Esslingers Dyno Chart

fouredmustang

New Member
Mar 28, 2008
27
0
0
Got a 80s 2.3L Mustang recently (My 80s Daytona and Tercel is in being upgraded plus it was only $500 in great shape) heres some quick thoughts on it.

Heres a link to the Esslinger dyno chart thats posted on the circletrack website.

http://www.circletrack.com/techarti..._23_stock_crate_engine_overview/photo_16.html

Esslinger Engineering made almost 230 HP out of that engine N/A. Fuel injected mind you as well. The engine costs $7000.

Has anyone put their N/A 2.3 street car on the dyno to show results after upgrades? I'm guessing that a lot of 80s 2.3 Mustangs here including mine arent even meeting the standard 88HP because of age : ( I'd be interested to see if anyone got these cars to into the 150 HP range, or even a car that could keep up with some of the 90s Civics/Celicas or Neons. Even if the Mustang is not compact car!

The top of the line V-Tec engine '92-'02 is rated at 160HP /w111 ft-lb @ 7000rpm
The top of the line Pinto/Lima 2.3L (dual spark) is rated at 105HP /w135 ft-lb @ (rpms?)
The regular Lima 2.3L is rated at 88HP /w132 ft-lb

-The engine is nice and close to the center instead of being pushed up front which is nice so I give it congrats for that.
-No DOHC (thats the 80s for ya) A nice cam will probably work though.
-It has plenty of room to work in, unlike my Daytona
-With all the space in the engine bay I'd imagine intake would be nice and cool, but looking at other's posts its a moo point.
-The car seems heavy all the way around, does anyone know the weight of these vehicles. MSN Autos has them checked in at around 2819 LBS!!! Not bad for 80s but still pretty damn heavy. Civics weigh in 300 lbs lighter.
-The 1.9L Escort GT engine is nice. But the Escort car is still 300 lbs heavier than the '89 Civic Hatch of the same year.

I'm still a car newbie in terms of engine performance, but after doing a lot of research and it just doesnt seem like this car can keep up with modern 4 Cylinders easily without quite a bit of time and effort and $$$. This Mustang seems to only be meant for a Turbo or the Big American V8 or both : )

I'm going to visit a local tuner shop nearby and see what can be done. I think that we can make a nice cruising car but nothing more N/A. Peace!
 
  • Sponsors (?)


DOHC? You using the Volvo head? I heard the Volvo wasnt a direct bolt on so thats a bit out of my skill set/price range. I dont like too much fabrication work.

Yea I know what you mean about people and the 2.3 N/A. My personal preference is all motor however. I wasnt alive in the 80's but its a shame that the 2.3L wasnt made better. At least to keep up with its rival American Camaro's 137HP V6. I saw specs on the Ford 80's V6 and its not the best performance engineering concept I've seen. The Ford 2.8 V6 had 109 HP and the inline 6 isnt even really worth mentioning.

Of course thats just me babbling about Ford. I have a lot of respect for people who are willing to devote themselves to making what should have been that engine years ago. And Ford is still my second favorite car company so I'm happy to own a Ford product. Although I'd love to own the GT-40 or even a GT I would have love to seen that race in real life in the 60s. Americans are great at building V8s!
 
Yeah I saw that on their product website. "Call for pricing" I can only imagine what that aluminum cylinder head will cost. Anyways I found a magnafluxed 2.3 turbo head in our classifieds. After reading posts on this website installing a turbo kit onto the stock cylinder head isnt such a great idea since apparently they are shaped differently chamber wise.

Although I am going to visit a few race garages and street tuner shops in the area and see what they have for me. Like I said I seriously doubt the 2.3L will do much N/A without some good investments.

I need a new hobby.
 
if you want i can help you get a turbo 2.3 head for like 220$ it mite be little more if you dont have a core.. my step dad's work are able to get them. there straight from a ford re builder.
 
Just for reference. When I was 16 I had the local circle track guy who claimed to be a circle track god, price an engine. He said he could get me a 200rwhp for about $5000. I currently have a 10 second street car that I still don't have $5000 total.

You're also looking at engines built to turn 10000rpm to be in the power and don't even start to make hp until 7000rpm.

I've looked at all the angles so I'll break it down very quickly.
230 flywheel horsepower from esslinger = $7000
junk 2.3 turbo cranked up 240rwhp = $200

7k will be one hell of a street car and I would save it.
 
My dads 1975 Pinto Runabout 2.3L was dyno'd at 215 hp back in late 80's. Naturally aspirated.

