2.3L Turbo swap into 1967 Mustang
 

I just bought a 1967 Mustang for my daughter and I to build over the next few years.

The plan is to swap in a 1980's 2.3L Turbo motor. Has this ever been done before? Anyone in particular I should be in contact with concerning this swap?

I am verywell versed inautomobiles, and now I'm going to teach my daughter everything I know...

If you guys can help,it would be a lot easier on thebank account ifI don't have togo into uncharted waters....

Thanks,

Ryan & Ryen

RE: 2.3L Turbo swap into 1967 Mustang
 

Well, Id say it can be done, and it will be great if you are planning to build the slowest 67 Mustang ever imagined. Even in Foxbodies, a stock 2.3 SVO (Turbo) is a dog. They are soooo slow. My car stock would eat one of these alive. Do what you want, but I just think it is a waste of a perfectly good car. Sorry if I amputting you down, but those motors are horrible in stock form, and would be a lot more sluggish in a 67 because it weighs a lot more than any Foxbody. I think it is great you are teaching your daughter. Most girls know nothing about cars, so its nice to know that some are still learning about them. In my opinion, I think it would be cooler if you taught her about American V8 muscle instead of the American ricer wannabe. Just my 2 cents.

RE: 2.3L Turbo swap into 1967 Mustang
 

isnt angilagasser doing this?

RE: 2.3L Turbo swap into 1967 Mustang
 

This is not about building a fast car. Nor is it about building a car fast...

She is almost 12. And she will learn how to drive with this car. And then it will be her car.

If I was building it for myself, I would be dropping in a 5.0L from an Explorer and going from there.

This is my daughters car. And with gas prices jumping from $2 to $4.50 in 4 years, what will it cost 4 years from now?

Even with 200hp (easily achieved with these motors) at the crank it will be a decent commuter to and from school/work, and get good gas mileage.

Ryan

RE: 2.3L Turbo swap into 1967 Mustang
 

+1 racin66

search angliagasser in the members list and try to contact him. he had quite a long thread running about this swap but it may have been lost in recent disruptions to this forum.

personally i understand your reasoning and i am not gunna speak out against it...but there's something about the idea of a 4cyl in a 67 mustang that just doesnt do it for me[:-] In all seriousness, I think you could get better economy/driveability/reliability results from a late model efi 6 with an o/drive box.

RE: 2.3L Turbo swap into 1967 Mustang
 

I think you have a great idea. I'm into modding, and if you want to do a turbo 4, then go for it. 200 ponies in these light cars will get you down the road as fast as you need to go. Often so many people think everything has to have the high HP engines that often we forgetthatthepurpose may be something other than racing or burning rubber. I think this will be a very good combo and great project, not to mention the quality time spent together. Along with the 4 banger, I would opt for some more safety features (3 point belts, metal fire barrier in the rear, disc brake upgrade etc. Other than some fab issues, it should be straight foward. You may want to keep track of the ECM from the donar car and make many notes, as the after market ones are expensive. Also, the same withthe fuel system.Otherwise, do it and have fun.

RE: 2.3L Turbo swap into 1967 Mustang
 

IMO, you will spend a whole lot of time, money, and anger before you get it done and end up with a very mediocre car that gets mediocre gas mileage. If good gas mileage is what you are looking for then why not just get her a honda civic? I don't know much about that engine (2.3 liter SVO) but I doubt the gas mileage was GREAT on them, and add that to a classic mustang (I think they weigh 35 or 3700 pounds?) and all you have is a car that looks sweet, cost a lot of money, and doesn't move well.

Don't get mad, its just my personal opinion, but do what you want.
If you still want to go forward with it do a simple Google search, I just did and found a few sites (i'm not posting it here though because they are from other mustang forums and I don't know the rules about posting it here.. I seacherd for "2.3 mustang engine swap classic mustang"

Best of luck to you! and welcome to the forum!
I would say search the forum, but the last I knew the search feature was down, I don't know if it is fixed yet?

RE: 2.3L Turbo swap into 1967 Mustang
 

A 2 barrel 302 in stock form would get 20 MPG easily (I know, I had one in my car before I built the 347). At least it would still have 8 cylinders and get good mileage. They aren't overly fast, so thats not a concern. I just think a 4 cyl in any mustang is only half of the motor they were intended to have.

RE: 2.3L Turbo swap into 1967 Mustang
 

I have alot of experience with these 2.3L Turbo motors. I used to own a Merkur XR4Ti.....That was a great little fast car...

As for why don't I just buy her a Honda? Well, she would have a hard time finding a place to park it, as it won't be aloud at this house.

As she gets older, we can turn up the power on the motor easily....but you guys are forgetting the fact that this will be for a 15 y.o. girl...

This car will look way better than the99-04 Mustang that SHE wanted...and get better mileage than Me or my wife's Explorers.

It's either the 2.3T orthe 4.0L drivetrain out of my Explorer when I drop in my 347/T-56.

But I would much rather put the 2.3T in there.....it's different.

