So correct me if I'm wrong, you can put the roller cam into the non roller engine? Why not grab the head as well then? I'm missing a point somewhere.
There are four head types for the 2.3 that I know of: Head type #1 - Round port, iron head, hyd cam Head type #2 - D-port, alloy head, hyd cam Head type#3 - D-port, alloy head, roller cam (SVO head) Head type #4 - D port, alloy head, roller cam, dual plug head. All depends on the setup you're interested in - the dual plug head was designed as an emissions piece and is the most recent of the bunch; the best flowing head was the SVO unit (i think), but they're pretty rare. If you're gonna carb the motor, you're either gonna use the early round port head and the 2bbl intake - or drop the jing on a D-port Offy dual plane manifold for the 4bbl. A D-port head (intake port is flat; shaped like a 'D') will flow better than a round port, and an alloy head is preferable over an iron head, as you'll be able to run a half-point higher in compression. I get fuzzy on the motor specs after the mid 80's - I stopped futzing with these motors around '84 and moved onto the Mopar 2.2's.
I've had an alloy (aluminum) head which supposedly was an SVO piece - I traded it straight up for a Sansui 9000 receiver back in the day. They were pretty rare - both the head and the Sansui!
The weak point of using these engines is the puny transmission. With big tires I wouldn't suggest side slipping the clutch. It tends to leave the bottom of the case and an oily mess on the road. Don't ask me how I know. I'd strongly suggest going with a T-5. I'm sure there is a way to adapt it. I think the Mercur had a more beefy transmission
cool! after working at a major ford remanufacturer in the mid 80's and driving 2.0 pinto's they are great motors but really seamed to have oiling problems causing the cam followers to go flat. every time i had one rebuilt (heads) had to bring in a 3lb coffee can full of followers to get one god set. have they solved this problem yet?
Chamfer the oiling holes on the cam. Cams failed because the oil holes clogged; chamfering keeps the holes from plugging.
Yes, you need a phillips bit, or something to get the back screws out. From my experience, they can be fairly easy or a huge PITA to pull. The best situation is when someone's already taken the trans out of a Ranger, which is quite common. That way you can tip the engine back to get the cam out past the radiator support. The EGR can be a PITA too, I use a hack saw. The other thing is getting the roller followers out w/o scratching something important. I made a tool but gave it away, but the idea is you have to compress the valve spring and have room to pull the follower out. A 2.3L doesn't need an adapter for a T5. The Merkurs XR4ti's are known for their weak manual transmissions (T9, I believe). Thanks, Kurt
The T-Bird used an Eaton M90 (see tech pic below). The outlet needs only a small plenum adapter to mate the blower to a manifold. Not very difficult at all. The inlet is at the back of the blower. Again it needs only a small elbow adapter to mount a carb....also not very difficult. The positives over a turbo in my book are A.) full boost always/no turbolag, B.) no computer control, C.) no unneeded electrical connections and troublesome/unsightly wires in the engine compartment, D.) Simpler over all installation, and finally E.) the Eaton blower just looks cool and turbo's don't look as cool to me.
Nope. They are junk. They are not even able to hold up to the stock engine if it's tweaked. Not for very long anyway.
If your gona stick a pinto lump in....either stay stock .......you bust the motor it's cheap for a replacement....or look at cosworth lumps from the Sierra or escort cosworth...16v, turbo and injected, 500bhp is possible and still streetable..
I'm not 100% positive, but I swapped a Ranger roller cam in a slider cam head after it was rebuilt for the slider setup and I 'm not aware of any problems. I think the lift for all the stock cams is the same (0.4"), but not positive again. Thanks, Kurt
Cool. Just for discussion's sake, and considering I've never driven a supercharged car, here are my thoughts: A) A turbo isn't always on, so you can get economy, if you want. There's a negligible power penalty for driving a turbo. B and C) You don't need a computer for a turbo or a supercharger. D) That's debatable because you need to drive a supercharger. The SuperCoupe and TurboCoupe both have intercooler plumbing. Thanks, Kurt
I sorta one step ahead of ya there. I've already got a Holley computer and I'm assembling the other bits I need. My donor car has a T5 and an 8.8 rear with a 3.73 gear, so I think that should be pretty bulletproof.
on my RPU I plan on putting a track nose on to hide the intercooler. And turbo lag is a courtesy head start.
True but you can also put a bypass valve in a Eaton type setup and only have boost when you hit the gas. At cruise throttle no boost and the blower takes only 1/3 hp to turn. Bottom line... both options are good. I've driven several blower and turbo cars and find I like the blower cars better.
Seems to be a lot of people on here that know a lot about these engines, good to know. I was just wondering if anyone knows how to identify what year/model 2.3 you have. Mine was already in the car when I bought it, so I don't know what it came out of, but I would like to.
No not now. Its all blown apart now. I had to re build the shock mounts, Which were part of the bracket that held the grill shell in place. I will get some pics soon I hope.
In the early 1980's I spent a small fortune developing variable duration valve actuators for this engine. I can state that this engine is almost indistructable and can make over 2 horsepower per cubic inch ( Hot Rod March 1981) The real sleeper technology that could be applied to this engine is to adapt an i-VTEC mechanism to the cylinder head. Would be so great to see a vintage two valve per cylinder blow a 4 valve Honda with like technology into the weeds. The head of particular interest would be the twin spark plug version that I believe was used in the small pick up trucks.
only a few pictures of the engine in the car , thanks for those posted much appreciated , anyone have anymore along with measurements for the placement of the engine mounts and such?
The Thunderbird Turbo Coupes 87-88 at least had T5 with 3.55:1 8.8 limited slip and disk brakes. The auto had a 3.73:1. There are so many T5's out there though that you have several gear ratio combinations to choose from. As for the dual plug heads, I'm sure someone could come up with a way to fire the plugs without using a computer. Possibly some modified V8 dizzy? Question whether it would be worth it.
why cant u just plug 4 of the spark plug holes? the t-cupe t-5 is the same ratio as any 2.3 mustang t5
Why would you want to eliminate the extra spark plugs? The problem with all engines designed to have high speed performance is how do you make them streetable. Thats because light load combustion characteristics are a disaster in high performance engines. Twin plugs and variable valve timing via a modified i-VTEC adaption would give you high speed power and lots of low speed torque which could paint a new future for 4 cylinder rods
The Jalopy Journal
