2.3 vs straight six for my build

Im still trying to decide on what I want to do with my 68 coupe and thought Id get some ideas from yall. As it sits right now I have a mopar built for drags so I want to keep the mustang as an open road cruiser. That and the fact that my grandfather bought it new and it has 56k original miles on it. Its a 200 c4 car. Right now the tranny is out of the car with a broken converter, I have the conversion parts from a granada for the front disc brakes and know of an 8.8 rear coil and disc brake setup sitting needing a home. Otherwise the car is just sitting.

Now here is my delemia: Im a turbo guy and want it to be a little different so do I spend the time and $ to upgrade the 200 and accessories and run a turbo on the straight six, while keeping the C4 or do I find a doner SVO or turbo coupe and swap in the 2.3 motor, t5, and rearend. with the SVO set up Im able to pull 250hp after a few little tweaks plus a fuel injected 30 mpg with 5 speeds of highway driving. With the straight six its still a straight six and a bit less drastic change on a classic low mile but not rare and expensive mustang. The c4 wont exactly be tapping out at highway speeds (gear dependent) and the 200 can handle the revs but it is a consideration. I'm never going to sell the thing seeing as it was my Grandfathers but I dont want to kill the value either. Not saying it would with the 2.3 but no matter what its not staying stock.

So toss out some thoughts!

-Sefus

skip finding a 2.3 Turbo donor car

just get a turbo header, some larger injectors, a bigger turbo, and a stock 2.3L non-dis wiring harness (you can even buy a stand alone harness) run it off a megasquirt. will cost more but will set you up for 300+hp.

unless you are wanting to do it on the REAL cheap....then toss in a 100K+ turbocoupe motor and call it done.

with the 2.3L you will need to convert the clutch linkage to either hydro or cable, find a rear sump pan and pickup (don't forget the dipstick tube too) rewire the car for EFI (including a fuel pump and lines), make motor mounts, convert to a cable throttle, fab exhaust, mount the air meter and airbox, and if you are using a newer turbo combo you will need to get a cable drive speedo setup,

or you could make up a J-pipe, bolt on a 350 holley, and run a blow thru 200.

OR you could get an aussie 250 six and do all the EFI work (but have the motor bolt in) and turbo it and make LOTS of power

My .02c

The 200 weighs almost the same as the 2.3L and has 60 extra cubic inches.

Remember the old saying "There's no replacement for cubic displacement"

There used to be more support for the 2.3L than the 200 but Mike opened up Classic Inlines and that has evened that up quite a bit.

That said the 200 hop up parts cost a bit more and you will ahve to fabricate a bit more.

That said the stock 200 log head and the stock 2.3L stock D port head flow similarly...like crap.

The Esslinger New Aluminum Street head which flows in the 220cfm range with porting will run about $1500.

The Classic Inlines Aluminum head will run about $1500 and has been tested to over 220cfm when ported.

You can modify your stock E6 EFI intake off a SVO to run on the Esslinger head. The Classic Inlines head would need the new intake to reach best power so add about $250-$300 more.

A 2.3L built easily hits 300hp. One of the guys here turbocharged a stock 3.3L still with the 1bbl carb and with IIRC about 20lbs boost was hitting well over 300hp. He was running 100LL Aviation gas in a bone stock worn out high mileage motor.

By keeping the 200 Inline six you will also keep the majority of the originality of the motor intact.

I think it depends on ultimate goals, budget (how fast do you wanna spend?) and skills.

putting in a 2.3L will take some fab skills (or equal amounts of greenbacks) just to get a motor and trans bolted in and working (turbo or not)

on turboford.net there is a guy finishing up his 1966 mustang 2.3L turbo build (he is doing final assembly right now) he converted to a mustang II front end. from what I have seen there is an issue with the shock tower and stock turbo location. there is a couple headers out for the rangers that moves the turbo forward to clear the AC box on the pickups and that MIGHT be the ticket for a mustang (I think there might still be a forward mount header out there too)

the 2.3L engine harness is not too bad but you will need to do ome major wiring on the mustang chassis to get it in (relay for fuel pump, keep alive memory, start, run, etc) but it can be done (I swapped a turbocoupe harness into my merkur when I had it. was a bit of work but with "extras removed (AC, EGR, fan controller, knock sensor) it lightened up the harness alot.

as mentioned they are pretty similar motors. the 2.3L has rods and pistons "off the shelf" for it. but also weighs more than a 200. the head flows a little better stock (not by much)

seriously look in a aussie 250. lighter than a 2.3, can be had in cabr or EFI, will bolt into your stang, aluminum head, clevland rockers, removeable intake and exhaust. They are not too pricey either. I picked up my EFI motor for $700 with a auto trans behind it and all the EFI junk there. I also picked up a carbed motor for $500 with a spare 4bbl intake and a C4 trans. I bought a 200 crossflow "donor motor" for $200 with a manual trans bell.

take that EFI motor...if i were to put a cam and header on it and rebuild it I would prob end up with less than I would in a 200 and make a bunch more power than a 200....even with having parts come from down under.

a stock 2.3 from a donor with a turbo and all in decent working shape (prob around 100K on it but still have life left) will run maybe $500-600. then you will have the work getting it in the mustang chassis.....could be a couple hundred more for that.

or you could sink it all in a 200. $1000 will go a long way (cam, header, carb, rockers)

an build will be cool as long as it is not a 302.

8) while i havent driven a turbo four, or a turbo six yet, i can tell you that in day to day driving the inline six is going to be the better choice. it is reliable, and you need a nuclear warhead to kill one, and even then you pop in a new set of points and condenser and a new battery and you are good to go.

my suggestion is spring for classic inlines aluminum head, build a turbo exhaust manifold, and use a turbo from a 2.3. i would use a megasquirt efi controller, and figure out how to install port six injectors in the intake. top it off with a good ignition and a proper cam, classic inlines has several good ones you can choose from. if you keep the boost under 10psi you can keep the stock pistons, if you want more boost get a set of forged pistons. set it up right and you can end up with a solid 250-300hp, good drivability, and around 25-30mpg.

Im not too worried about money and fabrication just what will be best for me. this project wont break the bank no matter what I do (its not a bank braking project) and I'll be able to fab up whatever.

I like the idea of the 200 or even aussie motor for ease of fitting and wiring, i like the 2.3 for the fact that its all there witha good aftermarket base and just up to me to make it fit. My buddy was into the SVOs a while back and we have a good merkur group in town but I was never too terribly impressed with the turbo coupe I drvoe for a week or so a while back. Right now Im leaning towards a FI turbo straight six with a five speed. Gotta figure out the FI and boost though. I casually looked into the aussie motors a while back but it seemed like a PITA with shipping and time. No offence to the guys who made it but for the price I cant see the numbers justification for the aluminum head on a US small six.

Keep the ideas comming everybody.

-Sefus

rbohm":351xpf8h said:

.....and you need a nuclear warhead to kill one,...

Click to expand...

Hmmmm....I guess Kelly's right foot is a ICBM!

Anyway Sefus,
Both engines are very good. We have them both. Although the 2.3 isn't quite running yet. And both of our's are turbo'd.
Personally, every vehicle should be turbo'd!

So it'll be just a matter of preference. The Classic Inlines aluminum head is a very nice piece and really does help the power.
The cost of building either would probably be close to the same.
A aluminum headed, 200 with a T5 and a 8" with 3.50-3.70 gear would be great fun on the street!

Later,
Will

you know will I never understood why the 200 family has head gasket issues under boost when the 2.3L crowd doesn't?

the 2.3L has a larger bore and still 4 bolts per cylinder

maybe it is the tank of a head it has on it and a thicker block deck?

I do know for being more compact it sure is a tank of a motor as far as weight goes.


back on topic.....

either motor option has it's custom work needs....

the six will bolt in but requires custom EFI work and same for turbo...

the 2.3L needs fab work to get in but is all pretty much bolt on EFI and turbo.

Coming from your Grandfather's car and you don't want to kill the value, no matter what you do it if it can be returned to stock it won't kill the value, but if you go fabricating, drilling holes, welding - you're going to ruin the originality of the car and I feel its value as well.

I go with the changes that involves the least fabrication and bolts in the easiest. Keep the hard to find original parts.

Good luck,

8)

I have reason to believe the 2.3L was also intended to be a industrial motor. My dad's forklift at Ford plant in Indianapolis had a 2.3L propane version and when I worked at Franks Nursery and Crafts back around 1990? we had a forklift that had a propane 2.3L

The 2.3L was commonly used in Europe in small Volvo corporate trucks for years and one of the Volvo DOHC 4cyl head models can be adapted to the Ford 2.3L, one guy named MIKESVOR was a running examples.

The head is a bolt on but need to match coolant ports and no one makes a kit with the DOHC belt pulleys and idlers and brackets. You ahve to fabricate teh front half of the motor.

Im thinking the industrial needs led to a overly strong block when used in cars. And the head flows so poorly since it was primarily used in low rpm street cars and low rpm commercial trucks and forklifts.

Hmm I'll say Im leaning towards the straight for ease of fabrication. The FI will be new to me, although Im sure I can get a hand with it (good HP car community around here), and not chopping and changing too awefully much on the car for value(ish) reasons. Any other ideas I havent thought of? Im not completely opposed to a v8 but since I just want it primarily as a cruiser with a bit more power I dont see the V8 as the best option. I dont have a spare GN motor anymore, what other swaps might be interesting?

