'92 SHO in '70 Cougar (questions)

[65ShelbyClone]

ouch there goes that idea in my 65 but what about fuel mileage with a 2.3T?

There is guy over on turboford.org that put one in a '65 notchback. It will still improve handling because the 2.3 is shorter and can be set closer to the firewall. I can just about climb in front of the SVO's engine. An aluminum head like Esslinger sells will help weight. A Volvo swap is good for a lot more power, but requires a fair bit of fabrication and IMO is not for the faint of heart. Custom pistons, welding the head, tuning the EFI, and scratch building an intake and exhaust come to mind. I personally would rather just start with a Zetec or Duratec.

There have been reports of economy in the low to mid 30s with the Turbo Coupes, but that is more of a best case scenario. Mustangs are lower due to the aerodynamics and an early one will be lower yet. The most I was able to get out of my SVO was about 26, but some of the engine sensors are going south. fixing them should bring the mileage up to ~28-30mpg. That and recutting the leaky valves. Head is probably cracked through the seats anyway, most 2.3T heads are.

 

[bnickel]

i think a turbo 2.3 would make a killer swap in a 65-66 stang, they actually might get better milage than you think since they are quite a bit lighter than a turbo coupe. i would probably also use the ranger dual plug head on it as well. my brother 95 ranger has over 400,000 miles with only regular oil changes and the occasional tune-up. he just had his first "major" repair the other day...the starter went out, oh, and it's had the clutch replaced twice but that would be considered a normal wear item on a manual trans anyway.

i'm planning on build my daughter a mustang II hatchback with t-tops and turbo 2.3 for her first car, but with an auto trans instead of a manual trans. should be good for close to 30 mpg and have decent power but not so much that it would get her into trouble, especially with an automatic

 

[65ShelbyClone]

It might get better city economy than a TC, but the weight isn't going to be a significant factor on the highway IMO. I still think 28mpg is possible in an early Mustang, however. By comparison, my '94 Toyota pickup gets 31+mpg on the highway and usually 27-28 in mixed driving. Then again, it has a shell, only 114hp, and only weighs 2560lbs.

The Ranger DP head flows better out of the box than a D-port, but it also has smaller valve stems and would probably require a custom turbo manifold. It would also be a good idea to replace the exhaust valves with 1-piece stainless. The turbo engines came from the factory with Nimonic 80 exhaust valves, which is a superalloy relative of Inconel. For good reason, too; the 2.3Ts often have EGTs around 1000°F at idle. Full boost EGTs often reach and occasionally exceed 1600.

 

[bnickel]

it's been my understanding that the dual plug head is a relatively common swap for the turbo motors, however i haven't really looked to deeply into it yet, so that could be totally wrong. it's just something i've heard over the years.

 

[65ShelbyClone]

It's not really a red-hot swap from what I have seen, but it is an option other than having a D-port or oval port head gone through. The DP heads are also not nearly as prone to cracking. Boport attacked an early DP head and got 240cfm out of it with porting and a 1.89 valve. That's more than my untouched Edelbrocks.

The DP heads also need a lot less ignition timing, which is good.

EDIT: The DP intake port is good, but I have seen grumblings about poor flow on the exhaust side. The stock intake is also like breathing through a straw, apparently.

 

[rickcdewitt]

so forgive me for not being up on the weights but is it the turbo and a cast iron head and manifold that make them weigh that much?

i have a ranger thats been lifted and modded pretty heavily. and its my understanding from the amount of lift you get for a certain engine size that the 2.3 is lightest,then v-6,then v8.

the v8 is 50 or more pounds heavier than my 4.0l so thats a lot to gain from a 2.3l?

 

[65ShelbyClone]

The turbo gear only adds maybe 30lbs over a 2.3NA. The iron head is partly responsible for the weight, but there is a lot of iron in the block also. If the 4.0 V6 is lighter than a 5.0, then that is the lightest option. The 4.0 is a much better truck engine than any of the 2.3s IMO.

Hmm, there is another classic swap option.

 

[joey_hv]

I guess I should have mentioned that the cougar is going to be my kid's first car so I don't really want him having "stupid" hp, and the look of the engine will give the old cougar that "wow" factor when he opens the hood to show off to his teenage buddies who don't know much about hp.

 

[woodsnake]

That is a much more honest answer!
If you are concerned about his safety, or how responsible he will be, a 302 might be a better option.

I would still have to say that in order to meet your objectives, a 4V 351W, with stock internals, decent dual exhaust, (2 1/2 inch pipe with flow masters, or magnaflows) will meet the objective better, for less money.

A 70 Cougar isn't a light weight car. If you really want to let him impress his friends, cough up the cash for a 3.25 rear gear, with a locking differential. Once he learns how to power brake it, he will go thru gobs of tires, and his friends will drool themselves to death.
Of course, any time you start 'improving' a cars engine performance, the rest of the car should be improved as well. Brakes, suspension, seat belts, cooling, all that stuff.

Are you planning on letting him share the fun in financing the project as well?
My youngest son was born in 1990, and so I found a 70 XR7 for him. He has had the car since he was ten years old. I have done 90% of the work and financing so far, but as he has gotten older and started working, I'm shifting more of the investment on him. I am of the old school belief that in order for kids to respect anything, they have to invest something of value on their own. Time, money, effort and plain old fashioned elbow grease are kind of hard to get out of most kids today!

 

[joey_hv]

We are comiited to the SHO at this state in the game. I have a 351 C sitting in my shop but we both agreed the SHO would be so much cooler.
And yeah he is definitely investing sweat equity into the project.
He has hand sanded every square inch of the body and I am teaching him body work so he will know every inch intimately and will think twice before letting some chick sit on his hood!

Anyhoo, I am going to install a 8 point rollcage and also 4 point harnesses in the front seats.

I like the rear end gear ratio idea though but I hate to see him burning up tires.


I like for him to learn how to "walk silently but carry a big stick"

The weather here sucks right now all rainy and foggy so I am working on the roll cage and engine for now.
Pictures to follow soon.

 

[331efiblue66]

I put a t5 behind my 3.0 pushrod motor in my old Ranger. I used a bellhousing from a Toyo Koygo 5 spd, a Mustang SVO Clutch, a standard mustang throwout, and an external hydraulic slave. Only thing is I used a v8 tranny and had the input shaft turned down to the v6 pilot bearing diameter, so that I could use the factory roller pilot bearing. Here is a link to the writeup I did after the swap was all said and done.

"...would you like a T-5 with that?"

 

[bnickel]

if something should happen to that SHO engine finding a replacement engine or even just parts is going to be very difficult and he will probably be out of a ride for a very long time. i would recommend either a more common v6 or a fairly anemic EFI 302 out of an 80's crown vic or town car along with the AOD trans as well and that same 3.25 trac-lok diff. it will have enough power to keep out of harms way yet not enough to get him into trouble.

i'll be doing something similar once i find me a decent ranchero body that i can install the engine and trans from my 86 town car into. the town car actually gets pretty good mileage for being a big heavy tank and should get the same or better mileage in a much lighter 68-71 ranchero, especially once i've converted it to mass-air and add some better heads like the GT-40P.