Ford Mustang Forums banner

1 - 20 of 53 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,966 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
So gents, just put my built 306w in foxey tuesday night, I cant stop thinking about this motor is way too heavy for a weak 320hp (or whatever she makes) Yes AFR/TF 11R heads will being me to 375ish hp, FTI cam closer to 400hp but that iron block is still a boat anchor up front.

Iam dreaming (thinking) long term when and if this girl windsor breathes her last breath, now what?

Yes I thought Coyote, 4.6mod SOHC vs DOHC, I know we have so many options but these DOHC motors have a higher center of gravity, weight more, MASSIVE in size, more money, more sensors, expensive parts, aka snowball effect. Therefore i stayed pushrod 302, its something i know how to work on, its small can be much lighter with an aluminum block.

However i know we have all seen guy put the tiny 2.3L ecoboost motor in street driving foxes, anyone know of anyone with good results in an all out track car? My machinist said those little motors will not last with the abuse of what i am doing, but with my fox getting lighter and lighter, and im sure companies are making bullet proof rods/pistons/cranks/ etc etc couldnt i just build and prep a 2.3 for track use, keep boost at stock level for safety/cooling reasons and get the engine prepped. I mean that all aluminum motor has to be super light, plenty of tech, makes more/same hp as my built 306 does

Id would also be able to push that motor a huge amount back which would make this fox even more like a go kart.

thoughts?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,424 Posts
No info to provide, but i've always been curious to what an Ecoboost 2.0 or 2.3 would be like in a fox. Even something like the 2.7TT might be a fun project.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
392 Posts
Ford lists the "Packaged Weight" of a 2.3 crate motor at 584lbs.

https://performanceparts.ford.com/part/M-6007-23T

The "Packaged Weight" of the Gen 2 Coyote is 549lbs. The 2.3 comes with starter and alternator, the Coyote does not. Ford lists the "engine weight" at 445lbs.

In real life, this guy listed the shipped weight of a 2.0EB (flexplate, no flywheel, no accessories, no fluid, no intercooler, plus pallet) was 419lbs. Now add a 30lb flywheel, 20lb pressure plate and friction disk, accessories, intercooler, associated piping, and a lightweight 75lb transmission (or +123lbs for a stock MT-82 from the EcoBoost Mustang) and you're easily over 500lbs installed and ready to run minus fluids.

My aluminum-headed 302 complete with accessories and T5 weighed 552lbs ready to run minus fluids.





It seems that most published engine weights out there leave out items critical to run - wiring, accessories, drivetrain, etc. - your LS3 doesn't actually weigh 390lbs if it takes another 220lbs of stuff for it to actually move a car.

The 5.0 is a decently lightweight engine given its power potential, and especially so if you stroke it. There are plenty of 500+hp recipes for a 347 out there.

My machinist said those little motors will not last with the abuse of what i am doing
Does he actively work in development on those engines or is he familiar with those who have? Or is he making a guess based on engine displacement and power level?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
392 Posts
Id would also be able to push that motor a huge amount back which would make this fox even more like a go kart.

thoughts?
What's stopping the V8 at the firewall? Because an I4 and a V8 are both 4 cylinders long. Ford lists the 2.3's length as 25.9", the commonly accepted length of a 302 to the tip of the water pump pulley is 27.5", Explorer accessories would probably cancel that out. If you can't scoot the V8 back because it's hitting something, you probably can't scoot the 2.3 back either.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,966 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Ford lists the "Packaged Weight" of a 2.3 crate motor at 584lbs.

https://performanceparts.ford.com/part/M-6007-23T

The "Packaged Weight" of the Gen 2 Coyote is 549lbs. The 2.3 comes with starter and alternator, the Coyote does not. Ford lists the "engine weight" at 445lbs.

In real life, this guy listed the shipped weight of a 2.0EB (flexplate, no flywheel, no accessories, no fluid, no intercooler, plus pallet) was 419lbs. Now add a 30lb flywheel, 20lb pressure plate and friction disk, accessories, intercooler, associated piping, and a lightweight 75lb transmission (or +123lbs for a stock MT-82 from the EcoBoost Mustang) and you're easily over 500lbs installed and ready to run minus fluids.

