My 2.3L N/A Project

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

  1. Not sure if they make after market, but I know a guy who can custom mill me a roller cam. Yes I have a 2.3L do you want proof? FYI a turbo motor can only go so far. With a DOHC volvo know.
  2. Yeah, the regular 2.3 based SOHC engines have only been pushed to about 1200rwhp...the volvo head based 2.3's, about 600rwhp...I know what you mean...they go half as far :D
  3. That claim is a little hard to believe. But if you can start out with an 88HP 4 banger and get 1200 HP out of it, I know they can squeak more than 600HP out a volvo head conversion.
  4. You must be Swedish. Seriously, if the Volvo head is the holy grail for 2.3L 4cyl. motors, tell me (PLEASE!!!) why no one is making huge power with the 2.3L 4cyl. THE FRIGGEN HEAD CAME OFF OF IN THE FIRST FRIGGEN PLACE!!!!!!

    I patiently and calmly await your answer.

    True Story: The only Volvo head I ever liked I got in high school in the back of a 740 from a cute chick at a football game. YMMV ;)
  5. No, I am American.

    ??? With or with out the Volvo head? And what is your idea of huge HP?

    Was that really necessary?
  6. jealous?
  7. It was in Don Nase's dragster...went 7.60's @ 185 or so a few years back...hell Joe Morgan's wagon makes around 1000hp to the wheels at only 8.30's...both with SOHC 2v heads...
  8. stinger, dont you have a 2.3 dragster you bought last year?
  9. Yeah, but I'd imagine they had to tear the hell out of that motor and make the car rly light to get that.
  10. If you're going to quote me Sparky, at least do it right.

    The statement was: Why on earth is no one making huge HP with the VOLVO 2.3L the head you covet so much was originally bolted to in Sweden? Why does it only begin to show it's true performance potential when it's cobbled up and thrown on a motor it was never intended to be used on?

    No, it wasn't necessary, but I sure appreciated her effort. :D

  11. So that custom roller cam just drops right in with the stock volvo hardware? Stock followers, etc?
  12. Yep, and it cost a pretty penny too.

    Umm above my garage says KH!, so I do not get the whole sparky thing. Anhy ways I did quote right it is just your lingo was a bit wrong. And actually they have.
  13. MAN! the Days of old have RETURNED!

    Praise the lord! All we need is Crovax and 140cilx and we can have a reunion :SNSign:

    I appreciate you guys being yourselves on this forum (even if that means buttheads ;) )

    A few things to remember, when posting....

    POST COUNT = 0-150 = newb
    = 150-500 = up and rising
    = 500 -1000 = Learned to use the search function
    =1000+ = Swapped to a Turbo 2.3 or a v8

    My best advice for your N/a project is what bhuff suggested, porting, compression, and my favorite, wieght reduction. The single most beneficial thing you can do is reduce the weight of the car. It handles better , stops faster, and accelerates quicker.

    I ran n/a for awhile with a ported head, roller cam, and a Nitrous Express kit @ 150hp shots. It was fun, but only a step in the right direction of Boost. Enjoy
  14. Yes, 9.90'[email protected] or so...

    Well no **** was a full on drag effort in a rail dragster...

    Joes wagon still has power windows/locks, radio, stock dash, etc...and it's a drag car so of course, the engine is "torn to hell" as you put it.

    Our "bolt-on" project is about as high hp/fast as you will see an untouched 2.3 engine go...unless I were to put that engine in the dragster...but that's a different story.
  15. Was that rly necessary with the sherlock bit? I was trying to create conversation.
  16. Why bother? you've already shown yourself to be.....well....take your pick
  17. haha, I didn't think about it being business as usual again in the 2.3 forum. It used to be so lively.. but yeah Crovax isn't here anymore, along with others who could raise hell.

    I have to admit, I'm not so patient with newbies as stinger and some others. I am more likely to give a post or 2 with my opinions and experience, and answer any specific questions after that. It is up to the reader to decide if I learned anything in my 4000+ posts and 6 years here, not to mention bringing my 2.3 from a 68mph trap speed, to 102mph, making nearly 100 1/4 miles passes using everything form NA combinations, to NA with nitrous to mild turbo setups.

