|
RE: 2.3L Turbo swap into 1967 Mustang
....okay....
Back on topic.... angliagasser, where in WA are you? We are in Bremerton. What transmission, and mount did you use? I was planning on using a T-5 (the 2.3T got the WC T-5 in 86+)....so far, we are going to install it like this: Install an aftermarket T-5 mount, drop in the 2.3T/T-5 assembly. Then bolt up the trans to the aftermarket mount. That will help me locate the the motor, and give me a great starting point to measure, and fab up some mounts. How did you do it? Ryan |
RE: 2.3L Turbo swap into 1967 Mustang
ORIGINAL: shiftless The world would sure be a better place if retards like Tyler would do some research before spouting off a bunch of nonsense about topics they don't understand. The 2.3 turbo motors in stock form make 175-205 HP (depending on year, vehicle, etc) and get anywhere from 25-30 MPG. Yes, they are generally 16-17 second cars in stock form, just like an I6 or 2 bbl 289. The difference it, it is super easy and CHEAP to bump these things up to 250-300 horsepower, using junkyard parts, while still retaining 25+ MPG. This is a fact, and has been done over and over again. Try that with your POS I6 or 289/302. No they are not race cars in stock form, and neither is a 2 bbl 302. That doesn't mean the 302 doesn't have any potential, now does it? Seriously, some of the comments here are so off base, ignorant, and stupid it's not even funny. As far as my credentials are concerned, I've built V8s and 2.3s aplenty. I built a super low buck 351W-powered notch that ran in the mid 12s and took down quite a few modded LS1s, 5.0s, late model GTs, etc. I built a 600 HP Cadillac big block and put it in my '02 Mustang GT. I built a propane-powered 2.3 turbo Ranger that kicked lots of ass, including plenty of dumbfounded redneck 5.0 drivers like Tyler. Right now I am in the middle of building a turbo 351W for my GT. I know all about fast cars, and the 2.3 is not a fking joke. Now, 67Bullitt, to answer your question: just because you hear a blow-off valve go off does not mean the engine is building a bunch of boost. As little as 1-2 psi is enough to cause a blow-off valve to go off when the driver lifts the throttle. It is easy to build a little bit of boost while cruising around and getting on the throttle a bit. That doesn't mean the driver is having to drive around with the throttle floored all the time just to get it to move. Quite the contrary. Turbo motors are way more driveable than an otherwise identical N/A motor even when not boosting. Why? Because the turbo uses waste energy from the exhaust to help pump air into the engine during part throttle operation. This results in higher part throttle torque and much better driveability. This also improves MPG considerably, due to reduction of pumping losses. This is why turbo motors typically get better MPG, too. |
RE: 2.3L Turbo swap into 1967 Mustang
tyler...
I saw Tokyo Drift....and if you take out allthe bad acting, the horrible script, and all the rice burners it was a REALLY GOOD MOVIE! The difference between the TD movie car, and our car is the fact that IT WILL HAVE A FORD MOTOR IN IT... If it was such a bad motor, then why didput it in a SVO? Why was it faster, and better than the 5.0L GT? Obviously you know more than we do, being in school to be a Mechanical Engineer and all...btw, students in Engineer School have a higher drop-out rate than Medical or Law)... I deal with Engineers at least once a week....they are impossible to tryandtalk any sense into. It was once said that the very first thing they teach you in Engineer School, is to get rid of any and all common sense you may have had up until that point. tyler, you appear to have a respectable ride, and some knowledge of these vehicles....but you still have NO CLUE about this combination. What would you rather see in this car? A SHO motor? While totally bad ass in all aspects, EVEN appearance..the original SHO motor is a Yamaha Shogun motor... I even thought about making it a FWD...taking the drivetrain from a Focus...That wouldn't be TOO difficult for me...There's always the current Explorer/Mustang V6.....which is in fact a Mazda motor.... I'll take the 2.3T/T-5 combo over those Ryan & Ryen |
RE: 2.3L Turbo swap into 1967 Mustang
ya not to be rude but it is kind of silly but do what you want if gas mileage is the issue please do not buy a 67 mustang buy a 80s mustang fox body thats a piece of junk and rebuild it with the 4 in it and if she wants a 67 then please get a 6 clylinder they arent terrible on gas and i want a f-150 right now but look at gas prices so i say no i wont do that because there bad on gas maybe you should wait orsay hmmm mayb we can rebuild a67 beetle;).(thats a joke).IM NOT TRYING TO BE RUDE JUST TRYING TO POINT SOME THINGS OUT.
