2.3L Turbo swap into 1967 Mustang

[tyler72]

Yes, the 2.3 may porduce the same amount of peak horsepower, but at lower rpms, a stock v8 will eat a 2.3 anyday of the week. Its the torque too. the lacking of the other 4 cylinders is very harsh to power numbers.Even if it is turbo, whooptydoo.... it doesn't compleetly spool up until what? 4500 rpms? By the time you get it revved that hight the cars there were beside you will be in the next county! lol. I know that you aren't building this for speed, but I think that you will be highly dissapointed in the mileage you will see out of this thing. The engine will have to work a lot harder to accomplish the same task as compared to any V8, so the 2.3's fuel mileage will drop because it will require more fuel and RPMs to create the power that you need to accelerate, climb hills, ect. I too think that it is awesome that you are doing this with your daughter, but I hate to see anybody spend time and money to only be dissapointed in the long run.

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

[fastback69]

I've contemplated building a 65-66 coupe with a turbo 2.3, 5spd. It would be light and it would handle great. I say go for it. A properly sized turbo will spool at whatever rpm you want it to. Huge turbos capable of monster HP are the ones that spool late because of large turbine housings. A small turbine like a .48 A/R should spool in the mid to high 2000 rpm range. You won't need anything more than a T3 to make that car scoot. Turbo cars get pretty good gas mileage too when you're out of the boost. You can even tune the svo computer (or modify a A9L mustang EEC) to run the 2.3l with a TwEECer. It's nice to see someone with some imagination. Good luck with the project.

[LCC]

I agree with fastback69. Do what you want. As for that little 2.3T SVO motor, don't let anyone tell you there junk. There are a couple of guys around here that run them at the track and pull high 11's all day longin the 1/4 mile. They drive it there, beat the hell out of them and drive home, hour and a half both ways..I think your going to have fun with a small displacement motor, not so much grunting out at the low rpms but a weapon none the less..

Good luck..

[htwheelz67]

what are you guys talking about? a 2.3 turbo in stock form will easily eat up a 2bbl 289 in the 1/4 mile, with a few mods the 2.3 can pump out 250-300 hp easily and still be fuel efficient in fact theres some 9 second fox mustangs that do wheelstands running 2.3 turbos.

The 2.3 turbo will become a popular swap as fuel prices soar. I have looked for it but years ago there was a guy who did it in a 65 falcon along with a 5 speed, it used a BIG junkyard intercooler and a cam change, head porting and more boost, it ran in the high 12's low 13's and did around 30 mpgs hwy.

The other benefit is less weight on the front end = better handling. I had an 88 turbo coupe and I know it weighed alot more than my 67 and it ran pretty strong and I consistantly got 25+ mpg's at 80 mph.

Then again, a bone stock 5.0 ho efi and 5 speed can pull 25+ mpg's hwy and add a turbo it even goes up but city driving is maybe 15-16, with my foot 12-13.

If your good at welding and fab I think it would be an easy swap, I would start with the latest model efi 2.3 donor you can find, preferably the 200 hp version, you have to realize the 200 hp 289 did make more low end torque but in todays sae ratings only made about 160 hp compared to the 2.3' s 200 hp.

[SalikDDD]

heh, the 2.3's are nice but i don't know about eating up a stock 289 but weirder things have happened. last 2 svo's i saw running were 16-17 second cars in stock form. i think my 289 @ stock was a wee faster then that.

[tyler72]

No "close to stock" 2.3 is going to be fast. I have worked on several in foxbodies and thunderchickens (T-Birds) that had these engines, and all of them have been really slow. You can floor them and they just putt along like you have all day to get there. Of course, they were all bonestock, and had most had close to 100k on the odometer, but overall, they left a bad taste in my mouth. Maybe a fresher engine with a few good improvements would be better, but there is no way a stock 2.3 turbo will out do a 289 or 302.

[paddy187]

well ford must be doing somthing wrong becuase my old 2.0L Saab turbo was easier quicker than my mustang

[109jb]

Found this video of a 2.3L turbo Mustang taking a 5.0L Mustang in the 1/8th mile. Looks plenty fast enough to me. I say if it's what you want to do then go ahead. There will always be purists that think its wrong but so what.

http://videos.streetfire.net/video/M...s-50_41794.htm

[tyler72]

I must be a purist. I bet that 2.3 wasn't anywhere close to stock either.

[cprstreetmachines]

A 2.3 turbo car dominates true street in drag racing. I've seen him as far as .40 seconds ahead of the closest competitor. It's lighter and a more nimble car with it in there. If everything is the same, weight, power, body shape, a small motor will always pull away. It more difiuclut to make power in a smaller motor, but he never said anything about wanting to go fast in it. I would personally put a 2.3 against a stock 289 any day. A stock 289 can't get out of it's own way.[sm=gears.gif]