Ryan

RE: 2.3L Turbo swap into 1967 Mustang
 

https://mustangforums.com/m_4904241/tm.htm

most recent post on anglaigassers build
good luck with the project

RE: 2.3L Turbo swap into 1967 Mustang
 

Oh come one now whats wrong with hondas![sm=smiley2.gif]

but as far as with the project! after further thought i take back everything i said in my original post on this topic..[sm=signs003.gif]

although i don't like the idea of a 4 cylinder car in a classic mustang its better than a nissan engine in it!

RE: 2.3L Turbo swap into 1967 Mustang
 

The 1968 coupe was the most produced Mustang. Also referred to as the hardtop, the Mustang coupe had a production of 249,447. The hardtop weighed 2635 pounds and had a wheelbase of 108 inches like the prior year's Mustang. The Coupe boasted a 200 cid engine and cost $2602. [/align][/align][/align]-according to the mustang timeline on this site. from what i understand the 67 and 68 are almost identical so i imagine the weights will be similar. 2600 pounds is actually really light. a hopped up 2.3 turbo will be more than sufficient to move the mustang and quickly at that. foxbody mustangs start at about 3200 lbs +/-100 lbs[/align]

RE: 2.3L Turbo swap into 1967 Mustang
 

Dugan the 64-68 coupes are around 2600 lbs the fastback and convertibles are pushing 3000lbs the heavist mustang was the 71 with the big block around 3400lbs tell the newest mustang came out thats a pig.I wouldn't give her the mustang as a first car most people have a car wreck with in 6 months of driving get her a cheap beater for the first year then the mustang is what id do.Gas prices who knows what they will be in 5 years could be cheaper or higher.The 'gas shortage" of the 70s prices did jump a lot and limited you to so many gallons.

RE: 2.3L Turbo swap into 1967 Mustang
 

my 1967 with a 289, 8.8" rear, no ac, no power steering, headers etc. weighed 2840lbs with less than 1/4 of a tank without me in it.

RE: 2.3L Turbo swap into 1967 Mustang
 

Yeah, they are heavy cars. I will weigh my 72 the next time I go to the track. It should be close to the same weight since the entire top end of my engine is all aluminum. :DI have power steering, and ac, but they might add 100 pounds at the most.

RE: 2.3L Turbo swap into 1967 Mustang
 

So let talk sense we have an engine with the same power as 2 barrel v8 with less weight so it will be faster than a lot of stock cars and some modded ones too. While i would not do it myselfI more in keeping my car period correct, good luck with it.Wasn't that 2.3L turbo that was used in the EscortRS cosworth at high tune and used in the rally car? So I am sure modded you could do a lot more.

RE: 2.3L Turbo swap into 1967 Mustang
 

why would you even think of putting a 2.3L in a mustang....thats just insulting? BUT hey its your money and your car good luck and make sure you post lots of pics because this is something everyone would want to see.

RE: 2.3L Turbo swap into 1967 Mustang
 

Why the 2.3?

Just go buy a 460 and a c6 tranny, cram it in there, (improperly, of course) and let her start driving when shes 13.

:D

I think its a unique idea, and if you have as much experience with them as you claim, then you should have no problem tuning it in to where you want it.

Good luck. Post pics and stuff as you progress. She'll be a little cutie in High School with the car, but have a hard time finding a boyfriend thats cool with her having a better car than him... [8D]

RE: 2.3L Turbo swap into 1967 Mustang
 

that engine, according to gov't estimations, gets around the same mileage as my 88 Silverado with a 350. I dunno how much better the mpg of the 2.3 will be in the stang, I know the efi setup im getting for my 72 is estimated at around 18 to 24 mpg. I guess im just laying this out there so in case you can't quite find the 2.3, you know there are other choices form the V8 family that get the same mileage as the 2.3. Plus with it being turbo'd that's going to eat at the mileagetoo, just make sure she doesn't have a lead foot. ;)

www.fueleconomy.gov

RE: 2.3L Turbo swap into 1967 Mustang
 

It doesn't matter what you do. The cool thing is that you're doing it with your 12 year old daughter.[sm=happybounce.gif]


HUGE THUMBS UP!!!

RE: 2.3L Turbo swap into 1967 Mustang
 

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.

RE: 2.3L Turbo swap into 1967 Mustang
 

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.

RE: 2.3L Turbo swap into 1967 Mustang
 

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..

RE: 2.3L Turbo swap into 1967 Mustang
 

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.

RE: 2.3L Turbo swap into 1967 Mustang
 

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.

RE: 2.3L Turbo swap into 1967 Mustang
 

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.

RE: 2.3L Turbo swap into 1967 Mustang
 

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

RE: 2.3L Turbo swap into 1967 Mustang
 

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

RE: 2.3L Turbo swap into 1967 Mustang
 

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

RE: 2.3L Turbo swap into 1967 Mustang
 

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]

RE: 2.3L Turbo swap into 1967 Mustang
 

I knew this would be interesting alot of peole would not agree, but in the end it is your car and your money. If your daughter learns how to do something this interesting, she will be way ahead of me! Are those motors easy to find parts for? I still drive by aplace that has a SVo stang sitting for sale I should stop as they are probably getting rare?

