67BullittCoupe

shiftless, you know nothing about me, or my background, so shove it.


btw im a mechanical major too so get the f out.

yes they put that motor into super coupesyes they pu tthem in svos

but those were a much different car and different enviroment than a 67 mustang.

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.

your missing the point, yes these cars are light, but vastly infeficient than newer cars, there fore your four cylinder is going to have to work harder than you think, and it will definatly be in boost more of th etime than not. you can set the turbo to only make boost at real high rpm if youd like but that 4cyl moving that hunk of metal will need to get up and go to drive in daily traffic.

remember this car is going to be driven daily, meaning its start and stop traffic and high way merging. not cruises to the car show.

i drive my 67 daily and im telling you with my 289 its still not nearly as capable as the other cars on the road and therefore i have to womp on it to keep in the trafffic flow.

if you were to transplant a stock super coupe motor and turbo then your looking at 16-17 second times in the quarter, meaning to operate in normal traffic conditions your going to be using alot of RPMs and henceforth be in boost more often. menaing your gas mileage will be no differnt than a carbed 6 or a EFI8.

neat project. practical no, efficient, no. cool project yes.

thats all im saying, yes you can tune them to go fast but at the expense of gas mileage, which isnt that one of the overal goals of the project?

67 evil eleanor

1. There will be no flaming within this forum. Flaming or otherwise offensive posts will be edited, locked or deleted.
Did I miss something?

shiftless

A bit touchy aren't we? You made an incorrect statement. I corrected it. From reading your posts, it is OBVIOUS to anyone who understands turbos that you do not.

If you're an engineer, please resign and seek another profession. Your lack of knowledge combined with your refusal to listen to those of us who are more educated on the subject is somewhat shocking.

The Thunderbird Super Coupe was built from '89-'93 and had a supercharged 3.8L V6, hence the name SUPER Coupe. The Thunderbird Turbo Coupe was built from '83-'88 and had the turbocharged 2.3L. If you don't even know what motor came in which vehicle, it's obvious you have never even looked at one, let alone driven one. That's kind of odd considering you act like you're the expert on these motors.

This is absurd. "Inefficient" in what way?

Aerodynamics? Sure, the Fox is more aerodynamic, but not significantly so. I know for a fact that a bone stock 2 bbl 351W, making perhaps 200-220 HP, will push a '68 Mustang to 120 MPH. I didn't try to push it any faster because the nose was lifting and it was getting squirrelly. Below 70 MPH or so (the speed at which the vehicle spends the majority of its time), aerodynamics really does not play a big role anyhow.

Drivetrain? Well, the only difference would be the 8" rear end as opposed to the 8.8". I am pretty certain the 8" is at least on par with the 8.8" efficiency-wise.

So what other "inefficiencies" are there that make the '67 Mustang "vastly different" than a Fox?

That's because the 289 is a small displacement, outdated hunk of metal with craptastic cylinder heads. So is the 2.3, but the difference is the 2.3 has a turbocharger bolted to it which greatly improves efficiency and performance.

So says the armchair engineer, who has no practical experience with turbochargers. You see, this is what the other poster was talking about when he was berating engineers earlier. Not all or even most engineers are stupid or ignorant. The problem is the loudest, most abrasive ones are the folks like yourself who will readily dismiss years of practical experience in favor of their own wild, speculative theories to the contrary. It is clear to everyone here who has worked with turbochargers or driven a turbocharged vehicle that you're simply talking out of your ***. You don't have a clue what you're talking about and yet you seem to believe that you're an expert. Maybe if you would shut up and listen every once in a while, you might actually learn enough to BECOME an expert.

chris00gt

Well, I am a mechanical engineer (BSME) and I have been in the business for 25 years. I would have to agree with shiftless completely!

It is obvious that a couple of individuals here are not very informed, I personally have owned over 60 vehicles and the majority of them have been mustangs of some sort from all era's.

