I'm working on an 88 notch 2.3, with T-5 and 4.10 gears. I made a custom 2.5 exhaust, and a larger intake pipe, advanced the ignition timing, and found that it made noticeably more power. Now I'm putting on a header from a Ranger, the newer style roller cam with an adjustable sprocket, and I'm going to modify the intake and graft on a larger throttle body, possibly a stock one from a 5.0. Does anyone have much expirience with n/a 2.3's, and know about how much rwhp I can make with this type of setup? Thanks for looking at my thread.
2.3 n/a Horsepower?
- Thread starter NothwoodsGT
- Start date
-
Sponsors (?)
Jax Rhapsody
Member
THe EFI 2.3s have 120hp stock. What you can do is convert to MAF you could also use a Ranger intake but since you skipped that, Esslinger and Racerwalsh sells an intake made I think by OFFY that resembles the 4bbl intake for the carbed 2.3s that is used to bolt on CFI and later TBs from larger engines. The Ranger came is a god step but all that is actually atleast by me considered a mild build up. But you can only go so far with an EFI 2.3. IF you had a turbo or carbed one you could go further.
To make N/A power, you'll need airflow, and it will be nothing short of costing a fortune. Sure, you can do those little bolt ons, but the head and cam will still be choking the engine and keeping you at around 120-130hp. It will take a whole combination to make good N/A power... ported head (or esslinger head), lopey cam, long tube header, offy intake and carb would make very nice power and the stock bottom end would take it for a while, assuming you don't exceed 6500rpm very often.
I played with NA stuff for a while too. I had a shaved head (for ~10.5:1 compression), 220-220 @.05 cam, long tube header, no cats, CAI and some other little parts and was still running low 18s at 76mph.
Part of my problem was the automatic and I couldn't get into the power band until 100' down the track, but the mph was still crap. Then I sprayed a dry 70 shot and dropped it to low 16s at 81-82mph. Still painfully slow! An all out N/A 2.3 setup from esslinger costing 10k$ would probably run slightly faster, but would still be stuck in the 15's probably. Those parts are for racing in a specific class, usually on a tight dirt track.
Then, I went to a basically stock turbo setup. I went very low 15s at 93mph which was enough to give some stock 5.0s a hard time. Some more tweaking with the same basic turbo setup and I was ran a high 12 at 106mph... 03/04 cobras watch out.
Last fall, I sprayed a 40 shot and went 12.2@111.. all with a basically stock turbo setup.
As you can see, the NA 2.3 is a bit useless. Sure, it's fun and cheap to play around with the part that you are, but gets expensive fast when you stat talking about ported heads, big valves and lopey cams. Go with a cheap turbo setup and don't look back! If you want NA power, get a V8.
Having said all that, I don't regret playing with my NA 2.3. I learned so much and had fun doing it. There is something about driving a slow car fast that makes it fun. If you wondering about the next modification, I personally recommend shaving the head for about 10:1 compression, a mild cam (the Ranger roller doesn't count) and a light port and valve job while the head is off.
I played with NA stuff for a while too. I had a shaved head (for ~10.5:1 compression), 220-220 @.05 cam, long tube header, no cats, CAI and some other little parts and was still running low 18s at 76mph.
Part of my problem was the automatic and I couldn't get into the power band until 100' down the track, but the mph was still crap. Then I sprayed a dry 70 shot and dropped it to low 16s at 81-82mph. Still painfully slow! An all out N/A 2.3 setup from esslinger costing 10k$ would probably run slightly faster, but would still be stuck in the 15's probably. Those parts are for racing in a specific class, usually on a tight dirt track.Then, I went to a basically stock turbo setup. I went very low 15s at 93mph which was enough to give some stock 5.0s a hard time. Some more tweaking with the same basic turbo setup and I was ran a high 12 at 106mph... 03/04 cobras watch out.
Last fall, I sprayed a 40 shot and went 12.2@111.. all with a basically stock turbo setup.As you can see, the NA 2.3 is a bit useless. Sure, it's fun and cheap to play around with the part that you are, but gets expensive fast when you stat talking about ported heads, big valves and lopey cams. Go with a cheap turbo setup and don't look back! If you want NA power, get a V8.
Having said all that, I don't regret playing with my NA 2.3. I learned so much and had fun doing it. There is something about driving a slow car fast that makes it fun. If you wondering about the next modification, I personally recommend shaving the head for about 10:1 compression, a mild cam (the Ranger roller doesn't count) and a light port and valve job while the head is off.
What the frick are you talking about?
His engine had 88 hp stock. The DIS engines (91-93) had 105 hp.
Converting to MAF would do nothing and using a Ranger intake would do nothing. Ranger roller cams are not an "upgrade", they are just a cheap way to get a roller cam.
And I don't know what CFI or throttle body you could or would want to bolt up to an offy four barrel intake...
65ShelbyClone
Founding Member
What the frick are you talking about?
His engine had 88 hp stock. The DIS engines (91-93) had 105 hp.
Converting to MAF would do nothing and using a Ranger intake would do nothing. Ranger roller cams are not an "upgrade", they are just a cheap way to get a roller cam.
And I don't know what CFI or throttle body you could or would want to bolt up to an offy four barrel intake...
+1.
Jax Rhapsody
Member
What the frick are you talking about?
His engine had 88 hp stock. The DIS engines (91-93) had 105 hp.
Sorry I always thought carbed 2.3s had 88 and EFI models had 120. My mistake.
Converting to MAF would do nothing and using a Ranger intake would do nothing. Ranger roller cams are not an "upgrade", they are just a cheap way to get a roller cam.
Last I checked MAF is better than VAM, a ranger intake is better than a Mustang one and your right the ranger cam aint really a upgrade, but uts a tad better.
And I don't know what CFI or throttle body you could or would want to bolt up to an offy four barrel intake...
I said the intake LOOKS similar to the 4bbl intake. See how it sez "resembles".
And just to keep this post short, A 2.3s not useless, maybe for drag racing but I'm gonna auto-X mine.
You screwed up the quote, but anyway...
1. n/a 2.3's don't have a VAM. '87-90 have speed density. '91-93 have MAF. Turbo engines had VAM. Nevermind the fact that converting from a vam to maf isn't necessarily the best solution on a turbo engine.
2. How in the hell is a ranger intake better than a Mustangs? The "square" Mustang intake (same as used on the turbo engines) is the best flowing intake you can get for the 2.3.
3. The "intake" that you're referring to that "resembles" the offy intake is just a modified EFI lower.
Anything else?
1. n/a 2.3's don't have a VAM. '87-90 have speed density. '91-93 have MAF. Turbo engines had VAM. Nevermind the fact that converting from a vam to maf isn't necessarily the best solution on a turbo engine.
2. How in the hell is a ranger intake better than a Mustangs? The "square" Mustang intake (same as used on the turbo engines) is the best flowing intake you can get for the 2.3.
3. The "intake" that you're referring to that "resembles" the offy intake is just a modified EFI lower.
Anything else?
Jax Rhapsody
Member
1 VAM was a mistake I ment SD
2 most people say the ranger intake is better, but maybe its the upper portion, I forget.
3 I didnt know that.
Anything else:
I guess I learned the wrong information. I wont sit and argue if someone knows the right stuff. Strange cause I know more about the 2.3 than any other Ford engine. NOw I wont be sending false info to people.
2 most people say the ranger intake is better, but maybe its the upper portion, I forget.
3 I didnt know that.
Anything else:
I guess I learned the wrong information. I wont sit and argue if someone knows the right stuff. Strange cause I know more about the 2.3 than any other Ford engine. NOw I wont be sending false info to people.
