Engine swaps
2nd Gear Member
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 366
From: California
RE: Engine swaps
i really dont know to much about turbo charged engines but i would assume that a 4 banger turbo set up is not designed to move as much weight as a mustang would weigh... sure they produce a lot of power but i think the weight of the car will wear the motor all to fast but i could be wrong... like i said i dont know to much about turbos....
4th Gear Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,264
From: Eke, Belgium
RE: Engine swaps
Well the saab 900/93 with a 2l turbo weighed 1700kg plus and some went for 250k miles and are still going so a 65 stang is lighter at 1349kg so i would think if built correctly eep he would not have a problem
6th Gear Member
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,635
From: state of confusion
RE: Engine swaps
Classic Mustangs are actually lighter than many (most?) of the recent factory-turbocharged cars. For example, the Mitsubishi Evo is up around 3300 lbs, or about 400 lbs heavier than a 289/302/5.0-powered Classic.
While I'm not against using newer technology, and can see some potential weight distribution benefits, I am having considerable difficulty with the notion of a modified Classic Mustang that makes blowoff valve hissing noises under hard accelerationinstead of either a V8 rumble or a smooth 6-cylinder snarl. Too much of a change in character. Actually, I think even an LS1/T56 swap from an F-body would be an easier pill for most hereto swallow.
Norm
who is currentlywondering if a little suspicion is justified . . .
While I'm not against using newer technology, and can see some potential weight distribution benefits, I am having considerable difficulty with the notion of a modified Classic Mustang that makes blowoff valve hissing noises under hard accelerationinstead of either a V8 rumble or a smooth 6-cylinder snarl. Too much of a change in character. Actually, I think even an LS1/T56 swap from an F-body would be an easier pill for most hereto swallow.
Norm
who is currentlywondering if a little suspicion is justified . . .
text.
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 5
RE: Engine swaps
Well don't forget. Most turbo guys enjoy the BOV sound because thats their style. You can route the piping back into the exhaust and the sound would almost completely disappear.
I don't think i would do a 4 cylinder turbo engine but a 6 cylinder turbo engine wouldn't be too bad.
With a turbo charged engine, the engine does its work like it would normally do. The turbo uses the "waste" gases and turns that into power. The engine isn't working any harder then it normally would. I opted for the turbo because this would yield the btter gas mileage, the engine can actually work less to get you to the same speed that an N/A engine would. The only problem would be the larger fuel injectors to balance the a/f ratio
If there was more input on a turbo charge 6 cylinder engine in a classic stang i would be very tempter, but i think it would be very difficult to find the parts to make it work.
I don't think i would do a 4 cylinder turbo engine but a 6 cylinder turbo engine wouldn't be too bad.
With a turbo charged engine, the engine does its work like it would normally do. The turbo uses the "waste" gases and turns that into power. The engine isn't working any harder then it normally would. I opted for the turbo because this would yield the btter gas mileage, the engine can actually work less to get you to the same speed that an N/A engine would. The only problem would be the larger fuel injectors to balance the a/f ratio
If there was more input on a turbo charge 6 cylinder engine in a classic stang i would be very tempter, but i think it would be very difficult to find the parts to make it work.
3rd Gear Member
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 880
From: Mansfield, Texas
RE: Engine swaps
So if I say that's kinda stupid, does that turn me into someone who previously left? 
I'll put it this way:
on our stock engines, more power ~ less mpg; more mpg ~ less power
(look at the 289 vs. the I-6) I get 19 mpg in the city with my I-6. If you want a turbocharged engine, heck, you can do that to an I-6 (buddy of mine did it, lol).
You want more power, with a little better gas mileage, I would go with a late model 5.0 EFI.
I'll put it this way:
on our stock engines, more power ~ less mpg; more mpg ~ less power
(look at the 289 vs. the I-6) I get 19 mpg in the city with my I-6. If you want a turbocharged engine, heck, you can do that to an I-6 (buddy of mine did it, lol).
