Hey its me again, was just wondering if there's any tips out there for grabbing more free horsepower from a turbo 2.3. I already have a lot of the cheap "essential" mods. (Gillis valve set to 17 PSI. BOV. K&N filter + cold air intake). I'm also sending my upper and lower intake manifolds to a machine shop soon to have 'em ported 'n polished. But is there anything i'm missing? I have a feeling there is, as our awesome cars have a tendency to have hidden ponies all over the place.:burnout:
Intake isn't the first thing I would start with. The exhaust is the biggest bottleneck, if you have not upgraded to a 3" down-pipe now is a good time. If you have an 88 I would also suggest a T3 turbo in place of the IHI.
http://www.turboford.org/faq/index.shtml
Bottom line on the 2.3 or any engine for that matter is head work (flow numbers)cam and exhaust. Bigger valves and a ported head is key. Other things count as well. Basically the 2.3 with a stock LA3 is limited to under 300 ponies at best.
There is no free HP on a 2.3 or any engine for that matter. HP= $$$$$
:burnout::burnout:
3" exhaust and gutted upper and knifed lower intake would be a good start.
and cylinder bore.
^^^^^^^^What he said!
Speed is just a question of MONEY How fast can you go?
M. M.
Ron
Yeah, I kind of used "free" horsepower as an expression lol, everything costs money. Exhaust and gutted/knifed is coming. And I'm looking at a t3 turbo soon, but wouldn't that require a bigger intercooler/bigger injectors?
I knew what you meant. Head, injectors and aftermarket ECU make a huge impact on HP and your wallet too! For now get it breathing, intake and exhaust as you plan and make sure you have good Motorcraft wires/cap/rotor. Adjustable cam gear can help tune a bit, up the fuel pressure and pull a few degrees of ignition timing....but be careful!!! That will really wake the car up and should have you happy for a while. I was faster than a stock 5.0 at that point in my old TC.
I have done some damage with the stock 35's and an LA3, they are a limiting factor but if your still kinda new to the car keep it simple for now and keep learning about it. You can find HP in a lot of places, some cheap, some not so cheap.
I think your biggest problem is no compression on cylinders 5,6,7 and 8 ;)
lmao yeah yeah but it's lighter! :D
Thanks man, yeah I'm definately going to throw some of that goodness on there. I do run premium fuel 24/7, but I have the gillis set to 17 PSI. Would you say it's safe to up the timing a bit?
You can pull some timing and it will be more responsive but the less boost you can run before it starts to rattle; that's why I said to be careful. Start at 12* and see how you like it, you can also retard the cam some too to bring the power band down to match the ignition timing. Make sure your searching because there are other factors that determine how much boost/timing you can run.
I wouldn't bother with the intake or throttle body until 300-400 to the ground. When u upgrade your exhaust, wire up wideband o2. It will be needed for aftermarket ecu. As far as beating stock 5.0. Can be done with IHI but easier with a T3.
I have quite abit of experience with a 2.3 in our cars...ask whatever u like.
Travia
Hi Travia,
I don't mean to hijack this thread, but is there any chance that you, or anyone else on here might have a pic looking into the rear of an OEM 88 Turbo Coupe turbo unit with the exhaust elbow removed?
Thx
Ron
Here you go. The back side of an IHI!!!
(http://i740.photobucket.com/albums/xx46/proguns/001_zps1668e25d.jpg)
That is exactly what I needed to confirm that I received the wrong replacement elbow for my TC.
Thanks a bunch Tom
Ron
:DDANG! did that little thing come off of a riding law mower???!!!!LOL
Retard the cam to bring the power band DOWN??????????????????
Retarding a cam with everything equal increases the upper end HP
Advancing a cam with everything equal increases the bottom end HP
Did somebody send u the T3 elbow? T3 with a .63 is a great turbo.
You really don't have the fuel to really use it, unless super crank the fuel pressure.
Travis
I said that?! I did...Im sorry I had a senior moment
No Worries Grey88 It happens to me all the time. My brain is in limbo some days also. No sweat Thanks.
It was on my granddaughter's little red wagon!
LOL
Hey TRavis,
Sorry it has taken so long to answer your question.
I did get the wrong elbow, but it was quickly replaced with the correct IHI elbow for my TC.
I am getting ready to use the custom mandrel bent steel tubing T3 elbow, that was sent by mistake, on my 84 SVO.
Ron
Maybe Im a little late getting in on this discussion, but have you swapped to roller lifters and cam out of a Ranger 2.3? I used to race a 4cyl circle track car and we had to run stock stuff so we used a shaved hydraulic D port 4 plug head with the roller cam and lifters from a later model ranger and a lot of timing along with a Holly 500 and a big through the car header on our Pinto.
Quote Originally Posted by Thunder Chicken View Post
I think your biggest problem is no compression on cylinders 5,6,7 and 8
That must be what is causing that whining-whistling sound on my TC also.
Here all this time I thought it had something to do with the turbo???
LOL
Ron
I really dont think the absence of 4 cylinders means much. As the 2.3 is pretty stout against some ford engines of bigger displacement. I have had many 5.0 guys scratching there head when i POP the hood of a 4 BANGER after smoking them. OUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There has been lots of discussion on the subject of 2.3T weight vs 5.0 weight on various forums over the years. The general consensus seems to be about 100lbs when both are factory stock.
That may not sound like a lot, but I remember getting real happy if I eliminated 15 or 20lbs back when I was drag racing my 65 GTO.
It especially counts when the weight loss is up front.
I can't seem to find it right now, but there was a thread on 4eye forum where someone had converted to an 84 SVO to a 5.0. He said that he was surprised at how much handling capability he lost with the approximately 3.5% weight gain up front when he installed the 5.0.
Ron
i'd like to see proof of this, as in both engines on a scale.
I have both here, but don't have a scale big enough to weigh them. i'm guessing he was using cast iron intake and exhaust manifolds on that 5.0. the turbo manifold/turbo is ridiculously heavy. the blocks are nearly the same size with the 2.3 being taller, but narrower and the 5.0 being shorter, but wider. 5.0 has one less head and the 2.3 head seems to be larger than a 5.0 head as well.
I agree with you. I wish someone with a heavy scale would weigh both engines complete as they come from the factory & put this conflict to rest once & for all.
Ron
I am willing to bet by looking at the front spring rates those 2 engines are within 150-180 LBS of each other!!
As a guy that had lots of fun with the 2.3T in basically stock form in my 1986 XR7 besides a frontmount IC....went 13 flat all the time and 12.96 once....my point it was faster than 98% of the V8 birds/cats on this board.
2.3T can makes lots of power...but it will never have that V8 sound or low end torque feel. But the comment that its biggest problem is its missing 4 cylinders is silly to say the least.
Like Tom R. Said 2.3T are tough and pretty reliable...if u want to rock something different.... Its a good option.
Its like everyone in the world now this LSX engines are the only way to go fast.... So any other method is stupid....I believe that is lame.
Travis
P.S. off soapbox
I think it's obvious my comment was meant to be silly...
You were probably smokin' something alright. Stock for stock, a 5.0 will beat a 2.3T in otherwise identical cars every single time. The 5.0 made more torque than the 2.3t. And got only slightly less mileage to boot. The weight isn't that much of a difference, either.
Then there is the cost of making a 2.3 fast. You can't go to the junkyard and find 10 sets of GT40 2.3 heads, can you? What about intakes? Sure, they are out there, but again, they're not as cheap as even a used Cobra intake.
What's next, you outran a GT500 on your rascal scooter?
Actually the cars are pretty heads up when you look at Time slips. And just for the record getting a 2.3 over 300 WHP is not that difficult. Compared to a 302 yhe little 2.3 can hold it's weight to a 5.0 fairly well. Bottom line and i will get hammered with this one. The 302 is one of the worst v8 engines to modify for a HP to dollar ratio. It is really pethedic that with modest mods the 2.3 can handle many mild built 302 equipped cars. Just saying
:rollin::disappoin:whatever::shakehead
I will agree with Mr. Renzo. The 302, particularly in the fox tbird platform, is certianly NOT cost effective to modify to make any serious horsepower. Just look at power per cubic inch ratio. The 2.3T in stock form makes the same horsepower as the 5.0 with less half the displacement, and that's in from-the-factory stock trim. I think the 2.3 is 122 cubic inches making 180 STOCK spower while the 5.0 is 302 cubic inches making 180 horsepower ONLY in the better versions, remember my '84 T-Bird is making 140. Thats 1.48 HP per CI for the turbo four-banger and .59 HP per cubic inch for the V8....ouch.
Boost is the differene.
A N/A 2.3 is a wuss, and the money a person can spend making a 2.3 N/A fast is endless. Spend about $2,000 on an Esslinger aluminum head with a roller solid lift cam and 11-12:1 compression dome pistons for about $40 a piece from Weisco and modified Chevy 5.7" rods and a Stroker crank will run you another $800 and finally another $200 for a pro-grade balance job to make it live at 6,000 RPM and up, which is where it will make power in NA trim. Thats a lot of money for 300ish horsepower. Easily $4,000
Sure, a turbo on a 5.0 will make big power, but you have to spend big bucks to upgrade the fuel system, timing and spark systems AND buy a turbo and manifolds and improve the lacking internals to handle the boost. That costs money too.
So I don't think anyone can argue that the boosted 2.3, which if you shop a bit you can buy a functioning example of for around $2,000 off craigslist, is a great buy and very affordably modified into the 300-400 HP range with about $1000 worth of parts and still drive the car daily. We'll call that 3 HP per cubic inch on a modified 2.3T.
I want to see someone put together a 900 HP 302 car for $3000 and then drive it daily.
It's true, facts can be hard to swallow if they conflict with your own way of thinking.
I have owned several of each, (2.3NA, 5.0, 2.3T) from 79 Mustangs to a couple of Tbird TCs. I don't find it any more expensive to build a 2.3T than a 5.0, as long as a person stays under about 350hp.
As far as I have seen, both if these engines lose a lot of streetability with any higher hp than that.
A stock SVOs have always run very well against any "close to stock" Mustang 5.0.
For that matter an 87/88 TC that has been allowed to breathe properly with a K & N & larger diameter exhaust will do the same.
The biggest complaint that I have with 2.3T cars, is they sound too much like a John Deere Tractor. On the other hand, a well setup 5.0 usually has one of the greatest exhaust sounds out there, in my opinion.
Ron
Bottom line here is simple both the 2.3 and the 5.0 engines suffer from poor head flow. But an ESSI head on the 2.3 (140 CUIN) engines will wake it up. Or a BO PORT head and cam setup and the 302 is HISTORY. Sorry to say the 302 lacks head flow. If you can't pump air the engine just can't make HP. And lets not forget the HP to cubic inch ratio. Based on that the 302 LOOSES BIG TIME. Bottom line it takes a tun of bucks to make 400+ WHP from a 302. Everyone knows that. It is no secret. But the 2.3 for what it was out performs the 302 by leaps and bounds. Dollar for dollar the 302 is to expensive an engine to make decent HP. That is just a FACT!!
Yeah Tom, I agree, but I wish it wasn't so.
Ron
My 88 GT Vert ran a 13.6 @ 101 with a stock intake 55mm t body long tube headers, high flow cats with stock after cat exhaust. 3.73 gears and the excuse there is no free horsepower, 10 second tune up. 14 degrees initial timing 94 octane gas and power shifting. This is a fairly heavy car also. Throw on a 100 shot zex kit and it is a mid 12 second car. Plus it has the bottom end torque that feels sweet on the street. Sure a hci upgrade costs money but cutting down the 5.0 is extremely short sighted imo/ I know lots of people that run high tens or low elevens with ac, and very streetable with very little money invested. I like the 2.3 turbo but to cut down the engine that has made its mark in history and revived the modern hot rod, well no offense Tom, is very biased and not a very reasonable thing to say.
Did someone say GT500? Mmmmm......I love delicious GT500's, especially when my 2.3T keeps them in the rearview mirror.
Edit: My sig needs updating, lol. High 11's..pfft, now high 10's
Ron dont get me wrong you can build a respectable 302 but basically it needs BOOST. Weather a turbo (best way to do it ) or a blower. Either way that is what it takes. So building a 302 with a blower for example will cost app 8 GRAND and get 400 Wheel HP. That is not a good buy back for your DOLLARS. But a 2.3 with app 5 Grand worth of mods will net you 400+ and that is a fact. Dont underestimate the 2.3 Ford you just might meet up with one that will BLOW YOUR MIND. They Run They are relatively cheap to build and they make good PONIES. Thanks!
