Fox T-Bird/Cougar Forums

I made this realization months ago. Even the anemic 4.6 makes me happier, not to mention not having to work on it!

V8? Yawn...

yippie a 140hp junkyard 302...

yawn , a stock reliable, or done up, unreliable turbo four...  that is still slower then a mildly built 302...
what century do you live in?

yawn , a stock reliable, or done up, unreliable turbo four...  that is still slower then a mildly built 302...
what century do you live in?

Yes Chuck, I will figure it out and I am not going to give up on it. I am just frustrated. I agree with all that you said in your post. I do actually like this motor or I wouldnt have gone as far as I did. I also do have a lot of knowledgible people assisting me, plus the high tech fancy tools. It was just a frustrating morning because this thing is quick even with the problems.

And I am eager to start my next project, which is to get the "anemic 4.6" as someone had described it, in a late model GT stang to be a nasty ride. But I cant in good conscience start that till this is a slam dunk or well at least minus the hiccup.

Thanks to all you guys for your words, it helps with the frustration :)

Find me a mildly built 302 that will run me, and I'll tell you what century I live in :shakeass:

That is a bullshiznit statement right there.  The 2.3T is more bombproof than the 5.0.  They all share the same electronics, so where does the lack of reliability come in?  It doesn't.

That is a bullshiznit statement right there.  The 2.3T is more bombproof than the 5.0.  They all share the same electronics, so where does the lack of reliability come in?  It doesn't.

I myself have nothing bad to say about the 2.3.I've never owned a car with one,or driven a car with one.I would have to say they were pretty good engines to give the Turbo Coupe Car of the Year honors at Motor Trend.

there is a whole board of guys that handle 400hp streetable 2.3Ts.

300rwhp through a T5 is not 400HP flywheel.

Ah, the good ole 2.3 vs 5.0 argument. I've had both and prefer the 5.0 engine myself only because it makes more torque down low and is much cheaper to modify (also it's much easier to work on imo). However I have to agree with Chuck in that the 2.3 is a much stouter block than the 5.0. I could run 17 PSI boost through my 2.3 all day long with no problems. Try doing that with a 5.0 block.

Granted 17 psi on the 2.3 was only making around 210 HP...

17psi, and you just barely got past the STOCK power of a 5.0L.... 

muhaha......  :evilgrin:.....  notice nobody has said anything about the sound of them?..... 


17psi, and you just barely got past the STOCK power of a 5.0L....  add 14 psi (VERY streetable and reliable) to a 5.0L and you double that number...

This  about the stock 302 block(which actually displaces 299cid in stock form) being weak is just that .

:shakehead

(http://www.mrnitrous.com/cracked_block.1bmp.jpg)

muhaha......  :evilgrin:.....  notice nobody has said anything about the sound of them?..... 

So explain to me why yours wasn't streetable, just couldn't drive it properly to get it into the torque bang?

Watch the video clips I have in my sig and tell me my car sounds like a tractor.

maybe you v-8 preachers are right. Maybe I do need the other half..

most anyone with over 300rwhp should be near or making 400 at the crank

300rwhp through a T5 is not 400HP flywheel.

i didnt say it was.

Look, just show facts. It's a dead production engine and the question was posed as to whether it's still worth staying with a 2.3 or moving on to a 5.0/4.6/5.4/351/LS1/whatever. I'm maintaining that a swap is the right move, simply because a high-horsepower, reliable, daily-driver reliable 2.3T cannot be done at any price, let alone on the cheap.

Aerobird, I'm going to have to disagree with you.