You want more power, with a little better gas mileage, I would go with a late model 5.0 EFI.
6th Gear Member
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,635
From: state of confusion
RE: Engine swaps
ORIGINAL: WestCoastRiot
With a turbo charged engine, the engine does its work like it would normally do. The turbo uses the "waste" gases and turns that into power. The engine isn't working any harder then it normally would. I opted for the turbo because this would yield the btter gas mileage, the engine can actually work less to get you to the same speed that an N/A engine would. The only problem would be the larger fuel injectors to balance the a/f ratio
With a turbo charged engine, the engine does its work like it would normally do. The turbo uses the "waste" gases and turns that into power. The engine isn't working any harder then it normally would. I opted for the turbo because this would yield the btter gas mileage, the engine can actually work less to get you to the same speed that an N/A engine would. The only problem would be the larger fuel injectors to balance the a/f ratio
Unless this is being done strictly on a "dare to be different" basis, you'll want to have increased performance over as much of the car's operating envelope as possible. At least equal to basemodel. That includes situations such as being caught off boost at low revs in the "wrong" gear in daily driving. Things I hope you'll look over thoroughly, as I have to admit I haven't kept up with the forced induction side of things all that closely.
Norm
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 5
RE: Engine swaps
ORIGINAL: Norm Peterson
I'm afraid that it's a bit more complicated than that. I went through an interest in turbocharging phase some years back. Although the related technology is more mature today, some (many?) of the same considerations remain, and would need to be solved given the stated reliability requirement. Be careful not to look only at the power benefits and gloss over the rest, as it's not a free ride. There's lots more to doingit right than just injector sizing.Injector maximum duty cycle vs minimum pulse width, lag, lower compression ratios, increased exhaust system pressure upstream of the turbo,cam choice, elevated inlet air temperatures, etc. Find one of Hugh MacInnes' books for starters. And a good book on EFI (hint: large injectors don't run very well at very small pulse widths).
Unless this is being done strictly on a "dare to be different" basis, you'll want to have increased performance over as much of the car's operating envelope as possible. At least equal to basemodel. That includes situations such as being caught off boost at low revs in the "wrong" gear in daily driving. Things I hope you'll look over thoroughly, as I have to admit I haven't kept up with the forced induction side of things all that closely.
Norm
ORIGINAL: WestCoastRiot
With a turbo charged engine, the engine does its work like it would normally do. The turbo uses the "waste" gases and turns that into power. The engine isn't working any harder then it normally would. I opted for the turbo because this would yield the btter gas mileage, the engine can actually work less to get you to the same speed that an N/A engine would. The only problem would be the larger fuel injectors to balance the a/f ratio
With a turbo charged engine, the engine does its work like it would normally do. The turbo uses the "waste" gases and turns that into power. The engine isn't working any harder then it normally would. I opted for the turbo because this would yield the btter gas mileage, the engine can actually work less to get you to the same speed that an N/A engine would. The only problem would be the larger fuel injectors to balance the a/f ratio
Unless this is being done strictly on a "dare to be different" basis, you'll want to have increased performance over as much of the car's operating envelope as possible. At least equal to basemodel. That includes situations such as being caught off boost at low revs in the "wrong" gear in daily driving. Things I hope you'll look over thoroughly, as I have to admit I haven't kept up with the forced induction side of things all that closely.
Norm
thanks for your input. BUT, i was simply addressing the coment earlier about y the turbo engine would get a slightly better gas mileage. I was not addressing any other items with the turbo charged engine. I have zero experience with american cars and turbos so i wouldn't dare to take on that task. But, from euro. cars and turbos my comments above are completely accurate. I dont want to start a turbo charger discussion because that would hijack my thread.
So back on topic: what are the 5.0 EFI engines out there? the ones i searched and found were $6,000 just for the engine but they seemd to be pretty hardcore engines