Well this thread went to hell in a handbasket.........
Yeah, well... LS!
Actually, you dont need boost to make a respectable 400 horsepower from a 302. A bottle maybe, but none the less. My buddies fox has a explorer 302, gt40p heads, e303 cam, its carbed with a 125 shot. Dyno'd at about 390 at the wheels. Mostly used and junkyard parts.
But, back to the 2.3 stuff that were here to actually supposed to be debating. Ranger roller cam, turbo, exhaust, gutted knife edged intakes,good motorcraft ignition parts are the first few places to eek power out of the 2.3
TOM, I usually agree with you, but I think you have been hitting the pipe a bit to hard tonight... for 8 grand you could build a aftermarket block'ed, 225cc headed, 363ci, 8.2 deck height engine that would be putting down well over 500hp NA.
OR, you could take a $500 junkyard explorer engine, put a set of forged pistons in it ($400), gasket match everything ($free-fiddy) , head studs and main studs ($250), Gaskets with good head gaskets ($200), supporting mods like 340lph fuel pump/AFPR/tune ($750), and an on3 Performance turbo kit ($1800 with upgrade turbo). It would make 500+hp. sure, you might split the block, but that list comes out to $3600. with the $4400 left in your budget figure, you could buy an aftermarket block, crank, and heads which would allow you to turn the boost up and make 700+...
TOM, I believe that you are most likely a good mechanic. I KNOW you are a very valuable source of repair info on this site, BUT, I do not think you know how much parts actually cost.
Unless of course you were talking about dropping the car off at your shop and telling you "I want 400whp" which I could see costing $8000 at a shop since shops here charge well over $1000 in labor for a simple engine swap.
First of all i do not charge 1000 bucks for an engine swap. Example i did a super beetle last week and charged a 125 dollars.So it depends on the car. Some engines cost over a thousand bucks. 125.00 is my hourly rate. Bottom line is the 302 SBC BBC and all the old obsolete engines are fine for a resto or moderate mods and low HP. Today guys are running street cars well in to the 800 HP range. Once again all these old engines do not pump AIR. So they do not make HP. With that pricing out a good bottom end doing all the required machine work and doing all the modifications to either TURBO IT or a supercharger is quite expensive. Even if you decide to buy a crate engine it is going to cost at least 5 K just for the engine. That is a GOOD ENGINE. One that will not split in TWO when approaching these HP# Been there to many times with customers. So the basic discussion was the 2.3 V 5.0 With that the engine comparison is quite even with the 5.0 slightly higher on HP and Torque. With that it is my belief it is easier to modify a 2.3 cheaper than a 5.0 and the results are close leaning to the 2.3. I have built and ran many a 2.3 on the dyne and they produce good HP at a reasonable cost. With that i do base my costs on my shop time labor to some degree for engine building. But like you said doing it yourself is the saving. Also many of those kits are expensive. Especially blower setups. But a lot of guys go for Blowers as dyi guys because it does not involve welding to a point. So many turbo cars are expensive and complicated. But on the other hand a Blower uses HP to make HP so pick your poison. Thanks
The engine below will cost telephone # just to rebuild it. It will make 1400 HP to the wheels. It blew up . It will be dun correctly and live another day.
(http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c209/tfalconier/null_zpsdff8aef7.jpg) (http://s28.photobucket.com/user/tfalconier/media/null_zpsdff8aef7.jpg.html)
Now we also do LAWN MOWER ENGINES. Below is one of the lowest HP cars we ever ran on the DYNE. 36 HP to the wheels. Without a dought the lowest hp we ever checked. But not bad it started out at 22. Thanks and have a great day.
(http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c209/tfalconier/null_zpsa0599181.jpg) (http://s28.photobucket.com/user/tfalconier/media/null_zpsa0599181.jpg.html)
OH, I know how you feel on the swap rate. When I had my shop I did them for $250 flat rate, some ended up paying me $200+ an hour, some ended up paying $20 an hour, you win some, you lose some though.
