Ford 2.3L turbo motor
- Thread starter Crosley
- Start date
8) i havent played with a turbo 2.3, yet, but they are not much different from a normally aspirated 2.3, except for the lower compression ratio. check out http://www.turboford.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi and http://www.foxtbirdcougarforums.com/index.php as they have played with the turbo 2.3
rommaster2
Well-known member
Whenever I finish putting the turbo from turbofairlanes setup in my car I can let you know, if we're lucky he might chime in supposed to be off an SVO which was the same setup as the turbo birds just better intercooled IIRC
66Sprint6
Famous Member
I had an SVO with a rebuilt bottom end, Ranger cam, pipe upper intake, T3/T4 turbo, Tcoupe intercooler, 46lb injectors and MAF swap...the list goes on. I sold it due to the MAF swap/computer bein way to much for me to handle and it leaking every fluid you could pour into it...including windshield wiper fluid lol. What are you lookin to find out?
Matt
Matt
Yes. I have had a couple of carb turbo 2.3L 's and have helped my friend rebuild and overhaul his 87 Turbo Coupe.
Dont use a 88 Turbo Coupe. It uses a IHI turbo to try and improve throttle response and reduce turbo lag. Most 2.3L guys consider it too small. Probably OK as long as you dont modify the motor or try to turn the boost up.
On TurboFord.net the bigt thing now is guys are learning how to install the Volvo 2.3L Aluminum DOHC 4cyl head to make a 2.3L DOHC 4 valve per cylinder turbo motor. Apparently the Volvo motor's block is based on the Ford 2.3L block and the DOHC head bolts right on and everything lines up but you have to fabricate the timing belt setup.
The turbo heads have a somewhat closed chamber head, IIRC its called heart shaped, Most stock 2.3L;s have the common Ford wedge shaped chamber. Turbo heads have inconnel exhaust valves.
A guy who advertises on Turbo Ford named Boport ports stock cast iron heads and has been able to get them up to 200cfm flow on the intake. IIRC stock they flow about 170cfm.
The factory turbo exhaust header is prone to cracking so if you get one check it for cracks. As you look at the manifold turbo flange look just to the right and insect for cracks. There are several guys who sell tubular exhaust headers, Stinger being one of the most popular.
The E3 turbo manifolds are notorious for cracking in stock motors, the E6 manifold is usually not too bad but when people start cranking up the boost they sometimes crack or if the turbo overheated the manifolds can crack.
The E6 square style manifold seems to be the best performance version but several guys are also getting good results with a modified log style intake.
A stock Mustang SVO or Turbo Coupe with a cold air intake and a 3" low restriction exhaust, larger injectors and/or fuel pressure turned up, and timing bumped can usually hit 275hp with no problems.
A common upgrade is to install a Ranger roller cam and roller followers. The cam is not really a performance improvement as it is to reduce friction.
Multiple keyway cam sprockets are available so you can advance or retard cam timing.
IIRC stock fuel injectors are 32lb/hr on green tops and 36lb/hr on later brown top injectors.
I want to say SVO's were 42lb/hr but dont quote me.
Dont use a 88 Turbo Coupe. It uses a IHI turbo to try and improve throttle response and reduce turbo lag. Most 2.3L guys consider it too small. Probably OK as long as you dont modify the motor or try to turn the boost up.
On TurboFord.net the bigt thing now is guys are learning how to install the Volvo 2.3L Aluminum DOHC 4cyl head to make a 2.3L DOHC 4 valve per cylinder turbo motor. Apparently the Volvo motor's block is based on the Ford 2.3L block and the DOHC head bolts right on and everything lines up but you have to fabricate the timing belt setup.
The turbo heads have a somewhat closed chamber head, IIRC its called heart shaped, Most stock 2.3L;s have the common Ford wedge shaped chamber. Turbo heads have inconnel exhaust valves.
A guy who advertises on Turbo Ford named Boport ports stock cast iron heads and has been able to get them up to 200cfm flow on the intake. IIRC stock they flow about 170cfm.
The factory turbo exhaust header is prone to cracking so if you get one check it for cracks. As you look at the manifold turbo flange look just to the right and insect for cracks. There are several guys who sell tubular exhaust headers, Stinger being one of the most popular.
The E3 turbo manifolds are notorious for cracking in stock motors, the E6 manifold is usually not too bad but when people start cranking up the boost they sometimes crack or if the turbo overheated the manifolds can crack.
The E6 square style manifold seems to be the best performance version but several guys are also getting good results with a modified log style intake.
A stock Mustang SVO or Turbo Coupe with a cold air intake and a 3" low restriction exhaust, larger injectors and/or fuel pressure turned up, and timing bumped can usually hit 275hp with no problems.
A common upgrade is to install a Ranger roller cam and roller followers. The cam is not really a performance improvement as it is to reduce friction.
Multiple keyway cam sprockets are available so you can advance or retard cam timing.
IIRC stock fuel injectors are 32lb/hr on green tops and 36lb/hr on later brown top injectors.
I want to say SVO's were 42lb/hr but dont quote me.
