Ford had access to a
lot more technology than people realised. In our modern control systems area, people raise a bunch of "nice to haves".
Primary importance is to have a boosted engine run with the correct air fuel ratio, and without too little advance to cause fuel economy loss, and not too much advance to hole a piston.
Mass produced parts are more relaible than low volume ebay aluminum showers.
Seven major reasons for using a 40 year old turbo... and 40 year old Duraspark II. In a 54 year old car.....Its about knowing what attributes bring to the supply of reliable parts. Not grey slurry stuff that looks like a Gold watch untill the Copper Kote wears off......
During the 70's, Ford MotorCompany in the USA had seen that people like Ak Miller and Jim Flynn doing exceptional carb and Mechanical fuel injection turbo Pintos and Mavericks with varying kinds of control systems. These were a mixture of Skunk Works and non factory Experimental.
Ford had to walk the FINE line between mainaining the existing Cleveland, Windsor and Lima foundary work, and incorporating some seriously Disputive Technolgy. Like getting rid of 8 and 9" axles, out sourcing all its manual gearboxes from Germany, Mexico or BorgWarner, and importing engines from Cologne, Brazil or Mexico. The success of the wrong engines created a MASSIVE supply issue for Ford, so Ford did some really strange Engineering stuff to protect its people and plant utilization. Like the 1972 Ford Courier which was a US built Jap Mazda B1800.
For example, Ford USA's 25% part purchase of Mazda (Toyo Kogo) in 1973, and its involvement with Datsun/ Toyo Kogyo's Jatco Transmission exactly while General Motors was contracted to supply Mazda Australian Holden Premiers with Mazda Rotary engines under an NSU/Audi patent while GM wannted out of Rotaries kind of shows everyone how Ford put there money where there mouth was, and Ment Business.
The Carb 2300 Turbo was kind of on the outer limits of acceptablity, but it was a pragmatic move to respond to Americas growinf desire for performance without an economy compromise. Ford actually aced a number of very important things:-
The Carb Turbo 2.3 got:-
1.
Single Advance Duraspark II with
external advance control via the Yellow Strain relief DSII box. MSD 6A and 6L like in a factory wrapper. Ford employed a vast array of pre EEC "one" tricks also shared with 1980-1988 Jeep 4.2's and all the early non EECIV 2.3 and 4.9 Carter 1 bbl MCU and non MCU pickup trucks. Total control existed over the advance and air fuel ratios by the use of these Solenoid's. Five facets of control were potentially able to occur; three pricipal parts, with 2 extra "nice to haves", the turbo light, and the boost warning.
2. The crank case had a flapper valve to control blow by, (copied from the 2000 OHC) and a very good PCV system on top of the rocker and air cleaner.
3. The fuel pump was strike protected to stop it being a flaming inferno in a crah or under extreme heat
4. The turbo had six points of securing. It didn't float off the engine on flimsy brackets. That had both advantages and disadvatages because secondary vibration in a 2.3 four is extreme, and certan kinds are amplified which under certain loads can injure the main shaft of the turbo. The extended pipes from the cast iron header (and light off cat on 1980 to 1982 Canadian and US modles) exhaust to the turbo, and from the turbo to catalyst were big vibration points.
5. The oil supply and return were plumbed into existing bosses.
6. Forged pistons and rods of very good quality were used with high compression and good metalurgy
7. The worst gearing was used. Wide ratio 4 speeds and the rare C3 autos and some very quirky U shift 5 speeds with exceptionally low intermdiates were the nadir of Fords engineering, designed to cope with the planned extensive use in planned weighty Fox Fairmonts.
The 2.3 Carb turbo system was complicated; but for Ford, it eliminated boost referencing. Sadly, its draw through systemand its gearing made the engine a very poor responder to small speed variances. You had to ring its neck. Its carb was too small, mechanical secondary, and actually only 227 cfm at 1.5" Hg, or 320 cfm as rated as a 2-bbl. Holley quoted 278 cfm at 2.0" Hg.
The whole philosphy Eng Norman General and the team at Ford was to just set up an alternative to 129 to 140 hp 5 liter gas V8, with an improvement in EPA ratings. And get it on the market reliable. So that's all they did. It wasn't anywhere near as good as the
The seriously smakcked up gearing, and the vibration and heat of low octane motoring with 9:1 compression, and the delicay and complication of targeted plumbing put these engines into oil down mode, with conrods through blocks, cold start forged piston problems, and frustated drivers selecting low gears and putting the engines through the rpm ceiling. All these issues didn't happen with the blow through
the approx 230 hp 1972 BroadSpeed Capri Bullet,
the approx 230 hp 1976-1980 TVR 3000M Turbo,
and the 188 hp net 1981 2800 Capri Turbo (Zakspeed via SVO's later West German guru, Mike Kranfuss),
These shared the same ET 78 gearbox on some US 2.3 versions, but with very close 65-73 Mustang T10/ TopLoader type ratios.
The Zakspeed engineered Capri III even had the American market 2.8 Mustang block. Ford USA purposely turbocharged the wrong engine in the USA, and forbade the factory turbocharging of the 3.3 and 4.1 in line sixes.
The parts of the factory 2.3 Carb turbo are great to use.
Although Motorcraft TFi is a better option for a turbo ignition system than anything aftermarkt, a stock DSII with boost referenced fuel pump and a solid, reliable, easy to get turbo with a proper, large enough 2-bbl carb.
40 year old turbo
40 year old Duraspark II
Old 500 cfm Holley
and buy some pipe bends, and have then made up to suit.
The air fuel ratio thing is cutting edge, and the air craft guys have been doing that for years. You need to focus on whats important. One thing AT A TIME.
Nothing here is gonna bankrupt you if you decide on Yes or No's to whats important.
Nice to haves, well, they don't fix reliabity issues at 6 to 8 pounds boost.
Ford made about, what, 32000 turbo cars from 1979 to 1980, with the Carb turbo continuing in Canada and Europe till 1982 before it became the EFi 2.3 in 1983. I'd be very supprised if you couldn't get parts nearby.
So there are lots about, and the parts supply is reliable, and the parts are good. The carbon seal and black death were related to how difficult the 2.3 Carb turbo was to service. The same parts as a blow through on a gasoline six will work fine. Ford should have done this, but AK Millers turbo in line sixes were emissions legal, propane blow throughs or draw through gasoline, and 5.0 V8's got a huge shot in the arm when people forgot how much gas price hurt them if they were around in 1973 and 1979.