I’d call the Fox Body Mustang, such as this 1988 LX notchback, one of the great performance stories of the post-muscle car (’64-’72) era. Reasonably priced, reliable, and fast is how these cars rolled, especially the more restrained LX trim version outfitted with Ford’s venerable 5.0 liter V8 engine. Finding an unmodified example such as this feature car is tantamount to the Hunt for Red October – they’re elusive. OK, it’s 35 years old and has spun up 104K miles but it certainly doesn’t look it, so let’s check it out and see if we can figure out the secret to its success. Located in Wakefield, Rhode Island, this pony is available here on eBay for a current bid of $15,900 with the reserve not yet met. There is a BIN option of $21,000 available too.
The Fox-Bodied Mustang (’79-’93) was a breath of fresh air. After the experiment with the Mustang II (yes, I know they sold well), the Fox was a return to Mustang’s roots. They weren’t real inspiring at first but by the mid-’80s they were showing some chutzpah. Starting in ’87, there were no more V6 engines, just a four-holer and a V8 spread across two flavors, LX and GT. The LX featured a wheezy but dependable four-cylinder engine while the GT was V8 only. However…the LX trim was eligible for the V8 powerplant as an option and that’s what’s under this Ford’s hood, a 225 net HP 5.0 liter (302 CI) engine. While the engine appears to be stock and original, except for the spark plug wires, there’s no description of its running/driving characteristics. A five-speed manual transmission puts the grunt to the rear wheels.
The listing claims, “Rare Factory Delete – A/C, Rear Defrost, Power Windows” and that’s just disingenuous. Those items were all options and the original purchaser just didn’t select them – nothing was “deleted”. The standard LX interior does present quite well and its condition belies this car’s age and usage. Light gray fabric upholstery is a tough arrangement to keep presentable but that hasn’t been a problem here – clean is the word! The dash in this generation of Mustang is plasticky and a bit cheap looking but it’s certainly functional and well laid out. I owned a ’92 LX and other than the steering wheel, there are no discernable differences – this one takes me back.
As for the Dark Gray Metallic finish, no worries! The seller mentions some chipped paint and a minor roof dent but it doesn’t show in the eBay images. While it’s not said, I imagine this car has spent most of its life garage-domiciled while it has been well-maintained. The black rubber circumferential rub strips were not yet painted body color in ’88 and in this case, they show well with no sign of fade, curling, or splits.
As stated at the outset, it’s tough to find a Fox Body Mustang from this era that hasn’t been hacked, and as is often the case, poorly modified. This is an original and well-documented car, finding another in this shape would be a tough row to hoe, wouldn’t you agree?
Say what you will, but by this time the 2.3 actually was a pretty nice little engine, at least with a stick. Our son actually was in the market for one last year, thought it might be nice in convertible form. Only found a few and they were trashed, apparently many of the four cylinder models got turned into V8s. Sound familiar? Our son could afford a V8, he is a Mayo Clinic pharmacist with a PHD (RPH), but like his father, understands that base engines almost always make more sense. He will probably go with a Miata, but he said he wanted something a little older and more unique.
If eighty eight horsepower out of 2.3 liters is your idea of a “well developed engine” you’re welcome to it.
Thank God that the 3.8 V6 in the followup SN95 car upped that to 140.
I am a GM guy but a buddy of mine had a Fox body just like this one and all he really did to it was he heavily ported the heads and the intake along with meticulous port matching, didn’t touch the bottom end and that woke that car up DRASTICALLY! To the point where I really had to admit it was darned quick and on the strip it was welldeep into the 11s! There is a whole lot of potential in a car like this!
I know guys with PHD’s that wouldn’t know a dip stick from their rear end. If you enjoy getting passed by old ladies in Buick SUV’s? That 2.3 is your ticket.
🤣😂
I have had a 5.0 convertible for over 20 years. I also regularly use one of the fastest production motorcycles ever built and they only go as fast as you push the pedal or turn the grip, so the get a four banger because you will otherwise end up a cadaver is crap. Quite frankly I have numerous vehicles with “BASE” engines and to put it in perspective some won’t get out of their own way. Who knows I am not some high fooluten PHD, just a punch clock slub that has been driving other people’s big engined gas hog junk but hey I have never had a car payment or had to walk.
I certainly don’t have that expensive piece of paper hanging on the wall, either. But, The 4 banger Mustang is a hundred times safer than a Miata. When some high school grad in his “high powered” car, punts you into the ditch. Go figure.
Understands nothing clearly. A 4 banger mustang was awful. I know. I owned one. I Would’ve traded mine for a cinder block. At least I know what those are good for.
lol, you share my love for the 2.3. I believe it’s only real purpose in life was to weld a chain to it and use it as boat anchor.
I have been watching the comments back and forth and thought I would offer my experience.
Before my wife became my wife, she owned an ’81 Mustang notchback with a 2.3 liter engine and a four-speed manual transmission. I drove the car often and it sounded like a pea thrasher and drove like a garden tractor – it was basically a crude experience. It was real unreliable as well – something was always wrong with it. Her sister owned an ’82 Capri with the same powertrain – drove the same, sounded the same, etc.
Fast forward several years and I bought a ’92 5.0 liter, five speed manual, LX convertible Mustang – an obvious night and day difference in driving experience. And while it was quick, it wasn’t ridiculous – say Hellcat fast, as in placing an irresponsible driver in constant peril.