I probably have the most abused 2.3 Turbo engine in my car. It had 130K on it when the previous owner put it in the gray car. He beat the living shiznit out of that car. He even told me how he was bounce the rev limiter in 4th gear, dump the clutch, race it around everywhere, and even told me to do some donuts when I test drove it. He put a good 30K on it

the stock 302 block(which actually displaces 299cid in stock form)

If you can tell me that bolting on a supercharger or a turbo, and creating 3psi is 100% free 30-40 horsepower,

Even the anemic 4.6 makes me happier

Cougar5.0's car is the epitome of awesome street cars on here. I mean come on! 11's out of a full weight, full option Cougar with a blown small block! I can guarantee he has less money in that setup then most 13 second 2.3's.

Just the facts man, just the facts...

PS - They sound like a  tractor!

The next one is Sleeper's in the 13's (very close to the 12's) and we all know how much lighter his car is. Ask him whether or not he likes that 305 Chevy better? Every other 2.3 car is a street car

2.3L...meh.

5.0L...bah.

Everyone knows the 3.8 is THE sleeper engine. Bow down to the almighty 3.8 V6!!!11!1!  :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

2.3L...meh.

5.0L...bah.

Everyone knows the 3.8 is THE sleeper engine. Bow down to the almighty 3.8 V6!!!11!1!  :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

This  about the stock 302 block(which actually displaces 299cid in stock form) being weak is just that .

um, shawn, why would you build something for the street that is a totally gut less piece of  in NON useabale street rpms?  and why would you try and argue with that fact?  to make ANY kind of power out of the 2.3L, stock OR done up, you have to really wind them out...  that ISN"T streetable, or condusive to reliability in ANY motor...  just because you CAN drive it froma short point to another doesnt make it streetable...  hell thats like saying those 6second stangs are street cars....  com'on give me a break...
 

Shawn, your car makes a lot less power than his....

LOL i'll catch your little 2.3L on the streets any day man and make you look like you where standing still,hell i'll give ya a 5 car length head start in the 1/4 and still blow your doors clean off in my 3800lb full load car.
I love how you always think you know what your talking about shawn when you actually don't it makes me laugh lol.
This is why you and i got into it last time,because you truly don't know yet think you do and i get completely sick of it.
If you'd listen to half the people with far more experience than you with the 2.3L telling you that the 2.3L will never out perform the 5.0L and still be streetable then you might have a clue but since you won't maybe you should just go out and buy the board game.
And no big turbo's,big heads and big cams are not streetable in the FORD 2.3L without large money which is what i said earlier if you'd read which you don't,what are you like 18 get some experience????!!!

This is why you and i got into it last time,because you truly don't know yet think you do and i get completely sick of it.

and to prove a point all those at CJ last year all know... eric's V6 could kill my 5.0

my V8 is slow.

In other words, do YOUR homework before you try to insult someone over their age and experience. And grow up, you are not top dog in this forum, you've just spent more money than most of everyone else.

hell we know that....  ask cluade if he would mess with a white XR-7, with it again.... ;):evilgrin: :D

Parts dont make a car fast, a combo does, you of all people should know that.

Just about anything could be built to be reliable and strong, but money possibly could be an issue.

I have PERSONALLY rode in a 2.3 that is making a good bit over 300HP, that is a TRUE daily driver, that is PERFECTLY streetable, and pretty dang reliable for making 150++++++ passes a year off of a junk yard short block, and I would have no doubt in my mind that my mom would have no trouble driving this car with NOOOO issues whatsoever.

For me or Frank? I assume you're asking Frank since I know my car wasn't even 300rwhp let alone 400!

Again, my car was NOT fast, nor did it make 300rwhp (maaayyybe 300BHP at the flywheel). It was certainly not reliable enough for me to trust as my only form of transportation.

not you Aero, the claimed 300rwhp 4 cylinder DD car with 150+passes on it.:hick:

As for the 302 being 301cid i know i read that ford stated it was 299.8cid or something like that and it matches the displacement of the 4.9L inline 6 but since that displacement was already in use they had to bump it up to the public as a 5.0L so they would not get confused when buying a car as to what engine it had in it.
I'll try and find some info on that.

my motor put down 246rwhp @ 15psi. using dominators generalization of 6hp per additional psi, i would have been makin 276rwhp @ the 20psi i normally ran around with, but i never dyno'd it with 20psi....i did run it at the track.
my best et was 14.68 @ 94.8mph; my best ever trap was 98mph. consistent 2.0-2.1 60fts
 

Were you running a ball-bearing SC50R? (I was the first running TC with one) 46# injectors? A237? Ported head?

