I certainly hope the 2.3L has come a long ways since the one I had in my 1988 Mustang (I see it now has a turbo). That 88 Mustang with 2.3L was a slow freaking turd of a car. I previously had a 74 Pinto that was a turd too, but still outperformed the Mustang. I assume it was the manual transmission as well as lighter weight.
Pretty much any of my motorcycles I have ever owned except for my little ones (<500cc) would’ve run circles around that Mustang. I think even the old Honda 450 Nighthawk could’ve bested the Mustang. I have a Suzuki DR650 (air-cooled thumper) that would kill the Mustang and it’s geared for gravel.
I have a 2.0L turbo in my 2013 Focus ST and it’s much faster than my old 1991 Mustang GT with the 302 5.0L V8. The Mustang GT looked and sounded better though and probably had as much torque.
The modern 2.3 4-cylinder turbo Mustangs perform quite well from everything I’ve seen, they just don’t sound good. From what I’ve read the 1980s SVO Mustangs had a turbo 4 and they were pretty decent.
Neither of those will touch a Mustang. The Nighthawk had a published 1/4 mile time of 14.55 seconds. A DR650 is a dual sport with a carbureted single cylinder thumper engine like my KLR. I couldn’t find official 1/4 mile times for it, but lots of commentary online pegs it around the same as your Nighthawk - around 14.5 seconds. Maybe a touch faster.
A Mustang with the Ecoboost 4cyl in it does the 1/4 mile in 13.5 seconds. The Mustang GT with the 5.0L Coyote V8 does the 1/4 mile in 12.6 seconds, which is seriously fast. You’ll need a high powered sport bike to beat it. For those not familiar with 1/4 mile times, there is a huge difference between 14.5 and 13.5, and an even bigger one between 13.5 and 12.5. Lots of cars can do 14.5, including many family cars.
You remember your bikes as being really fast because they feel much faster than cars at the same speed,or acceleration level.
I was referring to them being faster than that 1988 naturally aspirated 2.3L mustang, not the newer turbo version.
And those very low powered (I think both in the 40hp range), air-cooled, low tech motorcycle times are within 1 second of the new 2.3L turbo version Mustang? I’d say that is impressive!
Yep, it was an embarrassment to the Mustang name. Edit to add: It was free to me. Never would’ve paid money for it. I did pay money for a 1970 VW Bug though which was even slower. I also had a Datsun B610 which was the slowest of the lot (also free).
I’ve a long history of underpowered slow cars. Did I mention I also had an MG, a Subaru (naturally aspirated boxer) and a Plymouth Reliant? Narrator: It was reliant on replacement head gaskets.
“Anyone who takes any vehicle over 150 mph on a public road is suicidal or stupid.“
I guess you can put me on the ‘stupid’ list. On a stretch of remote Arizona highway I took my bike to over 160 mph. It’s less dangerous than you think, because of the bike’s acceleration. From 60 to 160 to 60 took maybe 15 seconds, so there was very little exposure to high speeds. I was surprised how uninteresting it was, just lots of wind noise. There were no critters or potholes and like you, I wear all the gear, all the time. The bike can do 190+, so 160+ for a few seconds wasn’t stressing it.
OTOH, 160+ on a track is very intimidating. Long straights are always followed by a turn. Even a wide sweeping turn looks scary when approached at such speeds. The turn is approaching so fast it seems impossible to shed enough speed to stay on track. I find it hard not to brake too soon.
Yep, acceleration is more invigorating than speed, easily. 120 or so for an extended time when one is on an empty, straight freeway with a vehicle that can do it comfortably is boring as hell. Might as well be doing 75 for all of the excitement it provides. 14 seconds or so on a drag strip in a car that won’t break 110 in that stretch is much more invigorating. On an autocross track, getting to 60MPH would make you feel like you’re on the edge of disaster, because you’ve got to slow down to something like 15MPH or less to make the next corner.
Well said. A vehicle’s top speed is an almost useless metric. It’s ability to accelerate, turn, and stop? That’s where the fun is.
What cars have you autocrossed? I’m often tempted to buy an old Miata and try it out.
I used to autocross a MINI S, these days I run a Subaru BRZ. The Miata/MX-5s are very popular choices, with good reason.
My only bit of advice to give is to check where the car you want to buy is being classed before you buy it - and the wrong modifications to the car (for instance, just about any engine tuning) can get you into a class against prepared race cars pretty quick. On the other hand, if you don’t care if your competitive, you can get stuck in one of those classes and still run.