    I've run 17s and 18s and 19s NA, 16s with NA and nitrous, and 14s once I got a turbo on there. Funny thing how I missed the 15s in this car. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that turbos are so far superior to any other 2.3 combination, that you might as well NOT WASTE YOUR TIME. ;)

    Keeping all this in mind, I'd like to comment on the volvo head. Yeah, it flows well, but so do the 2 valve Al heads from esslinger (the same or better infact). There are only a handful of ford 2.3s using this head (like 1 or 2 in the WORLD!), and there is a reason why. IT ISN'T PRACTICAL. When you are all said and done with the volvo head, the only 2.3 ford parts you used were the bottom end (not including crank sproket), and the oil pan... the rest of the parts were fabricated or modified to fit! That's a crap load of money and effort when you could have just bought an esslinger Al head, saved 30 lbs as compared to the volvo head and still used factory or aftermarket 2.3 parts for intake and exhaust manifolds and systems.

    By the time you get your volvo head on, you'll realize you don't have a turbo or engine management system to match the engine, a drivetrain that can handle it, a chassis that isn't too floppy, or enough traction/suspension to go anywhere.. least of your concerns being the fact that your 2.3 bottom end isn't very happy reving above 7000rpm, even with aftermarket rods, and your shiny volvo head doesn't have the valve springs or cam to do the same, nor the aftermarket parts to allow it easily or cheaply. Yeah, let's build an engine that would love to rev and make 500+, but keep it at lower rpms because we can't get proper springs and cams for it.

  18. Stinger Reminds me of dirty harry, He's never mad, but sometimes he'll shoot you down :)
  19. Shown myself as what? I have done nothing wrong. Is it rly that hard for some of you to stop acting like an ass and just descuss? NVM don't even answer that. Don't want another flame war.

    I believe it flows 10 CFM below the esslinger and it costs a whole lot less, that is including the fact that the DOHC has a miniscule port size. There are actually quite a few of volvo head conversions. One guy has done one in atlanta, some in Swedan, and car shop has done one, plus many more. I do not look at it as being unpractical, just a question of if I am willing to roll up my sleeves and do the work it takes to do one of these. For me custom fabracation isn't that much of a problem. Anyone can slap on a turbo and get 175HP or more.
  20. Yeah, a lot of people can slap on a turbo can make 175hp, but the real question is, can you? I've seen no real proof that you know anything in depth about stock engines, and mild modifcations... MUCH LESS knowing anything about basically building a new engine from scratch and mis-matched parts

    One step at a time. When you learn how to read a compressor map and calculate the airflow for your engine, you can select a turbo and make your 175hp (unless you need turbonetics or another company to suggest one for you, or you use a boring factory turbo).

    I've taken 4 years of engineering classes, and I know more in depth about IC engines than the grad level class that was taught at KU. I can discuss at length, the impact of rod ratios, BSFC, volumetric efficiency, flame propagation, spark kernal, swirl and it's impact on detonation and burn speed, the types of detonation and their cause and origin, and the reactions and byproducts of combustion at various AF ratios.

    Sure, you might have a the tools and skill to physically fabricate an intake and exhaust system, but I havn't seen any proof that you can chose an appropriate runner diamter (intake and exhaust), runner length, plenum volume, throttle body size or for that matter a properly sized turbo. Yeah, these shops and some people have put volvo heads on 2.3s, but it is either an evil genious, or a team of people with 10+ years of experience EACH and with different backgrounds in engine building and modification. You can't just read in a book and expect to find what the proper plenum size for a volvo headed 2.3 hoping to make 500rwhp at 23 psi is.

    Even for me, it would be a huge challange to select a reasonably appropriate runner diamerter, length and plenum size for said combiation. Typically, you have to make a good guess, use others experience on similar combiations and hope it is close enough that you arn't pulling yourself down.

    I am certainly not trying to be an Ass, or high and mighty to you, but I've seen no proof that you have the knowledge to build a volve headed 2.3... much less one with reasonably sized parts to make good power.

    So far, you can't even explain why a volvo head is worth the effort. You say because it has 4 valves and flows nearly as much as an esslinger head at less cost. You 'might' look like you knew what you were doing if you ever mentioned phrases, like CFM at low lift values, port velocity, or pent combustion chamber. I hope you don't mind if I LMAO at you for using ford dish style pistons on a volvo head with a completely opposite squish area. Got detonation? That's just 1 tiny reason the volvo head will never make huge power on a 2.3 ford... at least not unless you get custom pistons made to fit the volvo's quench area ($$$$ bye bye cost benifit). You are redesigning the entire engine and every point that ford and volvo engineers would have considered.