mustang (89-93)?

I was planning to purchase a 5.0 liter GT or LX mustang coupe between 1989 - 1993 but I came across a 4 cylinder 2.3 liter mustang coupe. The owner is selling the car for $1200.00 cash firm. The car has 5 speed
manual trans and 99,000 miles on it. Are 4 cylinder mustangs around that era any good? Besides having smaller engine, is this car identical to the 5.0 liter mustangs? I live in southern california. Thanks alot in advance.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

A four cylinder Mustang is no where near the same car as a 5.0. If you want performance wait and get a 5.0.
Al
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Sounds like a good deal to me. The 4-Banger Mustang is reletively the same car by looks and handling, they're alright I guess, if you like 4-Bangers. Now a 5.0 Mustang now your talking.......But you should consider what the vehicle is going to be used for and what are your needs. If your tight on cash and only using it to go to work and back ...that sort of thing, then the 4 cyl. might a good choice...it's good bang for your buck. But........If you want to show off a little and be proud of what you're driving....oh and have lots of money for gas!, then go ahead, get a 5.0...its a real blast! (you wont regret it) Personaly those years are my favorite, but not the hatchback ones, just the trunk lid ones, 5.0 LX. what a beauty!
Have fun!

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You can't go wrong either way. From a guy who has both (for many years), here's the deal in a nutshell:
2.3L are impossible to destroy. At least the drivetrain anyway. The 2.3L varies from 89 horse (87-90) to 109 horse (91-93). either way, the performace is the same: not great. Mileage is in the low 20s around town and maybe 30 on the highway for a 5-spd. Basically, these cars don't get a lot of respect but who cares, they run forever and are cheap on gas and cheap to fix. The interior is practically identical to the 5.0Ls. except the seats are even crappier in the 2.3, if that is possible.
5.0Ls are a hoot, and the 302 is a solid runner for 300K if you take care of it. 300lbs of torque gets squirrelly real fast though if there is rain. You have to take it easy. The T-5 tranny is okay, just don't power shift it. The 8.8 rear has proven to be almost as good as the 9 inch. Again, they are easy to fix and cheap to get parts and if you want to make it faster, it's probably the easiest, cheapest car on the planet to do it to. Mileage is about 17 in the city, 25 on the highway (more if you have the 2.73 gears).That said, a lot of these cars have been bagged but clean ones can still be found. The interior is pretty cheap, just like the 2.3, but again, it's easy to repair.
I'll tell you, when I drive my 5.0 I say I'll just sell my 2.3, what's the point of keeping it around. But after a few days in the 2.3 I wonder if my 5.0L isn't just a toy, as 300lbs of torque is a little much just to drive to work with.
In the end, they're both good cars, but totally different. You just have to figure out if the performance is what you want.
Brad

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

money. I currently have a 93 2.3 convertible and I love using it as my everyday car, Handles nice, even in the rain and snow!. Driving the 5.0 I had every day became a bit tiring. Don't get me wrong, I loved the car, it's just for everyday driving it wasn't the best and it was always a little hairy in the rain and forget the snow, it just wouldn't go! Happy searching.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.