My aluminum-headed 302 complete with accessories and T5 weighed 552lbs ready to run minus fluids.





It seems that most published engine weights out there leave out items critical to run - wiring, accessories, drivetrain, etc. - your LS3 doesn't actually weigh 390lbs if it takes another 220lbs of stuff for it to actually move a car.

The 5.0 is a decently lightweight engine given its power potential, and especially so if you stroke it. There are plenty of 500+hp recipes for a 347 out there.



Does he actively work in development on those engines or is he familiar with those who have? Or is he making a guess based on engine displacement and power level?
he works on everything
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,966 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
What's stopping the V8 at the firewall? Because an I4 and a V8 are both 4 cylinders long. Ford lists the 2.3's length as 25.9", the commonly accepted length of a 302 to the tip of the water pump pulley is 27.5", Explorer accessories would probably cancel that out. If you can't scoot the V8 back because it's hitting something, you probably can't scoot the 2.3 back either.
Ive set the motor back 1 inch thanks to the MM k
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,966 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
A fully dressed 01 dohc is 80 lbs lighter than a fully dressed 302 .
That is the aluminum block teksid .
Lighter is one thing, those motors are so wide! I have a friend who has been trying to convince me to go to a 99-01 SOHC mod motor so hard.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
861 Posts
I hate to say it, but there won't be any substantial gain with any swap. The only swap i'd consider for a race car is something that can manage to be mounted farther back behind the K. But even still, a 302 with solid adjustable mounts can sit pretty far back.

All of the weights listed certainly reinforce the point, but the height/width of the DOHC motors make them difficult to benefit from. And while a 4 banger swap would be cool, the peripherals are just more weight that has to be hung forward of the K member.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,966 Posts
Discussion Starter #12

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,966 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
I hate to say it, but there won't be any substantial gain with any swap. The only swap i'd consider for a race car is something that can manage to be mounted farther back behind the K. But even still, a 302 with solid adjustable mounts can sit pretty far back.

All of the weights listed certainly reinforce the point, but the height/width of the DOHC motors make them difficult to benefit from. And while a 4 banger swap would be cool, the peripherals are just more weight that has to be hung forward of the K member.
Its crazy because everytime i bring this conversation up, it comes back around to staying sbf pushrod. Like you say, I can punch her out to 331/347 if i ever need more cubes, or (my fav) i can build the valvetrain up even more and spin to 8k staying with my current 306 cubes. Ill have to figure out a way to cut/bend the firewall and push motor back. I should be at a 50/50 balance as we speak going from iron heads to aluminum.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,785 Posts
only30lbs, I thought aluminum blocks were an easy 80lbs less fully dressed.
Production 302 block (87-end of production) are right around 130 pounds bare. The linked aluminum block is 108 pounds. The rest of it offers other weight reduction opportunities, but it will get wicked expensive.

I don't think focusing only one lighter is the best way to look at your car. An all aluminum 4.6 DOHC (for example) may have a high center of gravity, but how much higher? You can tune the chassis to compensate. It may be lighter overall too depending on how you configure it.

Pound for pound and inch for inch of volume, it's hard to beat the output potential of the 8.2" 302 block.

You are also working with a chassis that is not known to be a great handler. It needs a ton of specialized work to be good.

You want 50/50 all the time or under throttle? I think 50/50 is an over emphasized "rule". Lots of fast cars are not 50/50.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,657 Posts
The center of gravity difference in a dohc over 302 is minimal at best .
Just because it is wider is not a factor either .
It can be installed in a fox , with all factory parts that are easy to acquire as well .
With an sn95 or new edge k member , you you gain front track width , which is an advantage .
Biggest disadvantage , I have personal experience with , torque range .
Pushrod engines have torque low in the rpm range , and the modular do not .
Stay with the 302 if this is what you need .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
392 Posts
A fully dressed 01 dohc is 80 lbs lighter than a fully dressed 302.
That is the aluminum block teksid .
Got a source for that? I see tons of figures copy and pasted from everywhere around the internet based on marketing figures or engines in all states of undress, so I tend to believe pictures of complete engines on scales a lot more.

