Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board - Reply to Topic
Hotrodders.com -- Hot Rod Forum



Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Unanswered Posts Auto Escrow Insurance Auto Loans
Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board > Tech Help> Engine> Using the 2.3L ford in a rod
User Name
Password
lost password?   |   register now

Thread: Using the 2.3L ford in a rod Reply to Thread
Title:
  
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name (usually not your first and last name), your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
01-16-2013 04:04 PM
1986c10 not to bicker but the svo mustang with the 2.3t was actually faster in the quarter mile than the mustang gt with a v8... With that being said, the merkur was slower than the svo. The svo had a intercooler, computer with more aggressive timing and fuel maps, and a larger vam.
01-16-2013 01:34 PM
spinn
Quote:
Originally Posted by Torque454 View Post
There was something wrong with the Merkur then. The 2.3T cars were faster than the same cars with V8s. .
In all probability there was nothing wrong with the car/driver. The mustang GT in 86 was much faster.

A good friend even today had the merkur, and a 84 laser turbo. Another freinds parents had a lebaron turbo. We thought they were Quick at the time, really zip through first gear. Now, the neighboor kid has a newish 2010 cobalt 5 speed with a 4 cylinder that has 160hp and its just a base model. That car is just a quick as most of those mid 80s turbo 4 cylinders..

This forum insisted that a Honda civic or integra was slow. At least not fast . The 1.8 GSR can cook in my opinion. A prelude with H22 is fast and challenging for the v8 350inch/th350 3.08/3.23 geared muscle car of full body. Would the merkur have fit in their ranks, hmm. It wasnt runing mid 6 second 0-60. It was in the 7s.

After the merkur they got a saab 9000 turbo, that was also poor performing car.
01-16-2013 09:22 AM
engineczar I see you're looking to go with an automatic transmission. If for some reason you do decide on a standard I highly recommend getting the pressure plate balanced. One of the things I've seen with the 2.3's is that replacement pressure plates tend to be terribly out of balance and have caused many crankshaft failures at the #4 journal.
01-16-2013 08:42 AM
hcompton There out there.

87 ford thunderbird turbo coupe . . .sale or trade

Not sure where you live but should not be hard to find one that was loved and is not a rolling pile.
01-16-2013 08:36 AM
hcompton
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironpony View Post
Well guys here is what I'm going to do. I will put a 2.3 in this car but because of that 4 letter word (work) it will probably be a month or two before I can really get started on it. I run a large repair shop servicing class 8 trucks and oil field equipment. And run my own fabrication shop, so I'm real busy. That will change in Feb. As I am going to start my retirement, And will only have my shop to take care of. So when I get started on this build if you want to see them I will post pict's as I build. In the time in between I will be looking for a doner car to put a engine with a factory turbo in the car. If I can't find one of them I will build a engine with a turbo for it. And thanks to all that have posted I have learned a few things and that is a good thing. Now that I'm a member here you will see me around Thanks Bill
Absolutly want to see pix!! Sounds like a cool project.
01-16-2013 08:08 AM
Ironpony
2.3 in rod

Well guys here is what I'm going to do. I will put a 2.3 in this car but because of that 4 letter word (work) it will probably be a month or two before I can really get started on it. I run a large repair shop servicing class 8 trucks and oil field equipment. And run my own fabrication shop, so I'm real busy. That will change in Feb. As I am going to start my retirement, And will only have my shop to take care of. So when I get started on this build if you want to see them I will post pict's as I build. In the time in between I will be looking for a doner car to put a engine with a factory turbo in the car. If I can't find one of them I will build a engine with a turbo for it. And thanks to all that have posted I have learned a few things and that is a good thing. Now that I'm a member here you will see me around Thanks Bill
01-15-2013 09:34 PM
Torque454
Quote:
Originally Posted by spinn View Post
No I try to keep it honest and practical.

I dont think these cars as they were from the dealer, were as fast as you remember.

The kid beat the piss out of his fathers merkur. It was not that fast. The Daytona/lazer was pretty pathetic too. These were 5 speed turbo cars of the mid 80's. A lebaron turbo coupe from the mid 80's would be laughable as it came from the showroom.

Cars that were fast in highschool. The 86 new efi mustang GT 5speed , Grand national, A supra was impressive, A camaro or corvette probly in 14-15's too.
There was something wrong with the Merkur then. The 2.3T cars were faster than the same cars with V8s. I know the Merkur didn't have a V8 option, but its still a comparable car to the mustang as far as size and weight goes so It should have been at least as fast as a GT but probably not as fast as an SVO. The Merkur used smaller injectors, lower flowing exhaust manifold, a small VAM, no intercooler or ACT sensor, and different computer programming too. The difference is only about 35hp.
01-15-2013 06:17 PM
hcompton
Quote:
Originally Posted by 496CHEVY3100 View Post
.This is a good swap,i installed a Mustang SVO in a 1930 Model A back in mid 80s no need for performance upgrades,it is a bigger package than what i thought when i started check measurements ,only problems i had was heat on side panel of hood, i used complete wiring harness, furl tank ,rack & pinion from mustang to make things easier to hook up ,very happy after i got finished fun to drive..some else liked it better $$$$ Talks.
Good point the turbo if at all possible should be 6 inches away from any painted metal. Of cpurse this is not possible some quilted foil heat sheilding looks great and will keep the heat from baking your painted surfaces. You can also wrap the turbo but that usally looks like rags after a weekend of driving around.

I agree use as much oem parts as possible. At least you can go to pepboys and buy a stock tank of you ever need a replacement.
01-15-2013 06:00 PM
496CHEVY3100
Quote:
Originally Posted by ap72 View Post
It's not that big of a deal, just need to modify the bellhousing on a T5 or run a pinto trans, and modify an escort oil pan for the starter to fit.
.This is a good swap,i installed a Mustang SVO in a 1930 Model A back in mid 80s no need for performance upgrades,it is a bigger package than what i thought when i started check measurements ,only problems i had was heat on side panel of hood, i used complete wiring harness, furl tank ,rack & pinion from mustang to make things easier to hook up ,very happy after i got finished fun to drive..some else liked it better $$$$ Talks.
01-15-2013 05:20 PM
hcompton
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1986c10 View Post
on the subject of the 2.3t, i recently bought a merkur (ford import from germany) xr4ti with the 2.3t. They come stock with 175 crank hp. Mine is bone stock besides a straight pipe right now. Theyre quick for a 4 banger from the 80s and they have a insanely loud turbo. I can do 1-2nd burnouts not trying too hard. The svo mustangs with the same engine but a intercooler and different computer ran a mid 14 second quarter mile btw. You can make 250whp+ with a stock ported intake, large vane air meter from a 87+ supercoupe, la3 computer (out a of tbird supercoupe), 3" downpipe and good exhaust and a intercooler and boost around 18psi and it will be stupid reliable still. I bought all that and its on its way to my house so i'll chime in on how it runs. You wont be dissapointed in one. 87+ tbird supercoupe engine and computer would be the most desirable as they come with the la3 computer and are intercooled and around 200hp stock. Tons of info on turboford.com if you wanna learn more. You wont be dissapointed in that engine! and this is coming from a chevy guy haha
Cam will make one hell of a difference if going for performance build. 300 pr more whp is not hard to get.

Turbocoupe, supercoup is supercharged. Its a pos also. If you gave me one i would think you were trying to ruin my life. Sorry you probably had to own one to understand that last line but they are aweful. Turbo coupe is ok but alot heavier than the merkur and the suspension on the merkur is much better. Door locks drain the battery in those cars leave it unlocked and it will last longer. If you got to keep it locked be sure to drive it once a week on it will go flat on you.
01-15-2013 04:48 PM
1986c10 on the subject of the 2.3t, i recently bought a merkur (ford import from germany) xr4ti with the 2.3t. They come stock with 175 crank hp. Mine is bone stock besides a straight pipe right now. Theyre quick for a 4 banger from the 80s and they have a insanely loud turbo. I can do 1-2nd burnouts not trying too hard. The svo mustangs with the same engine but a intercooler and different computer ran a mid 14 second quarter mile btw. You can make 250whp+ with a stock ported intake, large vane air meter from a 87+ supercoupe, la3 computer (out a of tbird supercoupe), 3" downpipe and good exhaust and a intercooler and boost around 18psi and it will be stupid reliable still. I bought all that and its on its way to my house so i'll chime in on how it runs. You wont be dissapointed in one. 87+ tbird supercoupe engine and computer would be the most desirable as they come with the la3 computer and are intercooled and around 200hp stock. Tons of info on turboford.com if you wanna learn more. You wont be dissapointed in that engine! and this is coming from a chevy guy haha
01-14-2013 04:16 PM
hcompton You will love the 2.3. Your goals are right on track for what you want and need.

I would go automatic of at all possible. I know it will add to the build cost to get a trans that is setup right for the turbo and will last but probably worth every penny.

If i had any thing bad to say about the 2.3 they would be stock head gasket blows for a turbo car and the motor has zero power off boost as its so low compression moving slowly away from a light is kinda slow until the boost hits. The auto sorts this ossue for the most part. Give it a little stall and let it spool against the converter just in case you need to pull a trailer or need to dead stop on a steep hill. Also i had a heavy clutch in mine it sucked as well for city driving.
01-14-2013 01:20 PM
Studebaker
2.3 Ford.

I rebuilt a 2.3 Ford a few years ago. I was surprised what a nice little 4 banger this was. Mine was carbed. It was simple, reliable and had decent power. I see a lot of 2.3 Fords in old Jeep CJ3's high hood engine swaps. They are a tall engine, I don't think they will fit under a Jeep CJ2 hood. Decent torque for off road with excellent reliability. Very simple and well built with a big aftermarket supply of cams and performance parts as they were used in Mini stockcar classes. Good luck with your project! Post some pictures.
01-14-2013 12:48 PM
Ironpony To ap72 Thats the idea to build it up some with all the right parts, so if I decide at a later date going to 300 hp or more should be a simple thing. With the cam and head work that I plan and a turbo I will probably shoot past my goals anyway. So where is the harm in that. To onemoretime Exactly what I'm saying. Many thanks to you for getting it. And as I have said before I have vehicles for going really fast. Sometimes you don't want to. I have done the radical wild cars in the past. And because I have that need for speed ex racer Hot rodders illness. I can say for sure that I will build cars like that in the future. As a matter of fact I have this idea in the back of my tiny little brain. To build a 32 coupe with a Jon Kaase racing Boss 9 with a BDS 1271 sitting on top. But thats a whole differnt thing. Thanks Bill
01-14-2013 12:04 PM
spinn
Quote:
Originally Posted by Torque454 View Post

What have YOU been smoking, spinn? I think you're speaking from "what you've heard" rather than experience.

.
No I try to keep it honest and practical.

I dont think these cars as they were from the dealer, were as fast as you remember.

The kid beat the piss out of his fathers merkur. It was not that fast. The Daytona/lazer was pretty pathetic too. These were 5 speed turbo cars of the mid 80's. A lebaron turbo coupe from the mid 80's would be laughable as it came from the showroom.

Cars that were fast in highschool. The 86 new efi mustang GT 5speed , Grand national, A supra was impressive, A camaro or corvette probly in 14-15's too.
This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Copyright Hotrodders.com 1999 - 2012. All Rights Reserved.