How come no one ever mentions the iron Duke?? You know-- the Pontiac V8 cut-in-half?? That Jeep motor looks suspect since it's a 2.5, and AMC used the 'Duke for awhile. http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?p=3307421 ___
200 horsepower can come wrapped in a bunch of totally different packages. If I were lookin' to power a heavy vehicle with poor aerodynamics, I think I'd be looking for a mildly tuned large displacement engine ... in other words a torquer. Teamed with the right transmission and final drive ratios, you could have your instant "grunt" and good economy too. Not knocking the 4 cylinder concept, in fact I prefer inline engines ... I just don't think you're talking about the right 200 HP for the job at hand. Just my $ .02
Actually the 1961-1963 Pontiac four cylinder is not the engine call the Iron Duke. It's the Tempest four. The Iron Duke came later and was a development that started with the Chevy two four cylinder and has no commenality with the all Pontiac half 389.
I have a 29 Model A with an 88 Ford Thunderbird @.3 Turbo and a4ld tranny. I am loving it. It is currently undergeared with a 2.73. I would recommend the SDS computer swar to get rid of alot of mess in the engine compartment (Vam and it is totally tuneable for hot rod applications.
But how about giving a Ford Contour engine a traditional character? Me, I like engines with lots of cams and lots of valves but no electronics. Carbs and a distributor on a late cammy engine appeals to me. But it's more than that. Going for the look and feel of an old engine opens up all kinds of possibilities. It's what's planned for the Subaru EJ that's going into my Morris. But that's a whole new thread ...
There was a seriously chopped and channeled '38 (?) Chevy in the classifieds a couple weeks ago that was riding on a full Toyota frame, including the drivetrain. Of course, there will ALWAYS be people that say shit like this is off-topic, etc. But, I could have sworn that making additional horsepower... or hell making a car move under just it's own power made by just about ANY motor was how it was done "back in the day". I think the definition of 'traditional' was blurred 50's years ago, and I think we need to move forward on that progression and to continue on with what is available... just like in the 50's, bro!
Has anyone considered an Audi 5-cylinder? Coolest have the 20V twin-cam head, and with a decent exhaust system they make a lovely bass growl.
Rex: Just running without the timing belt cover gives that motor a whole different (older) look for sure! 58Fridge100: AMC/Jeep used the 2.5L GM four from 1980-1983 only. Starting with the 1984 models they used their own 2.5L four which was derived from the 4.2L six (two center cylinders removed). Some texts refer to it as a "2.46L" since that's the actual displacement and it avoids confusion with the GM motor. AMC only used other makers engines when they didn't have one developed fast enough, with one exception. They used the Packard V-8 for two years (55-56), GM four for four (80-83), and the GM 2.8L V-6 in the XJ Cherokee for three (84-86). The "exception" to using another makers engine only as an interim is the 1977-79 Audi 2.0L four. Only used three years, but AMC actually bought licensing rights to build that motor, it wasn't intended as an interim. Turned out that it was just too small for then current AMCs, and it was way to far down the pipeline for a new small car. AMC didn't sell enough, so the tooling was never transferred from VW/Audi. Which turned out to be good for VW/Audi! The little 2.0L was used in the "baby Porsche" 244, which sold way better than expected. AMC assembled their engines, but bought the major cast components from VW/Audi. AMC did the final machining and assembly in a plant specifically purchased for assembling these engines. Wasted money when they really couldn't afford to lose any, but you gotta try things sometime!
phil1934 -- that's a Pinto 2.0L or 2.3L with a VOLVO head? What kind of work is required for that setup! I would assume that the bore centers of the two engines are the same...
2.3. The two center chambers are 1/16" outside the 2.3, the other two and all the bolt holes line up. The Volvo head requires the center oil drain be filled and the outer two partially filled and a 1" aluminum block welded to the rear as the head is shorter and the front bypass elbow welded up. Drill water holes in head to match gasket and open up and offset dowel holes in head. Tap the oil passage in block and add one to head and connect with a brake line. Here's 2.3 gasket on head. You can see oil drains at top and elbow at left I cut off and welded and aluminum block at top that goes on right side. Weatherhead oil fitting is just visible at top right of head above gasket.
Back in the late 70's there was a yellow t-bucket running around Columbus with a built 2.3 Pinto motor. Thing would get up and go and is still my favorite t-bucket of all time. I'm thinking of using a Zetec in my model A frame project. Mostly because I already have one with only 17,000 miles and a Mustang T5 sitting in my garage. But I like the idea of a building a modern motor with a faux vintage look.
There was on the net somewhere an A model with SR20 being built awsome frame work nice tig welds.i dont remeber where i seen it. And an A with another late motor panted alloy wheels painted to look like wood, it was green and fast. hereis that SR20.there are three video's. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAHZb0Yna98&feature=channel_page
I have no clue what the weight of the truck would be, but if you put a turbo 4cyl on a heavy vehicle, I think the " take off" would be embarrassing until the turbo would spool up.Seems to me a nicely built V6 might be a better choice, something with some torque.
1988 turbo coupe with a T5 weighs in about 3415 lbs depending on options and fuel in the tank. Just some more useless info for ya, lol. It also has a .35 drag coefficient.
That seem like alot of truck for that 2.3. Even with the turbo i dont think its going to be enough. I would go with a 3VZ out of a Tacoma or a 4 runner and put a TRD Super Charger on it. You could even use the 5 speed and all the pedals and all that would be needed from the donor. That would be a better combintation. I have been tossing this idea around for my coupe if I decide to run the hood.
Here's the site for turbo fords. http://www.turboford.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi Not that hard to get 300 HP.
Phil, it's just amazing that the bolt holes line up! Whoever figured out that Volvo head swap sure did do a lot of research, but the bolt holes lining up made it pretty easy. You have to wonder if Volvo used a Ford four as a guide/pattern at some point. All the automakers buy competing products and copy/improve good ideas if there are no patents (and they run out after 20 years). Guys, the weight of the truck isn't a problem. One-and-a-half ton box van trucks are often powered by 2.xL gas and diesel engines. Gear it right and the weight isn't a problem! Might need more forward gears, but using an OD trans will solve that. The 3,000 lb. T-bird Turbo Coupe didn't have a problem with acceleration, I don't think a lighter truck will. The turbo has to be sized properly too. There's little lag if that's done right. Smaller turbos don't provide as much boost as larger ones, but spin up quickly. Most factory turbos are on the small side, and only produce 5-10 psi, which is plenty noticeable! Atmospheric pressure is just under 15 psi (14.7). In theory, double the pressure (roughly 30 psi) and you double the power potential of an engine. So 7.5 psi theoretically adds half again the hp (a 100 hp engine with 7.5 psi boost would be ~150 hp). I say theoretically because there are losses to deal with. It usually takes 9-10 psi to get half again the hp from an engine, but even around 5 psi will give a 25% boost in hp.
The Jalopy Journal
