Cheap low buck N/A 2.3??

tjm73 · Nov 8, 2005

How much power could I expect from an inexpensive 2.3 set up as the following....

2.3 engine from whatever
Lightly ported & decked cylinder head
flat top pistons for about 10:1 compression
Offy intake
350cfm carb
Ranger spec camshaft
MSD ignition system
Backed by a full manual shift C4

Now you are probably saying why not run a turbo? Well, I don't want to deal with the complexity of the turbo system and the elecronics to run it all. I want it to be as simple as possible. It's for a possible street rod. A very lightweight street rod.

Could I get 150 hp at the crank?

Jacob07 · Nov 8, 2005

I'm not qualified to say but I highly doubt you would manage 150hp. And yes... I am saying "why not run a turbo"

evintho · Nov 8, 2005

tjm73 said:
Now you are probably saying why not run a turbo? Well, I don't want to deal with the complexity of the turbo system and the elecronics to run it all. I want it to be as simple as possible. It's for a possible street rod. A very lightweight street rod.

Could I get 150 hp at the crank?

You probably don't want to hear this, BUT you'd be throwing your money away trying to build up a N/A 2.3. All that and you're shootin' for 150 h.p.? A bone stock 2.3 w/ihi out of a TC yields almost 200 h.p from the factory! Believe me, turbos and the electronics to run them are not complex at all! When I got into turbo Fords, I knew nothing at all about turbos or the electronics. It's nothing a little reading can't cure. Read this book and you'll learn everything you ever wanted too about F.I., ECU's and everything associated with them.....................

http://cgi.ebay.com/Ford-Fuel-Injec...goryZ378QQssPageNameZWD1VQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Hang out and lurk on www.turboford.org and you'll learn everything you wanted to know about turbos. Then go buy a donor car and have at it! I'm telling you the truth, you won't regret it!!

tjm73 · Nov 8, 2005

Well I thought about getting TC or Merkur as an engine donor. I know that the Turbo can make gobs of easy power for the little 2300. I know that getting 250-275hp at the crank isn't hard at all with little more than a boost adjustment.

How heavy is a Turbo 2.3 engine in running trim? No a/c, no p/s. The idea was to try to save weight. But I suspect a bare bones carbed 302 with aluminum heads might not be much heavier than a turbo 2.3 and make at least as much power while running on crappy gas if need be.

evintho · Nov 8, 2005

Here's a good thread concerning weight.............

http://www.turboford.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=038693

bhuff30 · Nov 8, 2005

LMAO,
ranger cam
C4 tranny
thats rediulous. The C4 is going to eat any power you might have made, but at least with the ranger cam you will have power right off the line, even with your tight torque converter.
1. go with a 5sp
2. get something other than a FACTORY CAM
Maybe then, you can run some low 17s with about 140-150hp.
I've been down that road before. With less effort, I ran low 14s with my turbo, automatic tranny and high compression (only 14psi boost)

Red_LX · Nov 8, 2005

What kinda street rod are we talking about here? Would you be starting with a stock frame, grafting on a different front subframe, using an aftermarket frame/subframe?

Just curious.

Stinger · Nov 8, 2005

150 crank hp is doable...that's only about 110 or so to the wheels with an auto...though I could think of alot better ways to make power...

tjm73 · Nov 8, 2005

Red_LX said:
What kinda street rod are we talking about here? Would you be starting with a stock frame, grafting on a different front subframe, using an aftermarket frame/subframe?

Just curious.

'27 T Roadster Pickup. Custom frame. Drilled I-beam front axle. Explorer 8.8 rear axle with transverse leaf spring.

tjm73 · Nov 8, 2005

bhuff30 said:
LMAO,
ranger cam
C4 tranny
thats rediulous. The C4 is going to eat any power you might have made, but at least with the ranger cam you will have power right off the line, even with your tight torque converter.
1. go with a 5sp
2. get something other than a FACTORY CAM
Maybe then, you can run some low 17s with about 140-150hp.
I've been down that road before. With less effort, I ran low 14s with my turbo, automatic tranny and high compression (only 14psi boost)

Whatever. I'm not some 16 year old that doesn't know anything. If you run a C4 (or any auto) you gotta choose the right convertor. The C4 is actually pretty efficent as autos go.

No matter as I'm leaning back toward the 302 I originally wanted to do. More power and less stress on the engine. Easier to find parts too.

But thanks to everyone for the information. I still like the Turbo 2.3. Perhaps for some different project some day.

Red_LX · Nov 8, 2005

Ah, a T...stock height body?

Honestly, for one thing there is probably a lot more stuff available to put a V8 into that car, and if you're wanting to go carbed then V8 would be the way to go. Motor mounts for the 2.3 would probably take some design & fabbing work. Also, with the factory EFI intake you could possibly run into some height problems, but then I could be wrong there.

tjm73 · Nov 9, 2005

Red_LX said:
Ah, a T...stock height body?

Honestly, for one thing there is probably a lot more stuff available to put a V8 into that car, and if you're wanting to go carbed then V8 would be the way to go. Motor mounts for the 2.3 would probably take some design & fabbing work. Also, with the factory EFI intake you could possibly run into some height problems, but then I could be wrong there.

Yeah stock height body, but would use a hood with a 2.3. The height could be an issue. That's one of the several resons why I was thinking carbed 2.3 Litre. Making motor mounts wouldn't be an issue. Given the car, I think you are right about the 302 and ease of use.

RustBucket · Nov 9, 2005

Although... it would look cool with a pair of down draft or side draft Webers hanging off of a 2.3.

rd · Nov 9, 2005

Should be easy to do. There are gazillions of carbed 2.3's running aroung in the various hobby stock and similar entry level stock car racing circles. STuff to build it is readily available. Actually, the stock car guys are eating up bodies and engines at a prodigious rate. Get 'em now before they go the way of the Mustang II.

I like the idea of that combo, it would be simple, look good, and be a fun vehicle. I had the same idea, but building another toy car is kinda down the road a bit. I am still happy trying to go faster with a 302.

Cheap low buck N/A 2.3??

tjm73

Jacob07

New Member

evintho

tjm73

evintho

bhuff30

Red_LX

I’m not much help unless you’re looking for ****!

Stinger

tjm73

tjm73

Red_LX

I’m not much help unless you’re looking for ****!

tjm73

RustBucket

New Member

rd

Similar threads

Cheap low buck N/A 2.3??

New Member

I’m not much help unless you’re looking for ****!

I’m not much help unless you’re looking for ****!

New Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency