any 2.3L owners??

h8my408 · Mar 26, 2008

I've already posted this question in 2.3 tech, but there seems to be zero traffic...
does anyone know the deck height of the 2.3L turbo motor?

without this critical number, my shortblock research is worthless.

what im working on: a destroked, long rod, rediculous rod stroke ratio, high rpm, boosted application (the replacement for displacement)

WANNA_BE_GT · Mar 26, 2008

Ford racing used to have a motor like this except it was an N/A application that made over 300 hp and revved pretty high. Why not just build out it out to a 2.5l, find a ranger cam, port the hell out of the upper and lower intake, cutting out the center piece, find an 88 turbo coupe head (it's fire treated) and crank up the power. You'll make a ton of boost with that. You don't want an incredibly high rpm turbo motor though.

WaterPog · Mar 26, 2008

be carefull with the crazy long rod stuff, it can be very sensitive to timing and doesn't really have anywhere near the tangible benefits that are claimed. You'll be power and money ahead going with more stroke and less rod unless there is a good reason to build the small motor and run big boost on race gas because of class rules or something similar.

deck height on a standard 2.3L is 8.368"

yello05 · Mar 26, 2008

WaterPog said:
be carefull with the crazy long rod stuff, it can be very sensitive to timing and doesn't really have anywhere near the tangible benefits that are claimed.

I dunno Pog, Smokey seemed to know his stuff and claimed longer rods are always better. An exact quote "...the short rod isnt just plain stupid engineering, but required to be able to close the hood." He also stated he would always stretch the rod length as far as possible, as it would NEVER be too long (one test was with a 12" rod in a custom block!). I had heard long rod motors are known for reducing detonation as well?

WaterPog · Mar 26, 2008

true, make the rod as long as possible, but not at the expense of cubic inches or ring package. I've never heard that they were better with detonation, always that they didn't like as much timing. We never had any issue with the 289 (1.9:1 R:S) but I think a lot of that was due to the low (8.5:1) compression we ran and the mild camshaft that was in it. The thing only had ~120psi of cranking compression if I remember correctly.

You have to remember that Smokey was building those long rod motors during the lbs/cid rules where a small motor had a significant advantage and finding 5HP was a big deal. On a turbo car that's just not the case, boost cures all

yello05 · Mar 26, 2008

WaterPog said:
boost cures all

Cant argue that

Bullitt347 · Mar 26, 2008

The longer the rod the longer the dwell time of the piston at TDC, thus the less amount of ignition lead needed. The effect on piston speed should also be taken into consideration. The longer the rod the slower the piston travels at and near TDC and BDC. The shorter the rod the faster the piston travels at TDC and BDC, but moves slower in the middle of the stroke. Also the longer the rod the less rod angle you have to deal with, and thus less loading of the piston against the cylinder wall, which helps ring life ect. A long rod engine will tend to have a flatter torque curve as well. This ASSUMES that the rest of the engine components are optimized to take advantage of the long rod. Otherwise if all else remains the same, the advantages are little to none or not worth the effort.

h8my408 · Apr 2, 2008

thanks a bunch guys, the 2.3 tech forum has turned into an all out flame war, because of some tuff guy who thinks my opinion for me? lol.

anyway, take a look at this video, watch the skyline's engine response, and tell me boost cannot be at high rpm.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aal9kG-EXeY&feature=related

this skyline is the car that has inspired my build.
the longer rod/stroke ratio i am looking for, gives the engine a few neat advantages over a shorter rod/bigstroke motor with the most important being response.

with the rod stroke ratio, think of it as running with a backpack in the sand, and then running without one on concrete. taking the backpack off, you dont have to use as much power, and running on the concrete is less friction to overcome.
the less cylinder wall friction you have, the easier it is to rev the motor, and if internals are much lighter than stock, revving is even easier.

my idea will soon become a reality. i hope to be terrorizing the streets with my 10k banshee by summer 2009

h8my408 · Apr 2, 2008

also, the car would not have much boost, hovering around 20psi

any 2.3L owners??

h8my408

Member

WANNA_BE_GT

WaterPog

yello05

New Member

WaterPog

yello05

New Member

Bullitt347

I have been doing it wrong this whole time

h8my408

Member

h8my408

Member

Similar threads

any 2.3L owners??

Member

New Member

New Member

I have been doing it wrong this whole time

Member

Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency