My 2.3L N/A Project

Discussion in '2.3L (N/A & Turbo) Tech' started by 4cMadness, Jan 15, 2007.

  1. The whole reason for a project like this is just the "neato" factor. Something that not alot of other people have. Sure I could do a turbo swap like everybody else, or shoehorn a massive V8 into the engine bay, but why not be different?

    Besides that, the mods listed were only for the engine. What about other things that have to be taken into account? Throw in a beefed up T-5, different rear gears, a stiffer suspension, etc. and it'd actually be quite nice to drive. After all it's not just how much power you have it's how efficiently it's applied. Kinda like "size doesn't matter it's how you use it." Not saying it'll be a race monster, but it definately won't feel sluggish.

    And the whole thing, while maybe not the most cost effective project, will definately be fun to drive as a daily driver. And doing it this way means I don't have to change my front brakes, fuel lines, motor mounts, crossmember, etc. that would be involved in a V8 swap.
  2. Well if he decides to do a port and polish on the head, depending on what kind of P&P and mechanic, it can be done cheaply. Personally I am doing a N/A project, and NA i am building will blow the doors off most V8s and turbo 2.3L.
  3. :bs: :bs: :bs: :bs: :bs: :bs: :bs: :bs: :bs:

    That's not the only reason to bore a cylinder. Perfectly good cylinders are bored just to increase displacement. It happens all the time. Nothing wrong with it, the Pope doesn't cry when it happens and no kittens are harmed. :D

    Yes, the end result of boring creates a nice, round, concentric, LARGER, hole. Of course you'll need a new set of pistons to go along with the new holes. Honing gives the rings a nice place to call home. I also agree that it's not a large increase in displacement even at .040" While it may be impractical, it's still possible to bore for increased displacement. One byproduct of a rebore is a slight bump in static compression.

    Here's the math:
    Stock: Bore 3.780 Stroke 3.126 = 140ci or 2.3L
    .020 overbore: Bore 3.800 Stroke 3.126 = 142ci or 2.32L
    .040 overbore (max) Bore 3.820 Stroke 3.126 = 143ci or 2.35L (hey that's enough to round up to 2.4L :D :D )

    There's an old rule that says "There's no replacement for displacement" Forced induction being the exception to that rule. Since huffing is not an option in this guy's project, then by all means he should look at making the engine move a larger mass of air per revolution. A set of bigger slugs hung on longer arms will do just that.
  4. Hey Anlushac, do you already have the 200? If you could find a 250, it uses the same bellhousing pattern / flywheel / clutch / pressure plate / making life much easier and clutch selection much broader. the head interchanges between the 200/250 and most if not all of the accessory brackets. Sounds like a cool project There was a hopped up Falcon in Car Craft a few months back with a 6-pop running 11's. Pay attention to the head. What a poor design that was. There's been some success in cutting off the intake log and attempting to make a better flowing deal. IIRC, there was even one welded up for port EFI.

    Rock on! Can't wait to see the finished product.
  5. ...aaaaaaand that was entirely my point. Yeah, you can get a miniscule increase in displacement with boring, but that is NOT the point and purpose of doing it in the first place.

    edit: I'm revising this to state that you CAN bore an engine to increase displacement IF you have an aftermarket block that is made for you to do that. I'm sure there are a couple exceptions, but for the most part, on a factory block it's not possible.
  6. Would love to run a 250 I6 but two problems

    1) No one makes a 250I6 rear sump oil pan and pickup for a Fox body.

    2) Cant find 250's around here.

    2a) Already have all the parts short of bellhousing to do 3.3L and T5.

    For what it would cost to get a intake fabricated and machine work I can get the new Aluminum head coming out.

    If I cant get the Aluminum head I can still get a Australian 250-2v head which is basically the US head but with a removable bolt on aluminum intake. Had one but had to sell it.