Funky Cricket
Well-known member
they are great motors and make big turbo 4 power if you do them right. Tons of parts out there.
turboford.org is probably the best spot for info. Foxtbirdcougarforums.com have a board for the turbo coupe and most of those guys are over at turbo ford too.
they can be cool little motors. keep us updated.
turboford.org is probably the best spot for info. Foxtbirdcougarforums.com have a board for the turbo coupe and most of those guys are over at turbo ford too.
they can be cool little motors. keep us updated.
I would mention Stangnet but all the turbo guys there on the 4cyl forums post on TurboFord.net
the turboford web site does not allow me to register with my Yahoo email address. I recieve a message the the domain of Yahoo.com addresses are banned.
I tried my gmail account = no good either
I have bought nothing yet. I have seen a couple of ruff looking turbo T-bird cars with 5 speeds for sale at a fair price. It got me wondering on the power train for a small British car I own that has no engine or trans
I tried my gmail account = no good either
I have bought nothing yet. I have seen a couple of ruff looking turbo T-bird cars with 5 speeds for sale at a fair price. It got me wondering on the power train for a small British car I own that has no engine or trans
IIRC one guy on TurboFord has Ford 2.3L turbo in a Triumph TR7 and at least one is in a Miata.
I want to say another guy has one in a MGB but cant remember for sure if it was a MGB or a Triumph TR4?
Hey if Shelby could put a 289 in a A.C. Ace you should be able to drop a 2.3L in a English roadster.
TurboFord banned alot of mail servers due to DOS attacks and way too many bounced emails from bad accounts.
I want to say another guy has one in a MGB but cant remember for sure if it was a MGB or a Triumph TR4?
Hey if Shelby could put a 289 in a A.C. Ace you should be able to drop a 2.3L in a English roadster.
TurboFord banned alot of mail servers due to DOS attacks and way too many bounced emails from bad accounts.
Crosley":1anlgb3z said:No British roadsters here.
Triumph Standard 10 car, 1959 year.
Its sooo cute! Its like a baby car. Whats it gonna be when it grow up?
Did some chhecking and that car was tiny with a 996cc engine?!?! A 2.3L is going to be like a bog block in that thing.
Might want to consider something like a 2.0L DOHC Zetec motor. It would be lighter and still make really good power. The 2.3L Lima 4cyl turbo motor is listed as weighing 425 lbs. IIRC the Zetec is about 300lbs.
hmm, I had no idea the turbo motor was that heavy. I had not even thought about that, thanks.
The idea was to keep this little car "kinda" stock looking but with plenty of power. As with most of my projects money is an issue on the power train. I can buy a whole - running turbo coupe T-bird for 1,000 bucks or so. I've seen 2 on Craig's list local to me the past few months.
8)
The idea was to keep this little car "kinda" stock looking but with plenty of power. As with most of my projects money is an issue on the power train. I can buy a whole - running turbo coupe T-bird for 1,000 bucks or so. I've seen 2 on Craig's list local to me the past few months.
8)
'68falconohio
Well-known member
My machinist out here has a 2.3L he got stiffed on. He built it for a dirt track car with forged pistons, mild cam(they have to pull set vacuum at 750rpm), and the head's been rebuilt also. I don't have the details on the head work/porting. He offered it to me for $1,000 to try to recover the cost of the components. He said the pistons were $500.
AFAIK, it's still sitting there bagged up, but I'm probably WAY too far away.
AFAIK, it's still sitting there bagged up, but I'm probably WAY too far away.
Crosley":29h21xez said:
8) check out some of david vizards books here;
http://www.amazon.com/David-Vizard/e/B0 ... epwbk_T1_0
he wrote books like how to modify your mini among others. he is truly a fountain of information when it comes to british, and other, engines. he used to race minis that used engines like the one in your standard.
When I look at that car I am reminded of the Trabant. And people race Trabi's.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3212/275 ... 8d2778.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3212/275 ... 8d2778.jpg
65ShelbyClone
New member
Lots of good information. As a regular on Turboford.org and owner of an '84 SVO, I thought I would elaborate on a few things:
1.) Both '87 and 88 Turbo Coupes came with the smaller IHI turbo. True, they are not as capable as the 60-trim T3s, but the the engines are still rated at 195hp/240tq and they have been used to push those heavy Turbo Coupes into the 12s.
2.) The Volvo head is more involved than that. In addition to fabricating a cam belt tensioner, a deck extension plate must be welded onto the back of the head because it is about 1.5" shorter than the Lima head/block. The head's distributor hole must also be plugged, non-stock pistons must be used, and on top of that, the chambers still don't line up perfectly with the Lima's bores. It's very close, but not perfect.
3.) The '83-89 turbo heads have a bean-shaped bathtub chamber that is slightly larger than that of the NA 2.3, which has a heart-shaped chamber. Using a stock NA head on a turbo will raise the compression by about 0.5(from 8.0 to ~8.5:1). NA engines had a combination of flat-top pistons and the smaller chambers to net around 9.0:1.
4.) Boport does some incredible porting on the 2.3T heads(and other engines too). Some of the more serious 2.3 heads he has done are over ~225cfm on the intake.
5.) I agree; the E3 manifold(used on '83-85 2.3Ts) is crack-prone restriction. The E6(used from '85.5-89) is much better and much less prone to cracking, although they do still crack.
6.) The general consensus seems to be that the '85.5-89 "square" intakes are easier to gut and port, but the '83-85 "inline" intakes are comparable and are a bit better for torque. For a mild engine, I don't think it matters.
7.) Some claim to have made nearly 300rwhp on stock T3 turbos and 35lb injectors, but the 60-trim is falling off the choke line by then. The volume airflow meter(VAM) is also far beyond maxed-out. Heck, the VAM is pegged by around 3000rpm on a stock engine.
8.) True, about the only reason to use a Ranger roller cam is to get roller followers. If anything, I think it's actually a downgrade for performance. Many have reported that retarding it helps, but it is still a torque-oriented truck cam.
9.) There are also slotted adjustable cam pulleys available from outfits like Racer Walsh and Esslinger.
10.) '83-85 2.3Ts came with 30lb green-top injectors and '85.5-89s came with 35lb brown-tops(except for maybe '85 Merkur XR4Tis, which I think had browns instead of greens). None of them had anything higher than 35lbs/hr.
I will also confirm that the 2.3T is pretty heavy as four-cylinder engines go, partly because it's built like a tank. The most commonly quoted number I see is 450-460lbs, but I don't know of anyone that actually weighed one in full dress. The Zetec engine is lighter(and has a pretty good DOHC/16v head), but still has an iron block. The good news is that RWD bellhousings are available for them. The even newer Duratec 2.3 Ranger engines are all-aluminum, but I don't know what is available as far as bellhousing adapters. One guy on Turboford has been working on swapping one into an SVO.
Anlushac11":29cj9kg5 said:
1.) Both '87 and 88 Turbo Coupes came with the smaller IHI turbo. True, they are not as capable as the 60-trim T3s, but the the engines are still rated at 195hp/240tq and they have been used to push those heavy Turbo Coupes into the 12s.
2.) The Volvo head is more involved than that. In addition to fabricating a cam belt tensioner, a deck extension plate must be welded onto the back of the head because it is about 1.5" shorter than the Lima head/block. The head's distributor hole must also be plugged, non-stock pistons must be used, and on top of that, the chambers still don't line up perfectly with the Lima's bores. It's very close, but not perfect.
3.) The '83-89 turbo heads have a bean-shaped bathtub chamber that is slightly larger than that of the NA 2.3, which has a heart-shaped chamber. Using a stock NA head on a turbo will raise the compression by about 0.5(from 8.0 to ~8.5:1). NA engines had a combination of flat-top pistons and the smaller chambers to net around 9.0:1.
4.) Boport does some incredible porting on the 2.3T heads(and other engines too). Some of the more serious 2.3 heads he has done are over ~225cfm on the intake.
5.) I agree; the E3 manifold(used on '83-85 2.3Ts) is crack-prone restriction. The E6(used from '85.5-89) is much better and much less prone to cracking, although they do still crack.
6.) The general consensus seems to be that the '85.5-89 "square" intakes are easier to gut and port, but the '83-85 "inline" intakes are comparable and are a bit better for torque. For a mild engine, I don't think it matters.
7.) Some claim to have made nearly 300rwhp on stock T3 turbos and 35lb injectors, but the 60-trim is falling off the choke line by then. The volume airflow meter(VAM) is also far beyond maxed-out. Heck, the VAM is pegged by around 3000rpm on a stock engine.
8.) True, about the only reason to use a Ranger roller cam is to get roller followers. If anything, I think it's actually a downgrade for performance. Many have reported that retarding it helps, but it is still a torque-oriented truck cam.
9.) There are also slotted adjustable cam pulleys available from outfits like Racer Walsh and Esslinger.
10.) '83-85 2.3Ts came with 30lb green-top injectors and '85.5-89s came with 35lb brown-tops(except for maybe '85 Merkur XR4Tis, which I think had browns instead of greens). None of them had anything higher than 35lbs/hr.
I will also confirm that the 2.3T is pretty heavy as four-cylinder engines go, partly because it's built like a tank. The most commonly quoted number I see is 450-460lbs, but I don't know of anyone that actually weighed one in full dress. The Zetec engine is lighter(and has a pretty good DOHC/16v head), but still has an iron block. The good news is that RWD bellhousings are available for them. The even newer Duratec 2.3 Ranger engines are all-aluminum, but I don't know what is available as far as bellhousing adapters. One guy on Turboford has been working on swapping one into an SVO.
I like the Zetec in my '65 Volvo 122. There are turbo versions in Europe and available kits as well. I considered turbocharging the Volvo but my goal is 40mpg and really, it's already got more power and better gearing (through a Capri T9 gearbox) than the original setup.
Ben
Ben
82F100":xdutihfq said:Crosley, that thing is screamin "Gasser" 8) It's got 4 doors looks like a good candidate for a 140 or 170, put the drivers seat and passenger seat in the back, some of Halibrands and Torque thrusts painted gold and the car sprayed in John Deere blitz black
the wheel base of 85 inches seems a tad short for a gasser car.