It was a beast and was very fast but was barely drivable on the street and seemed to require constant maintenance.

>11.6:1CR (water injection AND premium mandatory)
>Fully ported and polished head with the big valves
>Solid lifter cam and solid stabilizers from Racer Walsh (IIRC Stage 3 setup?)
>Holley 500cfm 2bbl with Racer Walsh kit and adapter plate.
>Racer Walsh adjustable cam sprocket (Which seemed to always be slipping)
>Long tube header, 42" glasspack muffler with side exit in front of rear wheel.
MSD box, dont know what kind of distributor but I think it was stock.

Didnt idle well, the solid lifter stabilizers were held in with set screws that seemed to always be coming loose and seemed to always need adjusting.

The car had a 3.89 Traction Lock rear with P265/50-15 rear tires. Leaving a stop light always seemed to be chirp the tires or stall at light.

The Achilles heel of the 2.3L motor is the head. Get one of the aluminum aftermarket heads like Esslingers and you now have a motor that can make horsepower with the best of them.
 
Woah I lots of responses for just my initial observation on the vehicle : )

Do you have any pictures of your dads Pinto? I checked out the later history of the Pinto/Lima engine (pre-80s) The N/A HP was rated poorly as well. Must've been a lot of work and planning. What did your dad use the car for? I know its not a street cruiser like I'm building if I dont re-sell the car first. I'm a bit confused about the oil drain-back, did most of you drill a hole into the oil pan?
 
1989 2.3L 82,000 miles, bone stock with the A4LD.

70.04 HP
100.25 LB/FT Torque!
HP fell off after 4,000 RPMs.

Building something better...
 

Attachments

  • FB_IMG_1598918314517.jpg
    FB_IMG_1598918314517.jpg
    309.1 KB · Views: 687
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
$7000 for 230 hp.

Think about that for a while

$7000 can build you a 400hp 5.0 and have some left over. Double the power and torque, about the same fuel economy, and much better driveability

or $7000 can go pretty far toward a coyote swap if you shop around for the parts, engine, etc

I've been around circle track stuff all my life, unfortunately due to health/vision I have not been able to participate all that much. I can tell you first hand that a 2.3L Ford mini-stock engine is an absolute TURD. Those that make any power are in the 200hp neighborhood, and they make NO (zero) low end power to speak of, you have to spin them 7000-9000+ RPM to make any power, and when you get into a N/A engine that is as high strung as they are, you start wearing stuff out. Quickly. It's not just the engine, it's springs, transmission stuff, shifters, water pumps, alternators, a/c compressors, etc....all that stuff has a designed lifetime given a maximum rpm and when you start exceeding it, it's lifespan decreases dramatically.

Have seen guys over the years try to make the 2.3's work in a n/a street car setup and it just does not work very well. Most street cars are going to be up around 3000 lbs or so. You need torque to get them moving and a 2.3 variant without a turbo isn't going to do that very well. A built 2.3 variant that makes power up high is actually slower from a dig than a stock 2.3, I mean they are absolutely gutless. Yeah you can build a 2.7 stroker without too much trouble but it's still under 200 cubic inches, still gutless until you start getting up above about 4500 RPM. Stop and think....how long does it take your stock 2.3 to get to it's redline (somewhere around 4500 RPM)??? Forever. A 230hp 2.3 takes LONGER to get to 4500 given the same gearing and car weight, but it will start making power and then you can extend the RPM out another 4500 or so. They're still slow unless you keep them at higher RPM, and even then still slow.....a stock 5.0 will usually destroy it in a drag race.

They ain't worth messing with, unless either bone stock, or turbocharged, and even if they're turbocharged, better have the jackstands on the ready at all times. It's a running joke, but there's a lot of truth to it. To make a 2.3 turbo as reliable as a stock 5.0, you will spend some money and that doesn't mean buying a JY turbocoupe engine and dropping it in, it needs to be pulled apart, machined, etc. Remember...the last turbo 2.3 came off the assembly line in 1989 (merkur), which makes them over 30 years old, and no telling how many miles are on them (regardless of what the odometer says....), how hard they were used, maintenance, etc. Figure on a full rebuild. And parts? Same prices as a 5.0 for pistons and rods, and there are half as many. It's not that much more money to build a 5.0 which is why that option is so popular. This coming from someone who daily drives a 93 coupe with a 2.3T, I did all my own work, like the car and the little slow turd is fun to drive but it would've been about the same money to drop a stock windsor 5.0 into it.