Your car actually exactly proves my point. You're at that "happy line" on the 2.3 (300BHP, stock electronics/fueling).

They will go high-mid 14's all day long on street tires, and generally be fun and reliable cars. Or basically equal a near stock 302 n/a.

Step over that line into the monster turbo/bigger injector/etc territory and everything changes. I've yet to see any 2.3T car do that, AND be stone-cold nuts DD reliable.

ok with that kind of power you ran the same MPH and ET as my 260XXXmile all original, 180rwhp, (IF i was lucky!) 302 in my bird WITH a 3.08 gear and open rear...  something doesn't add up here....  I have video of the run and timeslips...

check my trap speeds. the truck ran mid-14's because i suck as a driver and it was a ranger. the traps along with the 3030 race weight are good for easy 13's with a better driver. and it was still fun and reliable.
 

wrong, with that wieght and MPH your BEST possible ET MIGHT be a 14.0 or a 13.99..

2.3L...meh.

5.0L...bah.

Everyone knows the 3.8 is THE sleeper engine. Bow down to the almighty 3.8 V6!!!11!1!  :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

Yeah if you don't mind replacing your hood hinges every week or two...

Isn't that about how long they last, with the amount of opening and closing necessary to keep one of those things going???

Frank was talking about my old TC and current Capri combo. Both cars where (TC) and are (Capri) daily drivers, and when raced, I bracket race, so they are tuned to go rounds, not all out ET's in general. I got into the parts hard this year with the Capri because I was pushing the T3's at the track beyond any reason. Anyone that has seen my cars at the track knows I drive them like rental cars, Neither ever left me stuck aywhere on the street, and I would (and have) driven either of them anywhere.

I can assure you, I've got nothing to prove to anyone.

Bob Myers

oops you are correct. i snagged the wrong calculator.....a straight HP to weight calculator showed mid 13's, but didnt factor in trap speed.

still yet, all the calculators show my driving abilites werent up to par with the vehicles capability

I dont use calculators, I used my experience from watching and reading and doing drag racing...;)

The 3.8L was the last to die. So, really, the 3.8L is the best. ;)

, believe me i've done the same with some of your non proven ideas.

However when i post things and you get on my back by callin me names, then your gonna get it back 10 fold.

So don't try and out rank me on your knowledge of these cars.
I'm in my mid 30s and am a licensed class A mechanic

and your what,o yea a snot nose kid you thinks his car is the fastest on the street, hell my bone stock 91sc would probably beat your car.

I own one of the 5-10 fastest cars on this board and you own what,o yea a 14sec 2.3L ahhhhhhhhh i see.

Thanks ron for backing me up against this kid, as a person with a head on their shoulders and one who speaks from experience on my ride.

To all else who don't like me,good for you, those who know me know i'll go to the mat to help them but i can't stand snot nose kids who think they know it all.
I never wanted to start with anybody in this thread but as usual it would be shawn as he can't keep the insults to himself calling me an ASS and tellin me he'll send me a cookie,Yea ok!

and again SOMEONE don't take well to constructive critisism.
Also you speak of no proof, well where's yours with YOUR many friends who run 4-500hp 2.3L's on the street reliably, Bullshiznit i say,prove yourself, My proff is in my RIDE!!!!!!!!!
Dominator OUT!!!!!!!!!!

Come on, folks. Use PMs for the mud-slinging - keep the thread to technical debate.

Edit: 1WLDBRD beat me to it.

mild LS1's become a drivers race.

10 pages......10 whole pages of this stuff.