RE: 2.3L Turbo swap into 1967 Mustang
 

im gonna throw a +1 for a later model 6 cyl swap.

if you decide to build the 2300 then i say more power to ya, but stay away from the 4.0 V6. those things will end up with cracked heads if you even look at them the wrong way. seriously, dont ever overheat your exploder LOL.

RE: 2.3L Turbo swap into 1967 Mustang
 

I know my way around the Explorers....I have 3 of them.

In my family we have had 8 or 9 of them....Quite frankly the single most easymodern car to work on. I have modified them....and made some custom never before done stuff to the motor as well. As for cracking the heads, Yes, that was common in the early years...but the easy fix is to swap on 95tm heads, which bumps the compression AND the exhaust seats are something like 3x thicker than the 90tm heads...

The transmissions areTHE weak point on the Explorers...I have PERSONALLY re-built the M5OD-R1 in my White Explorer 2 times. The first time I just dropped instock replacement parts. Then I cracked the case on a hard launch...then I replaced thecase, and upgradedsome of the internals with the updated components that Ford added in later revisions....

Youguys have totally lost the point on this build.....If I wanted to give my daughter a FASTvehicle, I would havesaved my12 sec. Olds Cutlass, and given that to her. That was the first car that she helped me build.

12 sec. and 20 mpg is EASILY achievedin the 87/88 Thunderbird Turbocoupe.....I'll be subtracting350-500 lbs for the swap into a Early Mustang over the TC.....She will be happy with 13 sec. and 30mpg which is even EASIER to do....

How many guys herewould be TOTALLY OKAY with their teenagerdriving their'built' Mustang? Not many. And I'm not okay withmy daughter having350+hp at age 15.......

Ryan & Ryen

RE: 2.3L Turbo swap into 1967 Mustang
 

A 289 wont get out of its own way???? What are you smokin?Must be some good stuff.

RE: 2.3L Turbo swap into 1967 Mustang
 

what about a s/c 3.8 from a later tbird? popped head gaskets suck but other than that they are great motors.

oh yeah, i've seen 4.0 heads with cracks that literally went all the way around the head - not just seats (worked in a machine shop for years)

RE: 2.3L Turbo swap into 1967 Mustang
 

I'd go for it. The concept is great. the 2.3 is a good motor with lots of potential. They have been around since the 70's in Pintos. I had two Rangers with the 2.3 non turbo and I pulled a trailer with full size cars on it. The idea is right for the times and it would be cool to pop the hood and see a nice conversion that looked factory or tricked out. I have a big block inmy 67 and while it's mildly modified it will suck the gas. I don't know wher you live but I'd make it E85 capable too. Heck, I may swap a SHO V6 into mine if gas keeps going up. I had an 89 SHO 3.0 5spd that would fly and get decent milage too. Good luck and plus 1 on the other saftey stuff too.

RE: 2.3L Turbo swap into 1967 Mustang
 

I think the idea of a 2.3L svo is awesome... do what you want with it and by the looks of it you look more informed on the issue then most of us anyways. I know saying this is gonna make alot of guys mad but stock 302s and 289s are just nothing special and alot of 4 bangers (Not saying the 2.3, im just not informed iin the engine)these days are able to destroy them even in stock trim... alot of 4 bangers are alot more advanced then these old motors and out perform them... That being said i love the old 302 in my 72 sprint and its def. the way to go for me... but again, how many 2.3L 60s car are out there? It should be awesome and good luck, could be a dud but if i had the skills and patience i would go for it.

RE: 2.3L Turbo swap into 1967 Mustang
 

As for safety upgrades, we are going to install Explorer Rear disc brakes. It's a bolt-on for the 9" rear that's under there now.

We will also be adding 13" Cobra discs up front....of course they will be power assisted. As will the steering. Probably going to install a R&P.

3 pt. Seat belts will also be installed.

Minor suspension upgrades here and there. Nothing radical.

Ryan & Ryen

RE: 2.3L Turbo swap into 1967 Mustang
 

I would figure out how to form an SVO hood for it.

RE: 2.3L Turbo swap into 1967 Mustang
 

i had a 84 svo i bought it for 1k$ it wouldnt boost to its stock 14lbs w.o falling on it face(the spring in between the air cleaner and the turbo was gone) i fixed that upped the boost from 14 to 20 psi and it stock 5.0 and 4.6 99-04 gts for breakfast and still managed 35mpg on the road as long as you stayed below 78mph


i miss it dearly[:@] the turbo locked the next day up after a 140+ mph dash in the middle of no where. some guy cam eand bought it and drove ti to atlanta i will buy another asap from either going back to work or from my settlement it wil be my DD and i think im gonna mod it slightly suspension and a holset turbo(perfectly sized OP you can find them on dodge diesel trucks;))