo 2.3l

[@camerond8176]

Take out the 2.3L, fully build it with XR4 performance parts, boost it hard an smoke the 5.0's all day long while sipping E85 or 94 cotane.

[@aceburgers8801]

When you guys gettin in the chrome 03 cobra wheel reps?

[@latemodelrestoration]

Hi Chris, Give us a call at 1-866-507-3786 or email us with the link below and a Customer Care Representative can assist you with finding the ETA: lmr.com/contact

[@SimonCas]

I’ve got a clean 2.3 coupe with a sunroof and no power options. Drag pack version of the 2.3 lol

[@brianespo22]

Looks clean

[@flawedchemical]

I’ve got a 2020 Performance Pack 2.3 car I could bring down and dyno to see the evolution of the breed haha.

[@Iowa599]

Omg...😂 I didn't know those were so slow! i knew it was the slowest Mustang, but I didn't realize they also made less power than a 1988 base model Honda Civic!

[@johnmcmullen456]

Only about 80 horsepower down from a stock same year GT. Add an intercooled SVO turbo and this lighter 2.3 LX will out run and out handle a stock GT.

[@TheBigred1781]

Maybe I've missed it, but have they done a SVO or turbocoupe?

[@RogerRabbitt]

Think they've done an svo

[@latemodelrestoration]

Yup! Here's the link to the SVO: kzbin.info/www/bejne/sJ_Rlopjn9ech5o

[@NoName-tz5ji]

After the turbo you might wanna think about changing the rear end to an 8.8 as the 7.5 will not like the torque.

[@davidkilner207]

My 93 ran 12 psi with 0 issues with the rear. Adjustable regulator is a must though.

[@lukassonntag3956]

Should do the twin spark swap

[@Philminator]

4 cylinder or V8 doesn't bother me. I'm actually looking for a 4 banger fox body that I can use as a daily driver, and cruise around my area at 4am when I wake up. It will be quiet, won't draw attention, and I won't need to fill up every 2 hours lol.

[@seansweeney7721]

Love it

[@nathanlopez5667]

This is not terrible if you think about it the 1980 to 1981 Mustang that was equipped with the 4.2 L V8 only made 115 or 120 HP

[@pipcop]

I just have to ask , why do say "pound/feet" of torque instead of "Foot Pounds" ??

[@latemodelrestoration]

There is a scientific answer that explains this. In a nutshell, pound-foot (feet) is a measurement of torque. Foot-pounds is a measurement of work. -Landan

[@fredfuchs3573]

I had a 89 lx send it was slow as shit but it had a t5 in it 😁😁

[@dwaynesurratt]

Ecoboost swap it

[@justincredible6236]

Want to trade for my 02 GT convertible??? I have been trying to find one of those.

[@stuffandjunkandthings364]

I have always wanted to see what a 2.3 would do with a positive displacement supercharger.

[@johnmonroe961]

MY GAWD ALL THE HURST POWAZ!!!!

[@nadx1000]

my dad bought a 4 speed manual 1985 4 banger new, took my first hot girl friend around in it everywhere, even went to prom in (in 87) that thing, good times, ---had the manual sun roof too, it had the light blue paint, seems like it was a different color than this , not sure

[@latemodelrestoration]

Cool story! The blue you're referring to in 1985 was called Light Regatta Blue, which is different than the car in the video. The car in the video is painted Calypso Green. -Landan

[@nadx1000]

@@latemodelrestoration yes, when I saw it I knew they were different colors, really like the Calypso color as well

[@battldogeurmum698]

Strapping that car down is like bolting a t56 behind an iron duke 💀

[@briandunphy5244]

Who painted it, tint is waaaay off.

[@nathanieljones7981]

Guess he doesn't realize that the stock 2.3 in the car will blow apart if he adds a turbo. Needs a 87-8 turbo coupe motor.

[@ohc23001]

Not true

[@nathanieljones7981]

@@ohc23001 very true.

[@johnmcmullen456]

If stay on conservative side with boost a healthy stock 2.3 should be fine. It is a tough engine. At above 9 lbs would recomnend forged pistons. The key for survival with any turbocharged engine is having proper air/fuel ratio at all times to avoid detonation.

[@nathanieljones7981]

unless you spend alot of money, you will get maybe 145 hp. with the non forged engine@@johnmcmullen456

[@MrBlackbutang]

Ground shaker. 2.3 beats Honda any day of same year

[@rynev3392]

Needs a Cam

[@johnmcmullen456]

Instead of going the turbo route, just a header, larger exhaust, and bigger cam will add noticable kick to a 2.3 but likely would require some ECM tuning for those 8 spark plug engines. On my 4 spark plug 1988 2.3 with the speed density system, the work around was using a MSD timing computer instead of the ECM for spark control. Worked great. The quest for still more power however drove me to a turbo conversion. No regrets.

[@City-hellcat-monkey-theft]

My dad got a speeding ticket in one of these💀

[@my1vice]

A set of "5.0" badges for the sides and call it good.... LoL Call it a homage to all of the folks that actually did that in the 80's.

[@Jella-ji6pi]

Definitely what I’m doing to mine, badges , fake dual exhaust. The poser !!!

[@davidperry8046]

Crazy how the old 2.3 had 100hp and the new 2.3 has 300hp? Why? lol

[@SaveAmerica-TRUMP2024]

I love the old notch back fox mustangs but not with the 2.3L🤢. Im sorry but with specs like 90hp and only 26 mpg. Its neither powerful or economic. Id 86 that 4 banger with the quickness.

[@jucedcustoms2274]

swap that hog give it wings!

[@thewiseguy3529]

Less power than my Suzuki Sidekick 1.6L 16Valve 4 cylinder.

[@Tizen]

lol rip that motor. they aren't made to handle turbo 💀

[@unicornsteaks6769]

It would be better to find a 2.3 turbo than to turbo an NA 2.3.

[@RaindropConstruction]

They'll handle 3-5 psi just fine

[@Khalidsvt101]

they barely move 😂

[@i-tiyahman6519]

Imposter

[@packhousetv]

No power, the 2.3 was pathetic and a huge mustake on fords part. The 3.8 vs would have made a lot more sense. More power and the same gas mileage. . I’m sure some jerk will want to LS swap it after the owner sells it.

[@musclecargarage8882]

2.3 was slow but good on gas and if anything was a mistake i would say it was the A4LD transmission.

[@midnight347]

They're very good cars. The 2.3 was a very good and long lasting engine. It wasn't meant for performance this was the version that was cheaper and better mpg. It would not get better mpg with a 3.8 and honestly at this time power prob wouldn't have been that much more. They're rated at 105 hp while 94 3.8s were 150 hp. Not like it's a super massive difference in power. Little more powerful but little less mpg.

[@nathanlopez5667]

It's too bad they did away with the V6 after 1986 they really should have kept it the car at least would have had 145 150 horsepower which would be decent considering how light the car was

[@johnmcmullen456]

A stock 3.8 would be decent if paired with a manual trans. Not sure if that combo was offered in a fox body.

[@heroknaderi]

Love it