Most of the bigger shops around here though charge by how many hours AllData says it will take to do the job. like a simple CV axle change on a Kia Optima that I ended up doing for a woman. She had priced the job at some of the shops in town, it was between $200 and $325 just in labor, not counting parts and shop materials to change one CV. AllData calls for roughly 5 hours to change one CV on an Optima. I went and did it in her driveway in 45 minutes and she gave me $100, I was only planning to charge $50, but she insisted.
How about these?? Taken from Kaase's website. It was also aired on an episode of Stacy David's Gearz.
- Equipped with Kaase P-38 cylinder heads, a modest camshaft, and an Edelbrock Junior intake, the 302, running on pump fuel and barely 9:1 compression ratio, easily generates 500hp @ 7500rpm.
I likey!! :evilgrin:
Was there supposed to be a link there? I missed it.
I forgot to put it in and I noticed I put the wrong show in also. Sorry :( try this :)
http://staceydavid.com/black-book/jon-kasse-racing
- Complete assembled cylinder heads consist of Premium stainless steel valves, ARP Pro series rocker studs, Custom built guide plates, Competition Cams and Manley hardware, Manley Nextech valve springs on full roller cylinder heads, Pac or Competition Cams Bee Hive valve springs on hydraulic roller cylinder heads, flat tappet also available. $2500.00 pair.
[/FONT][/SIZE]
- Complete assembled cylinder heads come with Kaase cast P-38 valve covers and valve cover gaskets.
- Bare P-38 cylinder heads are machined and ready to assemble. $795.00 each.
- P-38 cast aluminum valve covers $99.00 pair.
- Valve cover gaskets $40.00.
I forgot to put it in and I noticed I put the wrong show in also. Sorry :(
try this :) http://staceydavid.com/black-book/jon-kasse-racing
- Complete assembled cylinder heads consist of Premium stainless steel valves, ARP Pro series rocker studs, Custom built guide plates, Competition Cams and Manley hardware, Manley Nextech valve springs on full roller cylinder heads, Pac or Competition Cams Bee Hive valve springs on hydraulic roller cylinder heads, flat tappet also available. $2500.00 pair.
[/FONT][/SIZE]
- Complete assembled cylinder heads come with Kaase cast P-38 valve covers and valve cover gaskets.
- Bare P-38 cylinder heads are machined and ready to assemble. $795.00 each.
- P-38 cast aluminum valve covers $99.00 pair.
- Valve cover gaskets $40.00.
^^^^^
What he said + a good free flowing cold air intake system so it can breathe in as well as out.
Ron
Guys the OP hasn't been on the board since the end of June. He hasn't responded in this thread since January............
You guys turned this into a giant g match for nothing :hick:
Dougy-Fresh i was thinking what you said yesterday and could not do any work today thinking about the combo. The combo you posted stuck in my mind all night so this morning i went over to J&L racing and met with Joe one of the best ford engine builders i know. He actually has a computer program that estimates HP and RPM with ford components and combos. He also has programs for other engines as well. So we typed in your combo with 8.5-1 compression and a Comp cam with specks around 560-580L and 221 D on 112 Centers .030 over on pump 93 and 16 Lbs of wind and sure enough the computer spit out 500+ ponies plus or minus. What you posted was on my mind all night and i could not sleep. Re Reading your post was fascinating because of the ROD angles and app flow numbers the computer spit out. Clearly the computer confirmed what you posted. I commend you and i am impressed. Thanks and have a great night. GOOD JOB!!
:bowdown::bowdown::bowdown::bowdown:
I dont think so as i learnes something and we had a good discussion. Disagreeing is healthy and i actually got some education on this subject. I enjoyed it and we were all civil as i read the posts. I personally think this was one of the best discussions in some time. I enjoyed it and it opened my mind. As the matter of fact i am going to build a small Fors motor and use the compo posted that we just discussed in my wifes DROP top Mustang. Thanks Tom
For such a heated topic, this was kept extremely civil. I was reluctant to involve myself due to the fact that I know very little about the little 4 bangers. I just prefer the 302 due to the fact that I know them pretty well and available parts are endless.:D:D
Fellow Tbird/Cougar brothers
Got to love the ford 302 vs 2.3T debate....its always a good one...(the average 5.0 guy isnt even aware of the 2.3T) stock block 302 can make some serious power with a power adder....your choice to which it is...nitrous, turbo, supercharger...but that stupid stock block always causes problems....alot more if your car is heavy...ie over 3000lbs. The 2.3T is an awesome engine...but having a factory limited rotating assembly over the 302. The 2.3T rods are good, but 7000rpms and 450rwhp will cause problems. Both are great engine, reliable engines that ford built almost 30 years ago. I find that impressive.
But Tom is right about making great power...both of these engines have heads from the factory. Easy to fix on the 302...not some much on the 2.3T. The aftermarket has come along way. One of the biggest reasons that LSX engines are so popular is the worst factory heads flow better than the best aftermarket heads that you can bolt on a SBF.....never mind the lowly 2.3T. I really wish Ford in the 90's would have went to town on there SBF OHV setup verse the modular stuff.... Im not saying the mod motors are bad...they are great reliable engines....which is all that a OEM manufacture really cars about....but the LSX engines just wipe the floor with them...stock to stock.
A nice basic explorer engine with good heads intake....blah blah blah....can barely keep up with the power produced by a 5.3 chevy truck motor with a cam and long tubes...and you can get these engine for almost nothing....and the blocks and rotating assembly is pretty impressive...well past stock 302 and 2.3T setups and on par with the much bigger and heavier 351W....crazy...GM did a good job on the basic engine.
I did 351w swap with a turbo in my car...it should make 700 flywheel horsepower with a nice easy setup...it will be a powerful setup for sure. I didnt want to deal with the stock 302 breakage with my heavy cougar...and I wanted more low end grunt than a 2.3T would provide...so I swapped. The much bigger 351w is a big pain to fit under our hoods....but that is done. It has taken almost 2.5 years for this to all work out....I only wish Chris had went 10's with a 2.3T a couple of years ago....It would have been enough for me. Hind site being 20/20 and all :)
Sorry for the long post....
Thanks
Travis
Like Tom, I too have learned a bunch from this thread.
I am a newcomer on this forum, and I really appreciate the fact that this touchy subject could be intelligently approached on here, & we all came away with some great info on both engines & the possibilities of making them go faster. Thanks to all of you who contributed to it.
Ron
DUDE anyone that has a BIRD with a DOGS head can chime in ANY TIME. That is SCARY!!!!
I was almost afraid to look at this thread since my last post as on most other forums when you are a newer member you seem to get slammed whenever you voice your opinion.
Maybe when the free horsepower subject is brought up it might be best to consider the power that the factory has bottled up or not unleashed, not just the money. To me that is what is so great about being a car nut, finding out what can be done to get the most from your ride...
Sure both motors have poor heads but compared to what was available before, ( 1974 up smog heads ) they at least offered some decent performance. I did post a link to a Essy head with Bopart cam that is being auctioned on Ebay. The head is already more that what I payed for my CNC KC Brodix 210 cc heads that they used on the Windsor that was built for me. I like the 2.3 and want to build my TC motor into a decent daily driver motor that gets good mpg when I am cruising down the highway and when some kid wants to play with his Audi or BMW and tries to put you to shame, I want to have the power to make him think twice. I like them both and I like most Ford motors they all have there place.
Hearing a stroker FE run is one of the coolest sounds in the world...
Anyways nice that everybody kept there cool, nice to see.
Mark
We are a pretty laid back bunch of folks around here. A good debate can usually be had without it turning heated.
It's funny but Tom u look similar to the guy on fast-n-loud that comes to buy cars sometimes , check it out very close
Good debates and conversation is essential to the life of the messageboard....as long as everyone is an adult...all is good.
Travis
Something not mentioned is valve springs. I agree that intake work is not going to net appreciable gains, but worn out valve springs make the car fall over at higher revs. Pretty common on old 2.3's.
More turbo is the biggest bolt-on gainer, there are cheap hybrids out there that are holding up, and if you want to port something, do the exhaust manny (a later one).
My 2.3 in the TR7 has a little more cam (re-ground ranger roller .410 ish lift), new valve springs and a T04E50/.63 turbo on a stinger header on an otherwise stock motor with large injectors and Megasquirt and made over 300 tq and 280+ rwhp on a dyno. Never popped the original 120,000 mile head gasket ever and have over 20,000 miles on it since I did it 6 years ago. I have a few drag race passes on it as well.