Luckily, it's only 3 pages for me.

How?

And you're missing some great, constructive debating in at least 7 pages of it.

I also dont know why everybody thinks 1/4mi times are the be-all-end-all. 

+1  TCs were never designed to be drag strip kings.  Ford used the 2.3 for weight distribution, not weight savings.

You drive it because it goes like a raped ape, two days of the week.

either way there is no chance a TC will  run with ANYTHING with an LS1  Hell, My bird would walk stock fox stangs, but even I knew I didn't stand a chance against somthing with an LS1...  They have handling AND power...  TC has handling... 

I also dont know why everybody thinks 1/4mi times are the be-all-end-all. I run mid 15s, which is slow as poo when compared to some other cars, but I enjoy the living  out of every bit of it. Isn't that what really matters? Who cares if a car runs 12s, 14s, 15s, etc or has a 2.3, 5.0, 351, or 3.8....just enjoy the  thing!

I like 0-60, and actually in the case of my car with the 2.73s, 0-50 since it will do that in 1st gear. :hick:
 
Though the way the HO powerband is I like holding it in 1st, easing up to about 25ish and stomping on it. WHOAAAA

i am curious however; how did you tune your combo aBM? i have never seen any tuner/tuning or even a WBO2 in any of your mods lists...

*licks finger and sticks it in the air*

:hick:

That about right, Michael? 

:D

You guys have to realize that I agree with oldraven. Kept to stock, or very mildly modified levels, the TC/2.3T is a BLAST!

On the street, for the money, you just can't beat the fun of a TC.
 My opinion is, a TC is best loved near-stock, and on the street. A V8 is what you want for ET/$.

Wow! I got an X2 from Tom!!!

I breakin out the Scotch.

Nah. I didn't really ever hear you say it was a bad engine. Yours was the first 5.0 swapped TC I'd ever seen, so I remember always giving you shiznit about it. ;)

As for the "not the 2.3T's fault" comment, sorry, but a lot of it is. It's called "basic design principle". If the engineers make a fundamental mistake/design flaw, it stays with the engine until it's fixed by the factory (think PI 4.6's vs. non-PI ones) or by the aftermarket.

They had serious problems the first few years, common to bust #1 piston and wipe camshafts... By the time the TC's debuted some 10 years, late most of the issues had been resolved...

Modifications:
...
ported stock turbo iron head
...
ported stock aluminum upper and lower intakes
...
ported E6 exhaust manifold
...
SC50R (.60 A/R 50-trim compressor, .63 A/R 60-trim Stage III turbine
...
stock air-to-air intercooler
...
rebuilt 35# fuel injectors
...
fuel-rail pressure gauge

I blew a lot of parts, and a good portion of them weren't my fault. But when you shove 25psi down any engine's throat stuff is going to break!

My tune was pretty conservative (and pretty good for no dyno time).

Sorry, but I call BS on that. The GTO runs 13.09 DEAD STOCK. DR's make 12.7's, "mild mods" have hit 11's. Don't even remotely think you're in that league. You *might* stand a chance in a 3rd gear pull at highway speeds against a 200K mile stock LS1 auto, but I'd still bet against you. Considering you haven't even hit bottom 14's yet and EVERY LS1 is at most high-13's stock! Look man I respect you and your car, but don't throw BS onto the field, you will be called on it.

either way there is no chance a TC will  run with ANYTHING with an LS1  Hell, My bird would walk stock fox stangs, but even I knew I didn't stand a chance against somthing with an LS1...  They have handling AND power...  TC has handling...  I want video proof...

Personally, I dont know where you think Chris has thousands into his car...  He was VERY smart, and patient with his money and found KILLER deals on the stuff...  As I said, he has about the same amount in his car NOW as you do in yours...

Even though this thread makes me disgusted to have a 5.0 on a stand.