The sources I'm finding are putting 4.6 DOHC long blocks around 400-425lbs.

http://forums.corral.net/forums/7816325-post15.html

http://forums.corral.net/forums/16340026-post22.html

Add a pressure plate and a T45 and you're at 530-550 ready to run. +20lbs for a T56.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,966 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
Production 302 block (87-end of production) are right around 130 pounds bare. The linked aluminum block is 108 pounds. The rest of it offers other weight reduction opportunities, but it will get wicked expensive.

I don't think focusing only one lighter is the best way to look at your car. An all aluminum 4.6 DOHC (for example) may have a high center of gravity, but how much higher? You can tune the chassis to compensate. It may be lighter overall too depending on how you configure it.

Pound for pound and inch for inch of volume, it's hard to beat the output potential of the 8.2" 302 block.

You are also working with a chassis that is not known to be a great handler. It needs a ton of specialized work to be good.

You want 50/50 all the time or under throttle? I think 50/50 is an over emphasized "rule". Lots of fast cars are not 50/50.
I want more rear weight balance so under braking its 50/50 or close to it.

I have lots of chassis/suspension/brake work done already, im working on aero improvements and will bump up to a fully adjustable damper eventually.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,966 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
The center of gravity difference in a dohc over 302 is minimal at best .
Just because it is wider is not a factor either .
It can be installed in a fox , with all factory parts that are easy to acquire as well .
With an sn95 or new edge k member , you you gain front track width , which is an advantage .
Biggest disadvantage , I have personal experience with , torque range .
Pushrod engines have torque low in the rpm range , and the modular do not .
Stay with the 302 if this is what you need .
Already on a MM k member, MM sn95 A arms, 96-04 spindles, 1/2 inch wheel spacers and +10 offset wheels, so shes 2.25 to 2.5 inches wider on each side up front. Eventually will use 1 inch wheels spacers all four again, the main thing i love about these pushrod motors is ease of access and work, which for a grassroots racer like me is something i need, when on a track on a hot summer day, i like that quick turn around if a mechanical problem does arise.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,121 Posts
The 2.3l EB engine as sold by Ford Performance comes with the alternator, starter and flywheel, so quite a bit of weight can be removed from the above numbers. I don't have an exact weight on my installation yet, but with starter, alternator, flywheel, oil, engine mounts and engine mount brackets, the engine appears to be around 346lbs. The stock flywheel is a dual mass unit, so it is super heavy. An aluminum model for non street driving would save at least 15lbs. The main issue is that the HP fuel pump is driven off of the back of the cylinder head by the camshaft. Unless you want to cut out a hole in the firewall, it severely limits how far rearwards the engine can be moved.

At stock boost level, this engine will be much more reliable and durable than any pushrod 302 with a non shaft mount rocker system.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,966 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
The 2.3l EB engine as sold by Ford Performance comes with the alternator, starter and flywheel, so quite a bit of weight can be removed from the above numbers. I don't have an exact weight on my installation yet, but with starter, alternator, flywheel, oil, engine mounts and engine mount brackets, the engine appears to be around 346lbs. The stock flywheel is a dual mass unit, so it is super heavy. An aluminum model for non street driving would save at least 15lbs. The main issue is that the HP fuel pump is driven off of the back of the cylinder head by the camshaft. Unless you want to cut out a hole in the firewall, it severely limits how far rearwards the engine can be moved.

At stock boost level, this engine will be much more reliable and durable than any pushrod 302 with a non shaft mount rocker system.
So light weight flywheel sounds like a must, and yea i can cut a hole in the firewall, i love cutting this car up, shes high 25xx lbs without me. I have a built, internally balanced 306 (hoping to get many years out of her) then decide on what power unit to move to. I will always love the sound of a N/A pushrod SBF but im very curious on this track car with a baby 2.3 EB setup.

AR Hartman is dominating in his new edge mustang powered by a 3.5 TT EB motor (and tons of carbon and aero) but...

speaking of rocker system, im using the 93 cobra crane 1.7 rockers, with trickflow hardened pushrods...
 
1 - 20 of 53 Posts
Top