Ford Tempo: Which Version Should You Choose?
The Ford Tempo catalogue data covers one generation, produced from 1983 to 1994 as a Coupe, with 18 modifications in the generation and 12 versions shown here. Because there is no later generation to compare, the buying decision comes down to engines, transmissions and drivetrains.
The Ford Tempo catalogue data covers one generation, produced from 1983 to 1994 as a Coupe, with 18 modifications in the generation and 12 versions shown here. Because there is no later generation to compare, the buying decision comes down to engines, transmissions and drivetrains. The main choices are the 2.0 MT and 2.0 AT Diesel versions with 52 hp, the 2.3 MT and 2.3 AT Gasoline versions with outputs from 86 to 102 hp, and the 3.0 MT Gasoline version with 132 hp. The 3.0 MT is the strongest version, while the 102 hp 2.3 MT and 2.3 AT specifications offer a middle ground and can include either FWD or AWD.
Ford Tempo generations
The only Ford Tempo generation in the data ran from 1983 to 1994 and used a Coupe body. It contains 18 modifications, of which 12 are represented in the supplied specifications. No separate restyling or second-generation entry is listed, so all the versions compared below belong to the same generation.
Ford Tempo engine and specs comparison
Repeated names identify distinct database entries, so power, torque, drive and weight are included to distinguish them. All listed engines have no boost.
| Version | Power | Torque | Displacement | Fuel | Cylinders | Layout | Boost | Gearbox | Drive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.3 AT, 99 hp | 99 hp / 73 kW | 168 Nm | 2307 cc | Gasoline | 4 | Inline | No | 3-speed Automatic | FWD |
| 2.3 AT, 102 hp, AWD | 102 hp / 75 kW | 176 Nm | 2307 cc | Gasoline | 4 | Inline | No | 3-speed Automatic | AWD |
| 2.3 MT, 99 hp, 1145 kg | 99 hp / 73 kW | 168 Nm | 2307 cc | Gasoline | 4 | Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
| 2.3 MT, 102 hp, FWD | 102 hp / 75 kW | 176 Nm | 2307 cc | Gasoline | 4 | Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
| 2.3 MT, 102 hp, AWD | 102 hp / 75 kW | 176 Nm | 2307 cc | Gasoline | 4 | Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | AWD |
| 2.3 AT, 102 hp, FWD | 102 hp / 75 kW | 176 Nm | 2307 cc | Gasoline | 4 | Inline | No | 3-speed Automatic | FWD |
| 3.0 MT, 132 hp | 132 hp / 97 kW | 204 Nm | 2986 cc | Gasoline | 6 | V-shaped | No | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
| 2.0 MT, 52 hp | 52 hp / 38 kW | not measured | 1998 cc | Diesel | 4 | Inline | No | 3-speed Manual | FWD |
| 2.0 AT, 52 hp | 52 hp / 38 kW | not measured | 1998 cc | Diesel | 4 | Inline | No | 5-speed Automatic | FWD |
| 2.3 MT, 86 hp | 86 hp / 63 kW | not measured | 2300 cc | Gasoline | 4 | Inline | No | 3-speed Manual | FWD |
| 2.3 AT, 86 hp | 86 hp / 63 kW | not measured | 2300 cc | Gasoline | 4 | Inline | No | 5-speed Automatic | FWD |
| 2.3 MT, 99 hp, 1175 kg | 99 hp / 73 kW | 168 Nm | 2307 cc | Gasoline | 4 | Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
The 3.0 MT produces 132 hp from 2986 cc, equal to about 44.2 hp per litre. The 102 hp engines produce about 44.2 hp per litre from 2307 cc, while the 99 hp versions deliver about 42.9 hp per litre. The 2300 cc, 86 hp engine makes about 37.4 hp per litre, and the 1998 cc Diesel produces about 26.0 hp per litre.
Among versions with measured torque, moving from a 99 hp 2.3 MT or 2.3 AT to a 102 hp specification adds 3 hp and 8 Nm. Choosing the 3.0 MT instead of a 102 hp version adds 30 hp and 28 Nm, while displacement rises by 679 cc. Compared with a 99 hp version, the 3.0 MT provides 33 hp and 36 Nm more from an additional 679 cc.
Ford Tempo performance and economy
Acceleration from 0–100 km/h is not measured for any listed Ford Tempo version. Fuel consumption in city, highway and combined driving is also not measured for every version, so the data cannot support an mpg ranking. CO₂ output and ecological class are not measured as well.
Top speed is measured for four entries. The 3.0 MT reaches 170 km/h. The 99 hp 2.3 MT reaches 165 km/h in both listed weight specifications, while the 102 hp 2.3 MT reaches 160 km/h with either FWD or AWD. Top speed is not measured for every 2.3 AT, the 2.0 MT, the 2.0 AT, the 86 hp 2.3 MT or the 86 hp 2.3 AT.
These measured figures do not form a simple power ranking: the 99 hp 2.3 MT is listed at 165 km/h, which is 5 km/h above the 102 hp 2.3 MT entries. Because acceleration and consumption are not measured, no broader performance or economy conclusion should be inferred from that difference alone.
Ford Tempo dimensions, weight and capacity
Every listed version has 130 mm of ground clearance and a 60-litre fuel tank. Wheel sizes are not measured for any version. Gross weight is not measured for any version.
Kerb weight is available for five entries. The 99 hp 2.3 MT is listed at both 1145 kg and 1175 kg in separate database entries. The 102 hp 2.3 MT weighs 1180 kg with FWD and also 1180 kg with AWD. The 3.0 MT weighs 1160 kg. Kerb weight is not measured for the remaining versions.
Using the measured values, the 3.0 MT has the strongest power-to-weight result at about 8.8 kg per hp. The 99 hp 2.3 MT works out to about 11.6 kg per hp at 1145 kg and about 11.9 kg per hp at 1175 kg. Both 102 hp 2.3 MT entries are about 11.6 kg per hp at 1180 kg. The 3.0 MT therefore carries roughly 2.8 kg less for each horsepower than the measured 2.3 MT alternatives.
Ford Tempo reliability and problems
Reliability, repair history and recurring problems are not measured in the supplied data. The specifications therefore cannot establish that the 2.0 MT, 2.0 AT, any 2.3 MT or 2.3 AT, or the 3.0 MT is more reliable than another. A purchase decision based on problems or maintenance risk requires evidence beyond this catalogue dataset.
Which Ford Tempo version should you buy?
Choose the 3.0 MT if the priority is the strongest measured specification. Its 132 hp and 204 Nm lead the range, its measured top speed is the highest at 170 km/h, and its 1160 kg kerb weight gives it the best calculable weight-to-power figure at about 8.8 kg per hp. It combines a 5-speed Manual gearbox with FWD.
Choose a 102 hp 2.3 MT when you want less displacement than the 3.0 MT while retaining measured torque and a 5-speed Manual gearbox. It provides 176 Nm, 8 Nm more than the 99 hp 2.3 MT. Both FWD and AWD entries are available, each with a measured kerb weight of 1180 kg and a listed top speed of 160 km/h.
Choose the 102 hp 2.3 AT if an Automatic gearbox matters more than measured performance data. The FWD and AWD specifications both provide 102 hp and 176 Nm through a 3-speed Automatic. Their top speed, acceleration, consumption and kerb weight are not measured, so they cannot be ranked against the Manual versions on those criteria.
Choose the 99 hp 2.3 MT if the measured 165 km/h top speed and 5-speed Manual suit the intended use. Both entries produce 168 Nm and differ in measured kerb weight: 1145 kg versus 1175 kg, a difference of 30 kg. The lighter entry consequently has the better calculated weight-to-power figure.
The 86 hp 2.3 MT and 2.3 AT sit below the 99 hp specifications by 13 hp and below the 102 hp specifications by 16 hp. Their torque, top speed, consumption and kerb weight are not measured. The choice between them is chiefly between a 3-speed Manual with FWD and a 5-speed Automatic with FWD, based strictly on the available fields.
Finally, the 2.0 MT and 2.0 AT are the only Diesel choices and share 52 hp from 1998 cc. The 2.0 MT uses a 3-speed Manual, while the 2.0 AT uses a 5-speed Automatic; both are FWD. With torque, acceleration, top speed and fuel consumption not measured, the data supports choosing them for their Diesel fuel type or transmission configuration, but not claiming an economy advantage.