I thought it odd that Ford had nixed the inbetweeny V6 for the years between ’87 and ’93 but understand it was done for CAFE compliance. Whatever the reason, the 5.0 was definitely the way to go – it made the Mustang a Mustang.
JO
I too had the 1981 2.3L coupe with an auto (my winter beater) and one day I “raced” a 1988 2.3. The reality of the situation was, only two people knew we were racing, myself and him lol. Two turds wide open throttle for like 40 seconds, side by side struggling to hit 70mph in quite possibly the saddest speed contest ever. The 1992 is of the twin plug variety 2.3, I have no experience with that particular powerhouse.
🤣😂
Keep in mind. Most you will find on the marketplaces & craig’s lists are always suspicious. That one is complete that’s listed. As is said one man’s clunker is another man’s cadillac! It’s what a seller is willing to take and a buyer is willing to pay. The V-8s were quick & fun to drive. A relative had the 1988 Convertible stang wore it out with over 200,000 on it! Don’t see them these days, most met the crusher.
The 2.3 was a junk motor. Had one in my ’79 Capri also a guy had one in his ’79 Capri. We both had to have camshaft and lifters replaced because the camshaft lobes wore down to nothing. Not only that, the power was non-existent.
Appears to be a nice clean, bare bomes sedan. Has the ghost car 🚨 look in grey.
These stripped notches were arguably the strongest runners of the era. 13 sec 1/4 miles were easy with a 1/4 tank of 93 unleaded, 16 deg of timing, k&N with silencer delete, iced intake, and front sway bar disconnected. There was more to be had using slicks. Love this car!
Ti each his own
5-5.0 with AC is a nice set up
Very clean Mustang with 104,000 + on it! You can’t tell it’s soooo nice! If the engine was detail you would think it had 4,000 miles on it. But I think I saw this for sale a long time ago. I remember no AC on it. Manual window’s and no rear defogger. It’s worth $21,000 BIN price. I would love to have this in my driveway. But it not convertible and my wife wants one. Told her someday.. I would add AC with that kit they offer. Today you need AC. I was really surprised it was ordered without one. Well it didn’t hit the reserved yet. 2 days to go. Good luck to the next owner… 🐻🇺🇸
Better get to it. The convertibles are very scarce or are ragged out! 35 + year old cars are meeting the crusher everyday. Cars worth restoring are becoming so scarce, the ones that you do find for sale in decent shape the seller wants a fortune for em. Good luck finding a prestine convertible priced within reason. Lol.
The cheapest way to go fast in 1988. But, I don’t understand taking away all the creature comforts, then putting 104,000 miles on it. If it was a 1/4 mile car from the jump? Sure. But it doesn’t seem to be.
Yeah A/C delete with the hottest earth temperatures on record means buyers delete to me!
Apparently you don’t recall the 1930s in America.
He must believe in the “make it up” media.
Who knows what the mileage really is, as the original speedometer is gone. The “paint chips” are actually paint flake. Charcoal, and shadow blue had adhesion problems and comes off in chunks. Needing paint and a seat cover (burn hole) which is faded, so good luck matching that, I’d say the ask is a bit much, or at least an inspection before purchase.
One day, someone will be offended by the current liberal use of the term “Unmolested”.
I had an 89 Notchback like this in a 1 year only color called tropical yellow. Mine had A/C and power windows. 5 speed. The window price was $13,600. That’s what people were paying for a Ford Taurus then. It was a great car! First year of Mass Air. The stock 87/88’s had speed density so the were just a bit quicker. However, Mass Air made the conversion to supercharging easier. In short, the exhaust was opened up a bit, a Paxton Supercharger installed, and 355 ford gears. It was a blast to drive, stone cold reliable-never a problem, and did well on gas. Also, 89 was the first year for stock 140 speedometer. The performance bargain of the decade by far. Good luck to the new owner!
Ugly design. Nothing special about this era of mustang. Many moreDesirable cars out there.
To Big Schwag, I guess that video we all saw of the 130 degree temperature reading in Death Valley is made up then?
May as well get in, as this car is so much like mine, except mine was an automatic. To review, I hated that car. While we as Americans are spoiled rotten in the A/C department( Phoenix wouldn’t exist without it), growing up we never had A/C in anything, and to this day, I can’t spend a lot of time in A/C. For this car, it’s actually a merit, no A/C, as many may remember MY experience with it. Mine needed a heater core, and the non-A/C models had a small access door. The A/C equipped ones, the dash has to come out. Well, they didn’t know who they were dealing with, and me and Mr. Sawzall made short work of that job. Very poorly designed car, fact is, ANY work was a nightmare, uncomfortable, no back seat room, front heavy, handling in the scary sector, and winter? Forgetaboutit. When I had it advertised, a guy asked if it was a notchback, when I said yes, he was there in 15 minutes. He planned on drag racing it, about all they are good for, if you trust 4 bolt wheels at 146 mph( a Neb. trooper was clocked at), that is. My next Mustang was a ’95, and ironically, I loved that car. It was a V6, but was everything this car wasn’t. No sir, most LEOs hated the car too, with its unpredictable handling, and if anyone puts any credibility in what I say, and I rarely say this, but these cars were awful and a stern warning to anyone considering one.
Good article I had a 88 m stang 2.3l 5 speed stick, no ac, crank windas. Has anyone seen a 2.3 l swap from a t bird turbo coupe??