In the end it will basically be a junk yard pro touring set up so the I6 still works for me. Dang, time to read up on megasquirt working with boost.

whats the word on the v6s they are putting into the latest generation mustangs?

IIRC they are 4.0L SOHC and are pretty nice, they make more power than a late 80's Fox Mustang.

There is a large following of people buying V6's as the car is cheaper and imsurance is cheaper and then dropping a supercharger on it.

For what you would pay for a good 4.0L V6, supercharger setup, HD parts you could build a sweet turbo inline six.

Anlushac11":1m1qfta6 said:

8)

I have reason to believe the 2.3L was also intended to be a industrial motor. My dad's forklift at Ford plant in Indianapolis had a 2.3L propane version and when I worked at Franks Nursery and Crafts back around 1990? we had a forklift that had a propane 2.3L

The 2.3L was commonly used in Europe in small Volvo corporate trucks for years and one of the Volvo DOHC 4cyl head models can be adapted to the Ford 2.3L, one guy named MIKESVOR was a running examples.

The head is a bolt on but need to match coolant ports and no one makes a kit with the DOHC belt pulleys and idlers and brackets. You ahve to fabricate teh front half of the motor.

Im thinking the industrial needs led to a overly strong block when used in cars. And the head flows so poorly since it was primarily used in low rpm street cars and low rpm commercial trucks and forklifts.

Click to expand...

up until they dropped the Lima 2.3L the local ford dealer had a stationary 2.3L on display at the parts counter. used a turbo exhaust manifold with a stack coming off it. was a dual plug motor with a carb and a govenor.

a nice trick was the drain valve in the water jacket under the exhaust manifold (the 200 has one there too)

sefus":20nibi18 said:

whats the word on the v6s they are putting into the latest generation mustangs?

Click to expand...

According to the Ford brochure for the current model:

4.0L SOHC V6
210 hp @ 5300 rpm; 240 lb.-ft. of torque @ 3500 rpm

2009 EPA-Estimated
Fuel Economy (mpg city/hwy.)
4.0L SOHC V6 engine –
Manual transmission .................................17/26
Automatic transmission ............................16/24

==============

Compare that to the current V8:

4.6L SOHC 3-valve V8
300 hp @ 5750 rpm; 320 lb.-ft. of torque @ 4500 rpm

2009 EPA-Estimated
Fuel Economy (mpg city/hwy.)
4.6L SOHC V8 engine –
Manual transmission .................................15/23
Automatic transmission ............................15/22

==============

There is also this:

Shelby GT500KR Coupe
5.4L supercharged, intercooled DOHC V8
540 hp @ 6000 rpm; 510 lb.-ft. of torque @ 4500 rpm

Frankly, the v6 looks like a good choice for most folks. It's got enough power to be fun to drive without costing you a fortune to insure, and gets reasonably decent fuel economy.

I kind of like the idea of the newer 4.0 v6 with a 5 speed. I wonder what it would weigh out to compared to our inlines. The configuration would probably be a bit tight but possibly do-able between the shock towers. I would hate to have to cut up the trans tunnel though if the tranny was a bit larger than what we can normally fit.

I just read 20 pages of CRAP on putting a 2.3 in a classic and just from the BS that wasnt related to the swap I dont want to do it.

Seems as though there are a handful of guys doing this swap. I just need to look at the money vs benefits (hp, mpg, weight/performance) of the 2.3 vs a turbo EFI I6.

Enjoy my suffering:
http://www.mustangforums.com/forum/clas ... ng-20.html

sefus":w9012jwi said:

I kind of like the idea of the newer 4.0 v6 with a 5 speed. I wonder what it would weigh out to compared to our inlines.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure, but given that the v6 uses aluminum cylinder heads and a "composite" (i.e. "plastic") intake manifold I strongly suspect it might be a bit lighter.

SEFUS, not to sound to obvious, but have you ever looked at the topic your posting under 144-250 ford performance. Maybe its just me, oh well.

Broncitis":1q3uc8eq said:

SEFUS, not to sound to obvious, but have you ever looked at the topic your posting under 144-250 ford performance. Maybe its just me, oh well.

Click to expand...

Find a better spot and contact a mod if it puts your skirt in a twist. Other wise Im getting ideas on things I havent thought of yet and didnt want it buried with no responces in some other forum.


As to the topic, Im pretty determined that whatever I do, I do not want to delete the shock towers so that might stick me with an inline right there. So right now Im thinking a 5spd backing a stock bottom end (maybe toss some ARP bolts in it) and then find the better cost to benefit of reworking the log manifold and stock head or pony up to the Aluminum for flow. Efficiency is always my goal but if a turbo on the reworked stock head will get me to a point Id be happy with, then I'd say thats the way to go. I guess trying to run the fuel injection will be easier with the AL head though.