I must say that the 2.3 turbocharged engine is very capable and I have made a couple of people who doubted that fact believers when I take them out in my 3000 pound85 Turbo Coupe. In fact, some disbelievers would like me to build them one because I wont sell my 30 mpg 4 cylinder monster, sure it sounds like a John Deere tractor, but I dont care when I see you in my rear view mirror !

pdxbronco

I like the idea and have lots of reading to do, looks like this thread got a little dramatic. I am new to the classic mustang as well as some of the other engines ford has produced over the years but am very familiar with the windsor family and classic Broncos, currently have 4. I am looking to make a daily driver for my wife and too am concerned about gas mileage. I had a 99 Mustang with the 3.8 and 5 speed, I loved that combo and would really like something similar in economy and power in the classic stang, wonder how it compares to the 2.3 that you are looking at. Anyways, getting back to the reading that I need to do. Godd luck on the project, looking forward to more info. What transmissions can go behind the 2.3? I'd be interested in a 5 speed.

spdrcer34

WOW...I go to work, and come back to another page being written....

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.

My `generalization` about Engineers maybe slightly skewed, as I deal mainlywith Nuclear Engineers. I live in an area with 3 military bases Within7 miles of me.1 Nuclear Submarine Base, 1 Naval station with a Nuclear Powered Aircraft Carriers, and another base that is a mainly aweapons depot.

2.3T inefficient in a Classic Mustang? I guess I just don`t see it....How can the EXACT SAME motor, trans, and rear-end gears be less efficient, when the`67 Mustang weighsabout 500lbsless than than the stock SVO or TurboCoupe the motors originally came in? Again, all things being equal wouldn`t that make it MORE efficient as a package deal?

Realistic Timeline for this build is going to be 3-4 years to completion. Completion includes all suspension upgrades, paint, interior and drivetrain installed and onthe road ready for a 500 mile road trip....(which by my calculations can ALMOST be done with a single 16 gal. fill-up) I have been checking Craiglslist for a car, and I have seen a few really good buys around $500-600...but I JUST bought the Mustang, and we have a few things to do before we can get another car here @ the house.

I bought this `67 from a friend, and he is what you guys would call a `Pureist`....between him, his sister, and his parents they have owned about 50 mustangs over the years. His daddid a Concourse rebuild of a 1970 Boss 429 in Grabber Orange. A few years later he sold and traded the Boss 429 for what equalled about 250k. He got a Ford GT, and a Shelby GT500, and he STILL had about 40k left over...At the same time he built that, his mom gotthe `twin`, by way of a Boss 302...And they thinkour build is really cool...

I think the guys that have an issue with this build are lacking the knowledge about the motor to really respect what I am doing. I`m okay with that. I would even go as far as to say afair amountof the guys on here in the Classic section are somewhat intimidated by EFI. Andwhen theyhear the word Turbo, all they can picture in their head is a Mazda, or a Honda/Acura with a fart can muffler....So I can see where the mis-information, and mis-leading would be coming from. But this motor is a REAL FORD motor. I WAS PUT IN AREAL FORD MUSTANG....and not a crappy one either.....an SVO!....I can`t even say that about the current V6 Mustangs...

Ryan & Ryen

fastback69

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTsOww5ie88

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3f4dhwnT0E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAUjQCV58TU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cLeNgupJ_4

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.

tyler72

See, you too have no I dea what the hell you are talking about. Lol, my car is done (of course there will always be something else I want to do to it). It was apart for about a week when I swapped out the stock 8 inch rear end for a late model 8.8. But it was going way before that and is going again now. I have put another 100 miles or so on it this weekend. But then again, according to you I am a dumbass and don't know **** about cars, so I guess that axle swap, engine and tranny build, and those years at the shop were all just dreams... Oh, and yes, I must agree with you, a stock 289 or 302 is slow, but a few of the 2.3 Turbos I worked on were way worse. My car ran great in stock form. It was (and still is) very reliable, but yes, it was slow. Maybe those 2.3's had other problems though... who knows?

spdrcer34

.....okay guys.....

Can we stop the bickering, and smack talking? I would like my daughter to be able to read this thread without having to read it to her, and editing out the un important bits...

Thanks,
Ryan

UH60LCHIEF

I think it's a neat idea myself. It's your car so go for it. The haters don't have to build, pay for, or drive it. So who really cares what they say anyway? I saw that other 2.3 SVO in a classic thread and it looked like a really cool and original restomod project. I've driven my buddies SVO Fox and it's a LOT of fun to drive and does get pretty good milage if you're not getting into boost all of the time. Which you're not BTW... There's a gauge so it's pretty obvious. Besides, he drives it ALL the time as a DD so I'd have to take his word for it over speculation about the milage.