Learn me Ford 2.3 engines

In looking around at Mustangs, the 4 cylinder cars are dirt cheap compared to the 5.0 liter cars. Through some basic research, I understand that the 2.3 n/a motor is the same block as the 2.3 factory turbo motor, but with higher compression pistons.

Given the plentiful nature of the 2.3 Fox body cars, and realizing that lots of folks circle track that motor on both dirt and asphalt, are there cheap hop-up options for the n/a motor? Is it possible to turbo the n/a motor within a Challenge budget? What are realistic hp numbers?

Thanks, Tucker

rather than turbo a N/A, you may just hunt down a complete turbo 2.3. They bring $300 around here, and I mean complete.

build your own SVO for under $2000 pretty easily.

Mine made 250hp and 275lbs of torque at the tires, averaged 24mpg in town. I still feel like a liar when I saw that but it really did.

Never made it to the track, but ran evenly with cars that where known to run high 13's.

Hmmm. $300 complete? That is a darn good price. And probably no more than I would spend cobbling together various turbo components. If swapping that engine in, would I use the ECU from the turbo motor in place of the existing computer?

Tucker,

The best bet is to find a TurboCoupe, preferabaly an '88. Those are getting cheap as well, and go from there, whether you part it or use it.

I've owned a couple of SVO's, great little cars (4 wheel disc, 16" 5 lug wheels,Koni's etc). IIRC, there was a member here that had a challenge priced SVO for sale in SW Florida a while back.

Good luck,

John

Yes, you can pick up LA2's and LA3's pretty easy. Make sure to get a harness for it to.

This is some plug in ECU's that are based on Megasquirt systems. Use the harness and delete some stuff. Or megasquirt it yourself.

Too bad you weren't up here.... there's an SVO and two Merkur XR4Tis in the local self service yards, complete engines.

None of them look too bad. Just looks like oil seals on turbo blew out.

You take them $139 apiece.

93, I'm not sure that makes me feel any better.

Seriously though, thanks for the idea. I'll check out the local yard to see if they happen to have one of either. Unfortunately, these days, both SVO's and XR4Ti's are rare cars.

Meh.... just look at the seals blowing out as an excuse to put a T70 or something on it.

But in all seriousness, even if you can't find a 2.3 turbo in the junkyard, you can find all kinds of turbo cars. We've pulled Saab 9000 Turbos, Volvo Turbos, DSM turbos, Mopar turbos, and used them on all kinds of cars, although the most common is boosted Hondas here.

We've found that Saab 9000 turbos work GREAT with an F22 motor.

But heck, you could just come up, grab all three, and haul them back down there, and i'm more than sure you could get everything set to go from there, with a bunch of parts left to recoup on the SVO/Merkur forums.

Another option that my local yard would support would be to put a 4.0 litre Lexus V8 in there....... I would love to see that, but i'm not sure that's what you're looking for. I'm grabbing that this weekend anyways.

Thanks for the suggestions.

I'm going to keep my eye out for a t-bird turbo coupe to start with. There is one about 35 miles away that might even work.

Heed their advice. Building a n/a 2.3 is an exercise in futility and empty bank accounts. Turbo FTW.

So heeded

A little inspiration:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fv1-omYCb9c

Love the little motors! I have an 86 turbocoupe that always amazes me. They can be picked up rather cheaply also. My 91 Mustang convertible has a NA 2.3 and it does O.K. but I highly recommend the turbo motor as it can be tweaked for much greater HP with stock internals, head and cam!!

Turbo motors have a lower compression ratio with forged pistons and I believe the rods are forged too. Heard that the blocks are stronger with a higher nickel content but never comfirmed. Block has a cast hole for turbo drain.

It is fun to start stock and just take many steps to higher HP. Knife edge the intake..log style exhaust manifold..3" exhaust pipes...bigger turbo...intercooler...injector upgrade...stand alone engine managment...each step has minimal downtime and is reasonably cheap.

Bruce

I have so much more money ever since I sold off all of my 2.3 Turbo's...

They are rewarding engines, but they are very expensive to do right and they are extremely frustrating.

Stock Turbo (EFI) motors have a cast-in drain hole and larger main bearings for a stronger crank. Rods are the same as NA though the pistons are factory forged (crappily, they break skirts). Aftermarket pistons/rods are cheap and with a stock crank/block will yield a nearly bullet-proof bottom end.

Heads are a different story. Turbo heads have their own port design and stronger valves but they are all cracked by now and the stock valvetrain eats cams/followers. Aftermarket aluminum heads (Esslinger is the only one IIRC) are the only option for huge power with a new casting. Lots of places can port/convert an NA head, but honestly it can be done in your garage with a drill.

End of the day it's still a HEAVY motor (for a 4-banger, fully dressed stocker is heavier then an aluminum LSx motor) that was designed in the 60's and has a weak aftermarket (for the Turbo stuff). Fun to tinker with at near-stock levels, but anything more and you're better off with any other motor to start.

I haven't missed them at all.

All EFI cranks and mains (turbo or not) are the same until about 93 or so, at which point they changed the mains to a smaller journal. The rod bearings are the same though, so if you wanted, you could drop a set of turbo rods and pistons into a small journal motor and effectively have a 2.3 turbo shortblock. Some people say the turbo blocks have more nickel, but I don't think it was ever proven one was or the other. Either way, it probably doesn't matter, since you'd be making silly amounts of power before you ever needed to worry about that.

The stock pistons are very good, and Michael is the only person I've ever heard of who's had such problems with the skirts. The stock rod/piston combo has pressed in wristpins, and the rod bolts seem to be the first thing to become suspect when you really start to lean on a stock shortblock (~350 whp).

Turbo heads don't have their own port design, but the chamber is a little smaller, so it will raise your compression unless you rework it a little (or adjust your tune - which I think would be a good idea since the stock compression is pretty low at 8:1). The turbo motors have excellent Inconel exhaust valves, which will go right into a non-turbo head. The stock heads DO crack a lot, but don't scrap one because it's got a hairline/trace between the valves - get it pressure checked.

You can also use early carbed motor heads. Those have slightly different ports, but the chambers are identical to the turbo motors, so it's actually an easier swap than using a non-turbo EFI head. And since they had mechanical fans, it's easy to find non-cracked ones (I think faulty fan controllers on the EFI cars caused the turbo heads to crack).

As for eating cams and followers, again, I've never seen it happen. In 11 years of playing with these, I've never had those issues.

As for being heavier than an LSx, yeah I'm going to call BS on that one. I've had both, and have had to move both, so it's not like I'm just pulling that out of thin air. Yes an LS motor is aluminum, but it takes a lot of aluminum to make a V-configured motor strong.

The 2.3t is one of the best grassroots motors out there. Good power, easy to mod, strong, CHEAP, super common parts. But yes, it's heavier than the newer stuff.

Hey call BS all you want, it's all well-documented all over the net. Places with poor gas have a high percentage of stock 2.3T's with broken skirts. Most didn't even know they were broken until they dropped the oil pan.

Slider cams having extreme wear is WELL documented over the last 20+ years! You won't fool anybody into thinking the stock valvetrain isn't in serious need of help.

There's multiple port configurations on the Lima (round port, D-port, oval port) and multiple chambers (D-chamber, carb n/a chamber, carb turbo chamber, heart chamber) plus the 3-tower 2.0 heads and later 2.5 roller heads.

The giant honking list of engine weights going around the web agrees with the assessment of an all-aluminum LSx being lighter then a 87-88 TC-spec 2.3 fully dressed. You forget just how much weight an iron manifold, an iron turbo, an intercooler, and all of the supporting factory bracketry weighs.

The 2.3 used to be a good Grassroots motor. The last 2-3 years have shown otherwise. They're getting too old and the good JY stuff has dried up, not to mention the aftermarket moving on.

They are hit or miss. Some stock motors will last forever, even with giant turbo upgrades, others self-destruct when you look at them funny. The pool of good ones is pretty much dried up, at least in the Pacific NW.

Come to think of it, I rebuilt a N/A 2.3 ('74 Mustang II) which had two busted piston skirts. It was running okay, just smoking. It was a bit of a shock to drop the pan and find the chunks.

P71 wrote: ...it's all well-documented all over the net....

I love that quote!

SVreX wrote:

P71 wrote: ...it's all well-documented all over the net....

I love that quote!

No joke! And that's what he's using to dispute my first-hand experience.

To date, I've put about 125,000 miles on 2 turbo 2.3s - the one in my SVO, and the one in my Pinto. In that time...

I've never run synthetic oil for any length of time.
I've never run race gas.
I've never used a roller cam.

I've also NEVER had a lubrication related failure. I've also NEVER broken a piston skirt.
I've also NEVER had a cam failure.

You said turbo heads have their own port design, and that's simply not true. As for chambers, there are really only 2 found on heads that can bolt into a turbo application: the open one and heart shaped one.

I didn't mention dual plug heads because in all practicality, they're not really compatible unless you make a bunch of other changes. Same with the round port heads - again, not a drop-in on a turbo application. The 2.0 3 tower heads aren't even Lima heads, and are totally incompatable.

If anything, the 2.3T is more relevant than ever with the advent of DIY engine management and tuning. The VAM gets maxxed out pretty early on, and if you don't have a game plan for working around that, you're never going to have good success with the motor.

Sorry if you're 'luck' wasn't as good as mine, but you shouldn't go around using phrases like the one quoted above, or saying the heads are 'all cracked', that the pistons are 'crappy', that the motor is 'very expensive to do right'. Someone asked for info about the motor, and you posted up some internet heresay, your own opinions and some facts that were wrong.

Way to help someone out.

Well, with all this talking back and forth, I have a co-worker who just recently purchased a Turbo Coupe, it's a '87 or '88 (the "longer nose" model) it's equipped with the automatic tranny. He's not all that car knowledgeable and bought this car because he's a big guy and it's a big coupe. Aside from making sure the timing belt is changed before it breaks, is there anything else he can do to try to get the most miles out of this car? He won't be looking for more power, but he seems to change cars like most folks change shirts, and I suspect he kills them out of his car ignorance.

You must not know my past MikeSVO!

GRM isn't the place for this kind of stuff, but I do have hands-on experience with 2.3's. 7 years and 200K+ miles worth. Did you ever rebuild one? How about a dozen of them? Kind of hard for you to call BS on broken piston skirts if you never dropped a pan on one...

You can pretend this is TF all you want, but it doesn't change the facts. The 2.3T is out of it's prime and it's only getting worse from here. My advice to the OP was pretty straight-forward. Leave it near-stock and you'll be fine, which seems to me to be what you're doing.

Please stop with the personal attacks, this is GRM!

integraguy,

The 87-88 TC is what I have the majority of my experience with. It's a great car in stock form, especially as a DD. We had an 87 with the auto for years and it was loyal right until the end. The A4LD needs fluid flushes and filter changes regularly to have a long service life (ours made it 150K miles without a rebuild or problem). As you already mentioned, the timing belt should be done, and do the water pump while you're in there (it's 3 bolts). Keep the oil changed regularly with a good oil (I prefer synthetic). Finally, watch the ignition system. The factory system is marginal at best (which contributes to the aforementioned problems). Change the plugs, use good wires (Magnecor's!), a good rotor/cap, and check out the factory TFI and coil to make sure they're in good shape. The TC should treat your friend well.

Little reading:

http://www.therangerstation.com/tech_library/4cylinders.html

http://www.therangerstation.com/tech_library/Turbos.html

Highlights:

2.0/2.3/2.5 all in the same "Lima" family

Crankshaft main journal sizes were reduced starting in 1988

2.0 and 2.3 (including turbo) rods are identical up through at least 1994. In fact they still have the original D4 (’74) casting number on them.

All 2.0/2.3/2.5 heads will physically bolt in place of each other.

There are several variations on the 2.3 heads though they break down into (4) distinct types:

1) Passenger car oval port heads - 1974 - 1980 Mustang, Pinto, Fairmont, Bobcat, etc.

2) Passenger car D-port head - 1981 - 1995? T-bird, Mustang, Etc.

3) Truck round port - 1983 - 1985 Ranger

4) Truck D-port - 1989 - 2001 Ranger. The 1989 - 1994's and 1995 - 2001's have different combustion chambers and ports. It is thought that the newer head is better designed.

Unfortunately these heads are very prone to cracking around the exhaust valve seat. Don’t be surprised if the one you pull from a good running car is cracked, most can be used as is though repair of them can be prohibitively expensive. (Talking about the factory turbo heads)

Have fun reading.

Note that a 300HP 5.0 can be done for cheaper then even a stock swapped 2.3T unless you get a real sweetheart of a deal on an untouched complete motor.

I feel like mentioning you can break a Lima's timing belt and the valves will be okay.

A new belt will set you back $10 or less, and after the first time you've done the job, it will only take you half an hour.

Wow...more of an education than I was planning on.

Thanks to those who posted. P71, I appreciate your comments and comparison to a 5.0, because that is really what it would boil down to for me.

So the 2.3 is NOT an interference design? Another reason for it to retain it's title of Ford's answer to the Chrysler slant six.