    The 11sec Falcon is Will and Kelly's turbocharged 250 I6 Falcon. He posts on Ford six Forums as Does10's
  7. not to piss on your parade, but won't you be a bit disappointed when you get your 150hp 2.3, line up next to a BASE 2006 mustang and get your doors blown off? Sorry, but that's not my idea of fun.

    I played around with the NA 2.3 for a while. For my NA setup, I had about 10:1 compression, ported head, ported intake, CAI, a long tube header and a cam. I dynoed at 120hp at the wheels, and the trap speed in the quarter (17s at 78mph) showed 115hp based on my weight. What is that, 140-150 at the flywheel after accounting for the automatic transmission and other driveline losses? I could pretty well beat the 94-98 V6 mustangs, but they are terrible slugs. Overall, I had some fun and learned a lot, but it couldn't be called strong or impressive by a long shot.
  8. Well there is a couple of things to consider here, some I won't go over, but I will say this, have an automatic transmision in the variable really kills your 1/4 mile times.
  9. true... you might get low 17s @ 80mph with a manual ;)
  10. Well initially I find your story of having 120 to the wheels and getting high 17s hard to believe considering a 2002 cavalier has similair weight to a 4cly. mustang, and produces 150HP to the crank which is roughly 120HP to the wheels and pops 16.2 in the 1/4 mile, hell the auto cavalier will even get low 16s in the 1/4 mile.
  11. 150hp is closer to 130hp at the wheels...Cavi's weigh about 2600lbs which is 400-500lbs lighter than a 2.3 EFI mustang...that's a half second or a bit more in the 1/4 right there, plus 10 more hp, plus different gear ratios.

    I suggest you quit telling us what a 2.3 will and will not do...we already know. If you think you have the magic quotient, go do it and quit acting like the 2.3 n/a wizard that basis all his info on a CHEVY.

    Bottom line is NOBODY has made more than 300 FLYWHEEL hp with a 2.3 based n/a engine and even the .600+ lift cam, 10k rpm, 13:1 compression "race" engines typically only make ~230-250rwhp, don't idle below 1500 rpm, and are absolutely not a "street" engine. A full-tilt 2.3 n/a on pump gas will be LUCKY to get more than 150rwhp, period.

    There are only TWO cheap and effective ways to make a 2.3 engine go even respectably fast (15's or faster) on pump gas and that is 1) Nitrous or 2) Turbo. Anything else is just blowing smoke up someone's ass...
  12. Git Sum!!:D
  13. Damn knowitall noobs.
  14. Notice I said roughly...

    And when the hell did I say all that? Or even imply that you would get loads of horsepower from an N/A 2.3L All I said is doing a 2.3L N/A would be neat, and different I didn't say you would get blistering high HP ratings. Your also forgetting a couple of other things to take into consideration on doing a N/A engine. It is kinda funny though, you think I am over rating a N/A 2.3L I think you are under rating it.

    I am planing on doing a 2.3L N/A and when I get over 150 HP I am going to rub it in your face. I already stated earlier I was doing a N/A one.

    You can do a volvo head conversion. I don't suppose doing one of those will be blowing smoke up someones ass.
  15. Until there are multiple examples of the Volvo head swap running on people's daily drivers, I'm not going to accept that as an option. Because right now it is FAR from being a bolt-on affair.
  16. Well, next time I remember a 1/4 TON is "roughly" the same weight :lol:

    Really? How about when you said:


    Considering your average V8 runs low 14's to high 13's and your average 2.3T is right around there as well, to "blow the doors off most" of them would require you to build a n/a engine that will push you into the low 13's/high 12's at MINIMUM. I guess if you put your 150hp engine in a 1200lb chassis you might have a chance.

    I wasn't giving you a blueprint on how to build one, I was simply stating some of then "race" components it takes to get there :nono:

    Therein lies the difference, I KNOW what a 2.3 n/a pump gas engine can do, you "think" you know what they can do because of the aluminum dohc 30 year newer technology 4 cylinders can do...people have been modifying and racing the 2.3 engines for nearly 30 years...there is nothing new to discover about them. Somebody has already done it.

