2.3 horsepower question

[blacksheep-1]

OK, here's the deal, The local autocross club changed the rules that basically obsoleted my car for this year. I ran 3rd in points last year even running against S2000's and supercharged, race engineered (modded up to my class) miatas. I recently received ownership (free) of a beater 89 LX, 5.0 auto vert, but because I want to wreak some havoc on the lower classes, I plan on running the 2.3, It will be with the auto, since upshifts/ downshifts actually cost time. The courses are very small, and I'll need to mod the trans to perhaps some type of manual valve body (or a powerglide) and run a 4.11 or 4.56 gear. I also plan on running the tube front subframe and coil overs, I must have, and really need, especailly with the auto, a solid amount of horsepower from the 2.3. A blower or power adder will "mod the car up" a class, What I really want to do is to make a class destroyer for those freakin miatas. Since I'm new to the 2.3 game, please help me out, thanks - Rob

BTW. www.wedrivefast.com

Mustangs...ridding the world of Mitsubishis' since 1943

 

[onebad7up]

Are you wanting to make power with or without a power adder?

 

[blacksheep-1]

Without, that way I'll stay out of the v8 class
Here's the point, I'm trying to take as much weight off the front of the car as possible so it will handle, If I can pull that off and make good HP, I'm in business, I'm just afraid the auto will kill a N/A 2.3.
This is the question I posed in their rules forum.
http://www.kickflop.net/autocrossbb/viewtopic.php?t=118

 

[Shawneebear93]

Even with an intake, exhaust and ported heads/intakes (the port jobs might not even be worth the money) you'll only squeeze out around 150 horsepower. If you're looking for a 2.3 to swap in, make sure you get a mass air engine as they have 105HP stock compared to 88HP which earlier 2.3 engines offered.
BUT with the multitude of aftermarket suspension pieces available, you might be able to hang in with the other cars in the fleet if you shed enough weight and use the right suspension setup.

 

[onebad7up]

Yea you will need to do some work to that motor to get power N/A. Look into bore and stroke kits.

 

[sleeper_inc]

I know this might sound dumb but do the volvo head swap, yes it might take time and money but

A) its cheaper then a elisser (sp?) head
B) it adds more power and options for the future
C) Its unique

As for power adders, the MASS AIR will give you more power stock for stock, but once you add the cam that came in the 91-93 mustang 2.3's they are even!

The only adders that you could do is a ranger header, Cam (custom or a ranger roller) CAI, 2.25" exhaust, port, knife edge, bump the compression, go to a carb, windage tray, etc.

 

[blacksheep-1]

No, I saw that forum before, but I'll need all the info. It sounds pretty cool actually.

 

[supercolt]

which volvo head can you swap in?

 

[Red_LX]

If you're looking to make some kinda n/a handler, an auto vert is probably the WORST possible starting point. Besides being a flexy flyer, it's slow and heavy.

How "stock" does the engine need to be?

You'll need to look into dumping as much weight as possible. I dunno about the auto thing...for one thing, good luck mating a powerglide to a 2.3L (besides the fact that a 2 speed would suck for autocrossing). I really think you'd be better off with a 5 speed with a good shifter, cuz the A4LD sucks balls, and you'd be looking at investing at least $1000 into it to make it perform (from what I've heard).

Also, you'll want to do things that take advantage of the 2.3's torque. Not exactly sure how gearing and whatnot work into that equation, though.

 

[stykthyn]

FRRP makes performance cams for the 2.3, I dont know how much of an upgrade they are from stock though.
Is the vert a 2.3 or a 5.0?
I have a 93 vert and it buckles like a belt through every hard turn it goes through, by the time you stiffened the chassis enough to take the abuse from auto-X you will have added a tremendous amount of weight. kind of a punch to the balls.

 

[blacksheep-1]

I'm familiar witht he flexi flyer bit, The "T" top cars are almost as bad. You could put your fingers between the "t" and the roof and feel it flex as you went around corners.
The car will have to use a roll bar, so chassis stiffenning will be built in with a little creativity. Instead of using mild steel I was going to use chromoly, that would keep things light even though the welding process is a little different. As far as the car goes, I can lighten anything I want, and I was planning to strip the car down to the bare shell and use a fiberglass dash/hood/decklid and a Kirkey seat.
The auto is definately the way to go, My 99 gt used 1st and 2nd for every track we ran. I would preffer to use the Ford auto but I have no qualms about putting a 'glide into anything if I need to.
The million dollar question is really this: does the weight and hp of the 2.3 make enough of a difference in handling to justify running it instead of a v8?
These are not hp tracks, The mph is limited by the insurance carriers to 75 -tops

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s52/blacksheep-1/IMG_0604.jpg

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s52/blacksheep-1/Img_0516.jpg

 

[sleeper_inc]

which volvo head can you swap in?

B234F is the volvo head you want. There are a few people running one on there 2.3 turbo's

http://www.ndperformance.com/projects/86svo-nd_p2/index.html

http://www.geocities.com/_nitro_/volvoswap/volvoswap.html

 

[onebad7up]

The volvo heads are extremely hard to swap though. This should not be attempted by a novice. There is a lot of custom fab needed to pull that off.

 

[Red_LX]

The million dollar question is really this: does the weight and hp of the 2.3 make enough of a difference in handling to justify running it instead of a v8?[/url]

As an n/a...I doubt it.

2.3 n/a's are just not very good engines unless they're gone over fairly well. Poor flowing head and low compression holds them back too much.

 

[65ShelbyClone]

Worst of all is the head. Second to that is the fact that a fully dressed 2.3 is maybe 50-75lbs lighter than a 5.0. Why Ford messed around with the Lima for so long is beyond me....it was old and outdated 20 years ago.

A Volvo head alternative is a Duratec 16v engine swap. There are places that sell adapter plates and I think they varied in power between 140 and 150. Some are also aluminum blocks.

 

[scruffman]

Worst of all is the head. Second to that is the fact that a fully dressed 2.3 is maybe 50-75lbs lighter than a 5.0. Why Ford messed around with the Lima for so long is beyond me....it was old and outdated 20 years ago.

A Volvo head alternative is a Duratec 16v engine swap. There are places that sell adapter plates and I think they varied in power between 140 and 150. Some are also aluminum blocks.

plates??? what do you mean??

 

[65ShelbyClone]

Adapter plates(and bellhousings and engine moutns) for RWD applications.

 

[Anlushac11]

That heavy block and head is why people can make over 400 rwhp with mild modifications to block and crank.

Oddly enough the 3.3L I6 weighs almost same as the 2.3L
but we also have a sucky poor flowing head and in a Fox body the engine is farther forward so we are nose heavy.

 

[65ShelbyClone]

Yeah, there's nothing wrong with the shortblock, but everything above the pistons is, IMO, bleh. I won't deny that lots of people have made lots of power with iron 8v heads, but it's a lot more difficult than with something aluminum that flows 220+cfm out of the junkyard and isn't guaranteed to be cracked. Just my opinion, not gospel or anything.

I think I'm getting the FWD engines mixed up. I think the Zetecs are iron blocks and the Duratecs are all-aluminum.....either appears tobe a good option from what I've seen.

 

[65ShelbyClone]

Look what I dug up in the bowels of my computer:

I'm not sure what transmission that is....I think it's out of some Euro Ford. This photo came from a UK site for Zetec RWD conversions.