I was using my car as an example of "crossing the line". My problems didn't surface until the larger injectors and what not. I went from a reliable, fun-to-drive car, to a total basket case in a single round of mods. The point I was trying to make is, if I had left well enough alone and been happy with the stockish combo I'd probably still have the car because it was so much fun.

That's the point. At the cost of getting a 2.3T "right" over that line, you can have a 5.0 going 2 seconds faster. That's why I said "screw this" and sold it.

Heads and a cam ARE "mild bolt ons" for an LS1. If you don't have L92/LS2/LS6/LS3 heads on at the very least, you're not trying. L92's outflow stock LS1's by a huge shot and are under $500.

Take a gander at the LS1GTO ET lists, especially the "cam only" class and tell me what you see. This is 2008 man, not 1998. LSx motors have come so far it's not even funny.

But the point still stands that if you want THE MOST straight line speed for your dollar.

And Gumby, you DO hear about the design flaw problems! How many threads are constantly being made about dizzy gears/auxiliary shafts? Slider cams wiping lobes? PIP/TFI systems pooping out? Heads cracking? E3's cracking? Pistons breaking? The PVC system failing? Fuel rails leaking? Granted there's going to be more as time marches on and these cars get more miles, but a design flaw is a design flaw. AMC V8's have to run an internal oil line to keep from starving the rear lifters. We also have to run sleeves in the integral oil pump (because steel gears on an aluminum housing = accelerated wear and poor oil pressure). It's just a design flaw that has to be overcome.

Don't the stock heads on the SO 302 also have a design flaw , one that starves the 8th cylinder of air?

OK..how about stepping in your own poop a little more.  First you state that a "design flaw is a design flaw", then you tout that your vaunted AMC V8 has a design flaw, that has to be over come.  Double-standard much?

Nowhere Michael have you said yes or no about using a wideband, if you weren't using one then forget it, nothing you say can be valid when it comes to what did or didn't blow up. 

It's not rocket science, if a 2.3 detonates under higher power levels it will likely blow.  If the aux shaft does not break in properly, has a defect, you run the wrong oil in cold weather, or run a high volume pump, it is more likely to fail.  It's a high power density engine and so things happen, parts break, if you can't handle that then stick to what works for you and quit all this arguing.

Essy makes parts to fix the problems, billet aux shaft which is honestly well worth the money if you want to race.  You can't skimp on parts that increase reliability when it comes to a turbo engine.  Head cracking?  Get an Essy head for 1500, bolt it on and do the math on the HP/dollar, or if you have the time and desire do a Volvo head, either is a big improvement over stock without the cracking problems.

Well looky here, more ABM bitching about Ford engines. 

Hey here is a great site.  http://www.ls1.com/forums/  How about you get the **** out of here and go circle jerk the rest of your LSX buddies? Appears they are looking for a good pivot man.

Wow don't let this thread get ugly again...

Cmon guys, ABM (and mostly everyone else) has been just saying it how he sees it.  It has nothing to do with manufacterer.

I think SO 5.0's have a design flaw that deprives all 8 cylinders of air. How else could you explain 155 horses from a V8?...

I've never claimed nor used a WB. Then again neither has Bob (martin0660), Frank (turbo83coupe) or anybody that raced before 2002. Come on man, get real. $1500 buys a wicked set of 5.0 heads vs 1 2.3 head that's only marginally better out-of-the-box then stock?

The aux shaft fails for no reason. Some guys get 200K out of them, some don't last a week. It's a design flaw.

No one here gives a flying shiznit about an LSX engine.  If an LSX had a dick ABM would be all over it.

No one here gives a flying shiznit about an LSX engine.  If an LSX had a dick ABM would be all over it.