|
RE: 2.3L Turbo swap into 1967 Mustang
Spdrcer34 this sounds like a pretty cool swap. I hope you follow through with it and have a blast with your daughter in the process. If you end up needing some help come out to turboford.org as they have a good bit of info. You can also pm me i've been around the block with the motors.
Tyler72 you might be a purist but you a making a pretty unfair judgement on the 2.3t. As for talking about you car and how it would beat such and such stock i'm sure all the numbers are out there to prove that either way. I personally don't care enough to go look it up but if I was the one telling people how it is i'd make sure I know what I was talking about. I won't even bother with the pissing match about who's car is faster with yours and mine. To whoever posted that a 2.3t makes 185ft/lbs i'm not sure what you are thinking. You missed that number by over 50ft/lbs. It was also stated that a 2.3t makes full boost by 4500rpm is way off but some others did correct it. Our stocksvowould make full boost by 2400-2600rpm. |
RE: 2.3L Turbo swap into 1967 Mustang
My vote is you sell me that 67 and you buy her a moped :).... or just put a weed eater motor in the mustang... then it will be a little more american muscle and not tuner muscle
|
RE: 2.3L Turbo swap into 1967 Mustang
i second texasaxman. that is cool.
why notmy buddies and i crammed a 1000cc street bike engine into a golf cart. it was street legal. everyone loved when it had the front end off the ground across the intersection. custom stuff is what having cars is all about. its about making them yours. |
RE: 2.3L Turbo swap into 1967 Mustang
ORIGINAL: spdrcer34 I deal with Engineers at least once a week....they are impossible to tryandtalk any sense into. It was once said that the very first thing they teach you in Engineer School, is to get rid of any and all common sense you may have had up until that point. BTW, they don't teach you to get rid of common sense in school.....they make you do so many Physics and Calculus problems that your brain turns to mush for a few years [sm=headbang.gif].....It usually gets betterand starts to firm back up after afew years on the job, at least mine did. [sm=smiley20.gif] Good luck with the build. I know you gave something of a timeline earlier, but I've been on vacation for a week and have been trying to catch up and must have missed it. When do you expect to start putting the engine together and getting it in the car? BTW funny comment on Tokyo Drift. |
RE: 2.3L Turbo swap into 1967 Mustang
shiftless, i have a basic understanding of the mechanics of turbos and forced induction but the point is the 4cyl is always under boost, where as a V8 or 6 cyl can operate with out boost. and normally runs under its own power untill higher RPMs. the car may be light but its still RWD so you need more torque than a FWD import. Dude I am going to school to be a Mechanical engineer and have a FULL scholarship to do so. I work on these damn cars all the time at the shop I work at, and have yet to see one that would even touch my car (I know they are out there, but in stock form they SUCK). |
RE: 2.3L Turbo swap into 1967 Mustang
ORIGINAL: spdrcer34 I deal with Engineers at least once a week....they are impossible to tryandtalk any sense into. It was once said that the very first thing they teach you in Engineer School, is to get rid of any and all common sense you may have had up until that point. A good engineer will listen to arguments that are based on technical thought or solid logical description. But don´t expect easy reception of thoughts based on emotion that lack hard evidence. Funny thing, engineers are people too. And we tend to remember who is easy to work with and who has an anti-engineerchip on his shoulder. Way too many people overplay the "common sense" card, when "common sense" is something you just can´t define. You don´t even know that a majority of people outside your own little circle of friends and co-workers agree with it, let alone have any way of proving it. I don´t have any particular prejudice against any number of unusual engine swaps, this one included. Just be sure that you´re doing it for the right reason and not just to make a point. Norm (edit: BSCE, 1970. Over 35 years professional experience) |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:06 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands