My 2.3L N/A Project

bhuff30 said:

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.

Click to expand...

KH! said:

Well I did leave out I am not the only one building the engine, I will have help from a person who has far more experience than me plus mechanics and people who HAVE done the volvo head conversion. It also won't be a strict N/A because I will turbo the volvo head conversion later. Secondly this isn't just building an engine and slapping it in a car, the car itself I have sanded and painted and so on, and of course I have had help with it to. The only proof you will need is when I am finished with the engine I will show it which should be about 2 years from now, step by step. It rly is mix and mix. Some people had rly no experience with the engine and just worked with the mechanics. Some have built several cars before their volvo head project. DUDE I did mention CFM, I said it flowed a little less than the esslinger (about 10 to 20) and that is with the volvo head's miniscule port size compared to the esslinger.

Click to expand...

bhuff30 said:

Have fun with that, I'll look forward to seeing some results. Maybe if you mentioned that you would have help from people who previously had done the volvo conversion, people would take you more seriously. Got any success stories from 'said' friends who will be helping you? I know the whole world (or at least the 2.3 stangnet and turboford world) would die to hear anything about results of a volvo head on a 2.3... like dyno numbers, combos, quarter mile times, ect.

You make it too easy to call though. In your previous post, you mentioned someone in atlanta did it... some people in 'Swedan' (where ever the hell that is) did it, and some shops somewhere, but no mention of anyone who would actaully asist you in your efforts. If I had any inside information about that, I'd sure as hell be saying, yeah, I've got some experts to help me out. Seems like mentioning that earlier would have been prudent though.


And yeah, you mentioned CFM, but..
It was only peak flow, which means little when the valves spend the majority of their time at mid lift values, and you can't compare flow bench numbers with any degree of certainty unless it was done on the same bench, and in the EXACT same conditions. Sorry, but you are digging your hole deeper and deeper. The best thing you can do, is get to work.

Click to expand...

Red_LX said:

O RLY?

Click to expand...

mr_woodster said:

Have you ever seen a grown man naked?

Click to expand...

HFK said:

Do you like movies about gladiators?

Click to expand...

mr_woodster said:

A fan of the classics , such as " Airplane " ( I and II ) .

Click to expand...