2.3 vs 2.6?
 

Is there a noticeable difference between these two engines as far as power, performance, smoothness, reliability, etc etc. . Is it worth holding out for a 2.6 over the 2.3? Just curious...

Thanks!

2.3 is very good for a 4cyl

From my experience (1987 2.3 manual and auto, 1990 2.6 manual and auto, same rear end ratios):

2.3 (auto and manual) feels quicker off the line than the 2.6 auto, but I never timed any of them. By 35MPH or so, they basically felt even. The 1987 had the 130hp version; some earlier years (84, 85/86?) had a lower-compression version.

2.6 definitely has better mid- and top-end power; very noticeable when RPMs are about 3500 and higher, which happened more often than I expected. Much smoother IMO, from idle to redline, and sounds better too.

Fuel usage: not a huge difference between the two engines.
The only major difference I can think of as far as maintenance is that the headgasket is a more common problem on the 2.6.

2.6 manual is the way to go, IMHO, though I was surprised by the fun factor of the 2.3 manual.

Unless you get a 2.3-16v, now that's a real whopper!! Winner against the 2.6 and 2.3 standard hands down! :y