    I never said it wasn't possible, I said you'd be lucky to surpass it. Your gonna rub "lucky" in my face...ok...have at it. Make sure you keep all the reciepts so we can figure out how much power you could have made if you would have done a turbo swap and spent the same cash...

    Wow, 1500 bux is cheap...I forgot we all make 60k a year in here...don't forget that new standalone EFI system you are going to need to run it as well...that's another 800-1200 bux. I guess you could go side draft...yeah, that would be MUCH cheaper :lol:

    I'll say it again: If you think you have the magic quotient, go do it and :Zip2:
  17. The volvo head isn't a realistic option. If you are considering that, you might as well get an Al head from esslinger. You know it will bolt on, and it may even be cheaper once you fabricate new exhaust and intake manifolds, along with the new timing cogs and the physical fabrication for the volvo head.

    Yeah, it is very possible for you to get 150hp out of a 2.3. Get a head/intake/exhaust/cam that can move some air, mated up to a proper sized carb and your in business.

    However, you have to remember that this isn't a modern engine. As compared to the 150hp cavalier you mentioned, it doesn't have variable valve timing, or 16 valves per cylinder. The torque curve for that modern engine is going to be quite flat. The torque curve for your 2.3 is going to be suffering on the low end, it'll have a pretty good mid range, and then it will drop off on the top end. That's what 30 years of technolodgy can do for ya. A flat torque curve will always give you a better quarter mile time when compared to one that isn't.

    You also have to keep in mind that the modern car has other huge advantages. That cavalier has lighter wheel/tire combiation (look how narrow and short they are), it has a drive line that isn't totally overdesigned (our 4cyl has pretty much the same driveline as the ol' 5.0) and it weighs less. All this adds up, and leaves you at quite a disadvantage when playing around with NA 2.3s.

    Hey, I say have fun with it. I played around and modded the NA for a while. As for the differnce between the auto and manual... when my 88 was bone stock, I raced a bone stock 89 manual mustang. From 30 to 70mph (takes for freaking EVER!!!) I had my nose at his door when we ran out of room. If he hadn't been power shifting, I'd guess we'd have been dead even.

    I'd be interested to see your results anyway.

  18. do this....swap in a super coupe motor.... 3.8L V6 factory blown....i think that would be cool...
  19. I was referring to HP not weight so where does "1/4 ton" fit in all this?

    At what cost? 5.0L mustangs sell normally at 4K and that is for what 14.7 in a 1/4. Anything faster than that is going to cost. Hell the new 05 mustang can do 13.5 in a 1/4 and cost 25K. Actualy your average 2.3L is not in the 13s and 14s it is more like the 15s and 16s. With a 150 HP to the rw in a 2600LB car I should be able to beat a 5.0L, if not come damn close. And with what I am doing 150 is easy to get and not very costly.

    It's too bad you spit out all of these statistics and leave out too many other varables to consider.

    Lucky? ROFL, I will remember that next I bolt on my friend's cold air intake to cross my fingers and my toes for good luck to get extra ponies.

    Then out of 30 years I think they found a way to break your luck anomaly and get a powerful N/A 4.

    HA and rely on your domestic skills to search for a junkyard turbo that doesn't even function properly? Hmmm I guess you will just have to take my word for it. If you don't, all well.

    ROFL, you a **** shoper then. I could build one cheaper, and the power output will be so great, the money will be worth it.

    Now enough of this petty bull ****. When it comes down to it no one is going to shut up about this, so lets just let the topic die, you do things your way, I do things my way. K?

    Well yeah I know all that, but if you can conjure up the cash to do a volvo it is worth it. Plus there are way to build one cheaply.
  20. Since you opened the Volvo conversion door on how to do it on the cheap, let's hear it. Judging from your earlier flame sprays of long standing members and the lengthly pontifications of your technical accumin, this oughta be good:nice: