2.3L Turbo swap into 1967 Mustang

[plazma]

ORIGINAL: spdrcer34 The T-5 is the only manual transmission that was ever put behind the 2.3T from the factory. In 85.5 it was a plain jane Tremec T-5, while from 1986 to 1989 (the XR4Ti was the only car to get the 2.3T in `89, I think) Ford upgraded the T-5 to a 'World Class' T-5, upping the torqe handling to 330 ft. lbs. I'm thinking the merkur didn't come from the factory with a t-5 but a t-9 trans. If memory serves the t-9 was some sort of mazda trans? Either way that trans isn't nearly a strong as a basic t-5. I'd also like some clarification on the older car being less efficient?

This ad is not displayed to registered or logged-in members. Register your free account today and become a member on Mustang Forums!

[spdrcer34]

I think the Mazda transmission you are thinking of is the M5OD-R1. I have rebuilt a couple of them. They are nothing more than a Lightweight, imported version of the T-5....

I was under the impression that all 2.3T's had a T-5 for a Manual, and a 3 spd C3 or 4 spd A4LD...but it has been a few years since I was real heavy into the 2.3T

Ryan

[Norm Peterson]

ORIGINAL: 67BullittCoupe

a classic mustang is MUCH more inefficient than those two cars, meaning the engine will have to work harder than normall.

if you recall the the 289s ran 14-15 second quarter miles with 300 ft/lbs and 280 horsepower, so obviously it takes more power to move this car than a more efficient foxbody car or super coupe.

Poorly researched "tech" isn´t any better than "common sense", and your approximate age is showing even without you dropping any hints. Sometime between 1967 and the years of the SVO Turbo 4´s advertised engine output swapped from the overly optomistic "gross" numbers to "net". 289´s never made 280 HP in any form. Most 4-V 289´s were A-codes down around 225 gross HP. Maybe 180 net. I don´t have nearly enough interest in drag racing to keep track of that sort of performance, but 15-ish at 90-ish sounds reasonable.

There´s a lot that you can do with an EFI turbo setup that you can´t do with a carb´ed turbo. Trust me on that one.


spdrcer34 - It is perhaps unfortunate that much of your experience with engineers is with those in the nuclear biz. The problem there is that you need to nail everything down with hard tech, most criteria have "hard" limits, and everything has to be "documentable". Within the military, there are security concerns, and in the civilian nuclear power industry since Three Mile Island and Russia´s Chernobyl the documentation requirements have grown immensely. My point here is that statements without solid explanation don´t cut the mustard where nuclear is concerned. It´s one thing to leave your work in the office at quitting time, quite a different thing to change the way you look at things when the whistle blows. IOW, you´re running into folks whose jobsrequire that everthing be soundly prove-able and discourage thinking in terms of things that aren´t.

Outside of putting resumes together, I rarely have any reason to mention that most of my experience has been nuclear related. It´s not a matter of me being embarrassed to admit it (I´m not). It´s just not a normal conversational topic. But it has some relevance here.

My only concerns with the swap itself involve weight (I´m betting it´ll be closer to a wash vs a small Windsorthan you think), heads (unless you´re looking at Esslinger´s catalog), and low end part-throttle response (what a mild/moderate SBF is really good at in a daily driver or just around town on the weekends). Most everything else is just details and interface stuff.


Norm

[AV8ForFun]

ORIGINAL: fastback69

Turbo 2300 FTW!!! The car should handle quite nicely with the 2.3l, as well. Autocross is the most legal fun you can have in a car and it helps you become a better driver.

He shoots and he scores.....winner 2.3 Turbo.

I still would rather have a big honkin ineffecient carbureted big bore V8, if only for the sound they make, but I'm a dinosaur in that respect.I learned a long time ago not to underestimate what FA induction with a little juice can do for a motor....even a small one.

[Triumph]

Hi My Name is Triumph, I am a new dog on this site....came over to let you know that the T in 2.3T stands for Triumph, NOT TYLER..... Just let me know when you are ready to be POOPed on....

Triumph.....( Old Dog, 72 Notch...ugliest car I ever pooped on ....)

[Angliagasser]

Sick-um Triumph! Remember what tyler said..... quote - Thats enough to get a feelow killed where I'm from.
By the way feelow is spelled fellow. Think he needs more schooling!

[67BullittCoupe]

ORIGINAL: Norm Peterson

Poorly researched "tech" isn´t any better than "common sense", and your approximate age is showing even without you dropping any hints. Sometime between 1967 and the years of the SVO Turbo 4´s advertised engine output swapped from the overly optomistic "gross" numbers to "net". 289´s never made 280 HP in any form. Most 4-V 289´s were A-codes down around 225 gross HP. Maybe 180 net. I don´t have nearly enough interest in drag racing to keep track of that sort of performance, but 15-ish at 90-ish sounds reasonable.

There´s a lot that you can do with an EFI turbo setup that you can´t do with a carb´ed turbo. Trust me on that one.

Norm i have always respected yoru posts but as of right now i feel like you should trade yoru mustang in and let the youth who rightfully deserve such a car have it at half the price. go buy a cadillac if your going to lecture me about my age.

if they over rated them so bad how was the 428 CJ rated at 330 but puts out close to 400 horspower but the 289 k code rated at 275 is more like 220?




your right im only 18, ive owned over 5 mustangs personally not counting my families and my fathers. i am a mechanical engineer student at the UCF honors college and i am ASE certified in auto collision repair and refinishing. ive restored more mustangs than most adult enthusiasts have ever owned. ive built autocross race cars, raced circle track and have participated in aerodynamic studies at the university.

ive also owned a 2.3 mustang, i also own a 67 coupe. i also own a volvo s80 turbo which uses the same turbo thats on the supercoupes.

a 67 mustangs aerodynamics are relative to a brick. the geometry of the drivetrain reduce power to the ground. those are two facts you cannot remove.

i dont really care what you think of me, but i have always read and respected yoru posts. i was aware that you are a mature older adult and usually enjoyed your posts.

but now i feel like youve pulled a very stereotypical insult and it makes me respect your generation less and less as the day goes on.

perhaps i was wrong in my calculations, we will find out when he is finshed with his project. if i am wrong then so be it, its not the end of the world, but apparently it makes old men get twisted in thier computer chairs.

[LCC]

[sm=bicker.gif]
Why all the hate. Everyone is entitled to there opinion. Say it and be done. No need to personally attack each other, stop the "I'm better than you stuff".

Everyone knows thatCanadiansare the smartest people around .....

[67BullittCoupe]

ORIGINAL: LCC

[sm=bicker.gif]
Why all the hate. Everyone is entitled to there opinion. Say it and be done. No need to personally attack each other, stop the "I'm better than you stuff".

Everyone knows thatCanadiansare the smartest people around .....

you had me till canadian.

[spdrcer34]

if they over rated them so bad how was the 428 CJ rated at 330 but puts out close to 400 horspower but the 289 k code rated at 275 is more like 220?

The 428CJ was 'rated' at 330 and put out close to 400STRICTLY forInsurance Purposes ONLY. Ford knew that their their 'target audience' (males, between 21-35) for that vehicle wouldn't be able to insure their newly purchasedMustangs if the power output was statedcorrectly. Lookit up. It's beenfairly well documented that it happened.

When it came to alot of other cars, the motor output was rated with no accessories, at the crank. By the time the Fox body came around the output 'standard' was changed to include driving the accessories...


I guarantee you that the difference inCoefficient of Drag on the `67 Mustang Coupe, and the Fox Hatchback is nill.....I would even go as far as to say the `67 has a better CD than the Fox..

And as for the drivetrain efficency.....Again, you have totally lost me on your logic.

The exact same2.3T/T-5 combo PROPERLY installed, with ~4* ofpinion angle going into the rear-end will have theEXACT same BHP as in a Fox, TC, or `67 Mustang...with one exception....The 1967 Mustang Coupe weighs LESS then the Fox, and LESS than the TC...so which one is 'more efficient'?

As a student of Engineering, I'm amazed that you don't see th flaws in your theory. Your reasoning is flawed. Seriously flawed. Until you know the specifics, I suggest you keep your 'perceived' facts to yourself.

Ryan