Yeah, and I disagree with them on that probably, because the wideband is tuning for the masses and I think it's the way to go now.  Bob has tons of experience.  Frank has gleaned a lot from Bob so that explains that.  In the days before widebands we had EGT which was not a substitute but could keep you from "melting the mill", also reading the plugs, which some people still stand by if you know how to do it well.  Bob also has only used T3 turbos to my knowledge and has managed to go amazingly fast with it.  With a T3 and jacked fuel pressure, yeah the stock fuel management can work.  Get into 50 trim territory and really crank it up and you need to rethink your whole engine management system. I love standalones, they make life so easy and change the way the engine works so dramatically.

 I don't have positive things to show for all the different work I've done, the pieces have never fallen quite right for me and I have other obligations, but I know the ins and outs and problems with these engines and can honestly say I've examined lots of other options and still consider the 2.3T one of my favorites, the only other thing by Ford I'd consider going with is the 4.6 DOHC for any current projects of mine, and even that I wish I could do turbocharged but it's quite expensive.

I'll be honest and say a stock TC engine isn't all that impressive, it has a big torque hit and then instantly chokes.  My first ride in my white TC was with an engine I rebuilt and prepped the way I thought was best and it made all the difference over the stock TC (as I got to drive one later).  It's easy to poke fun at a stock TC's times and forget just how big of a difference the intake, exhaust, extra boost makes, but also I went farther and did porting and a cam, and that truly made all the difference.  Unless you do a big valve ported head, the stock ranger cam just doesn't cut it, it's lame.

LA3/35#s/VAM.

No diversity huh?  Might seem that way since I don't preach my life here like yourself.  What you consider diverse is very narrow to what I have in my garage.

3 of things that limit power the most.

Well, when you're going for 100pt Concourse correct under the hood, there's limitations :evilgrin:

I dont have actual numbers, but I am pretty sure the 2.3 is a PIG!! And may actually be heavier with an iron head, could be wrong....

I think SO 5.0's have a design flaw that deprives all 8 cylinders of air. How else could you explain 155 horses from a V8?

A fully-dressed 2.3T is only 50-60# lighter than an iron-headed 5.0.

So my Twisted Wedge headed 5.0 is about the same weight as a 2.3?!:eek:

Ummmm, no? I was pointing out that the AMC engine had design flaws, just like the 2.3. It's a bad thing and it just has to be dealt with.

And you're pretty annoying. It took Ford FOUR YEARS to fix the cracking E3, and the E6 sure isn't the most "un-crackable" item ever. How many fuel rails are in the "Wanted" section every month on TF? Seriously Chuck, the 2.3 is not a "God" motor and it DOES have problems. There's a reason nobody has good fuel rails in stock (or aux gears, or 87/88 TC clutch forks, etc, etc). Come on man. It's a  debate not a race for a winner.

No one here gives a flying shiznit about an LSX engine.  If an LSX had a dick ABM would be all over it.

If the aux shaft does not break in properly, has a defect, you run the wrong oil in cold weather, or run a high volume pump, it is more likely to fail.

I've never claimed nor used a WB. Then again neither has Bob (martin0660), Frank (turbo83coupe) or anybody that raced before 2002.

Yeah, and I disagree with them on that probably, because the wideband is tuning for the masses and I think it's the way to go now.  Bob has tons of experience.  Frank has gleaned a lot from Bob so that explains that.

Bob also has only used T3 turbos to my knowledge and has managed to go amazingly fast with it.  With a T3 and jacked fuel pressure, yeah the stock fuel management can work.  Get into 50 trim territory and really crank it up and you need to rethink your whole engine management system. I love standalones, they make life so easy and change the way the engine works so dramatically.

EXACTLY. The auxilary shaft is just fine as long as its installed right in the first place, doesnt have the extra load of high volume or high pressure pumps, or SAE 50 weight oil.



Again, for some reason you think you know my junk. I have been running a wideband on mine for the last two seasons. It confirmed a lot of what I am/was doing as right, also exposed why some things worked like they did for me. With Tweecer, a wideband and my Innovate datalogging, I pretty much know whats going on. What would surprise everyone is knowing how close to stock my junk really is.



Indeed I have a little experience with this junk. It's my fasination, it keeps me into racing. I can assure you, a 347 would be easier, but it really  those guys off when a 2.3, 5 speed, street driven cars takes them out heads up, let alone bracket racing. I can assure you, I would have lost interest a long time ago with a windsor based engine, but thats just me.

/rant / BTW - Frank is friend of mine, and will help him any way possible, but...... I WILL NOT, nor have I, done it for him. I try and keep him on the right path, but its his deal, and I'm making him learn the way I did. It actually gets frustrating to sit back and watch him learn (and make mistakes) but I can assure you, if I'm not around any more, he will know how to make his junk run too. I geuss I dont want everyone to think Franks stuff is my doing. /end rant/



You are correct. I have only ever run T3's, sometimes there might be an IHI on there when I'm in between JY turbo's. As Mike likes to point out, I've fragged quite a few of them, but all of them where junk yard parts with unknown history. Hell, i've put them on, and broke them within an hour trying to set the boost :D Since i bought a rebuild with 360 bearing and good parts, its been bulletproof.

Bob Myers

Bob, We're talking about your TC, which never ran a WB to your own claim. The Capri is not in this conversation *sigh*.

Frank was talking about my old TC and current Capri combo. Both cars where (TC) and are (Capri) daily drivers, ......... Anyone that has seen my cars at the track knows I drive them like rental cars, Neither ever left me stuck aywhere on the street, and I would (and have) driven either of them anywhere.

I can assure you, I've got nothing to prove to anyone.

Bob Myers

Bob, We're talking about your TC, which never ran a WB to your own claim. The Capri is not in this conversation *sigh*.

I thought the conversation was about the 2.3 turbo.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v452/LittleAngel1198/103696kh00xpgclm-1.gif)

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v452/LittleAngel1198/calmdown.gif)

dayum 19 pages of this stuff???
And guys complain that women have drama! :rollin:

your calling a technical thread about two different engines drama? So what's your experience on either of these engines.... good or bad?

There are 19 pages of the same thing being said over and over again..... drama.

Now, RJ don't be hatin'! ;)

yeah that the 2.3 sucks...

I aint hating...  its a fact.. ;):shakeass:

Well, the compressor side of the turbo sucks. That's how they work. The air has to come from somewhere. Sheesh.

So the argument is which engine sucks more while sucking less?

Since the 2.3T isn't running on vacuum under load, I'd say it's the 5.0L that's sucks more. :hick:

The 2.3 swallows a lot for it's size though:hick:

No cuddling afterwards!

That's different.....If you shut me off while I'm hot certain parts turn blue.

When the ring on the #4 broke in mine, it was smoking out the breather and even out the catch-can breather pretty badly. 

My breather is set up with a slight vacuum on it from the turbo inlet like you mentioned, but that did nothing to solve the blow-by issue.  Mine only stopped blowing out the breather once I swapped the shortblock.  The teardown of the old bottom end revealed the rings on the #4 were in about 15 pieces.

Did you do a compression test as well when you did the leakdown?

Yours was a stock ring right Chuck?

yawn , a stock reliable, or done up, unreliable turbo four...  that is still slower then a mildly built 302...
what century do you live in?
very easy and cheap to drop an HO in it...  last I checked they had a few more ponies then 140...
even if he does swap in a SO 302....
at least it wont sound like a john deere...:hick:

muhaha......  :evilgrin:.....  notice nobody has said anything about the sound of them?..... 


17psi, and you just barely got past the STOCK power of a 5.0L....  add 14 psi (VERY streetable and reliable) to a 5.0L and you double that number...

Ya after 4 grand for the turbo kit.
strap on a t3/t4 turbo and run 17psi and your upwards of 280 plus hp at the crank for 500 bucks.

Originally Posted by turbo88
And as for the guy having problems with his Turbo Coupe. Your car is over 20 years old, things are going to break.