Ford Mustang Forums banner

1 - 20 of 27 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
36 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I have posted the question to the SVO guys, but would like to hear any other perspectives on the ups and downs to this swap, would the weight difference on the front be reward enough?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
568 Posts
I have posted the question to the SVO guys, but would like to hear any other perspectives on the ups and downs to this swap, would the weight difference on the front be reward enough?
Probably not.

You weren't specific as to whether the 2.3 was a turbo intercooled motor. But if so, an aluminum headed 5.0 will weigh about the same and be a lot less hassle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
thank you for the info, this is want I need. Yes it would be turbo, now what do think about longevity? what would last longer around a race track? I understand the stock 94 GT V8 isn't very friendly to much RPM for long times. It seems the stoutness of the 2.3t could be used here, but different heads would level the playing field? stock 5.0 weights 500lbs (researched that one, correct me if I'm wrong please) the 2.3t is 380lbs. I can have a 2.3t setup for 2,000. Seeing as how Grassroots Motorsports yearly challenge has shown what a $300 2.3t can do, 2,000 is fair. Can I put something together in a V8 that would be as cheap, as fast, as reliable?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
662 Posts
I found a website that claimed the 2.3t with intercooler setup like it was in the svo weighs in at 450lbs...I'll try to find that link, but keep in mind, it *is* the internet, believe what you want :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
662 Posts
http://blog.cardomain.com/2009/04/27/cardomain-obscure-muscle-car-parking-lot-ford-turbo-coupes-mustang-svo-t-bird-turbo-and-merkur-xr4ti/

The author is speaking of the Merkur (sp?) here, but (if you believe him), the end of what he says is the most relevant:

"The 2.3 liter turbocharged, fuel injected engine uses an EEC-IV computer. The 4-cylinder engine was generally rated at 145 hp (108 kW) when mated with an automatic transmission, and 175 hp when matched with the 5-speed manual transmission. This engine weighs a surprising 450 lb in full (turbo) trim. This engine is basically the same as that found in the SVO Mustang and the Thunderbird Turbo Coupe of the time, though the SVO Mustang and Thunderbird Turbo Coupe differed by having an intercooler and better EEC-IV programming."

...so..this person seems to be claiming 450 pounds without the intercooler (if I'm reading that right).

Take this with a grain of salt....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
249 Posts
It's an interesting idea, but I wouldn't do it. 2.3ts aren't known for their reliabilty around the road course. There is an AI racer on http://www.nasaforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=16087
That did an AI car build using the 2.3t. He hasn't had the best of luck yet.

I have a 306 in my Ai car and recently rallycrossed an Xr4ti and I can say it's a totally different animal to drive. The 2.3 has decent torque but it's not immediate like with the sbf. My driving style would have to change to run a 2.3 to its potential.

I think his final post is the most valuable to you...

I appreciate everyone's interest in the car. It does constantly seem to provoke "rules" discussions. Why don't we just let the thread die. I'll bring it back up when the car actually runs worth a damn, has been presented to Peder and Co. for tech and have something to report.

By the way its "mythical" because a turbo 2.3 weighs more than a properly kitted out 302. My little joke.

Thanks again for the encouragement, if you want to go racing, don't try this (turbo 2.3) at home.

Bob
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
662 Posts
Just read that thread on nasaforums....in case you haven't gotten to the last page yet, he says:

"By the way its "mythical" because a turbo 2.3 weighs more than a properly kitted out 302. My little joke."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
I searched and searched and, couldn't find that info. Thank you very much. Since this was a save money idea also, it looks like that's defunct too. It was worth a try though. Now time to start a new thread, about strong V8's who last the longest on track conditions. Thanks for your help.

-Lucas
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
LSx, meaning GM right? for some reason that never crossed my mind. I'm megasquirting what ever I decide to use, and they have t5's already. Now I need info on some strong, under 500lbs engines.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,068 Posts
GM makes stand alone engine harness for the Gen IV motors that allow you to stick them in just about anything. Or you can stay distributer-less with a carb. Just about anything you can imagine has been done with these motors. I'd even venture to say the mustang is the most popular swap for the LSx motor right now. After you add up what it cost to do the same with most other engine platform, the LSx comes out ahead. How many other all aluminum V8's are out there that will make 500 hp with a simple cam change, are physically small enough to suff into anything rwd, and cost under 4-5 grand?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
529 Posts
This one always gets me. "A T2.3L will weigh as much as a 302."

That only happens in a stock production install. A 2.3L with AC, Alt, PS, and any other items bolted to the engine. I played with a T2.3L and 302's and the T2.3L I installed only had an Alt. It weighed quite a bit less then a V8. And now you can get an Aluminum head for the 2.3 that is a direct replacement for the stock head so the 2.3L wins. Unless you go and get an aluminum block for the V8.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,556 Posts
yeah my car is getting an LSx

I sold my mega squirt #### all my sbf turbo stuff and am goin this route now. Oh yeah and I am carbing it. ultimate simplicity carbed lsx super light tons of power.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
574 Posts
Just to play devil's advocate, I'd have to ask why switch to an LSx at this point? They aren't much lighter (like 20lbs lighter than a 5.0L with aluminum heads- if what I've read is correct) and if you stroke a 5.0L to 347 they have the same displacement (unless you get a 6.0L- but I bet that's much more expensive).

With 6 bolt mains they can take more abuse, but I hear they aren't good past 500WHP which is only about 10% more than a 5.0L is supposed to be good to. You have to go through all the expense of changing mounting locations for your engine mounts, mess with getting a wiring harness, deal with mounting up a trans (not sure what the bolt patterns are there), buying a new starter, custom length d-shaft, etc. I'd be willing to bet obtaining the motor, rebuilding it and all the extras that go into a swap make the cost similar to building a stroked 5.0L with similar power but with more work.

True they are good motors, no taking that away, just seems like a lot of hastle for a little extra gain. I'm willing to bet most of the guys out there doing the swaps are drag racers who got the motor for a song and stuffed it in a cheap rolling chassis. I won't say I've been to every track event and road race around but I've never seen that swap at a track day or NASA event. Not that it wouldn't make a good car, just always seemed wrong to stuff another make engine into a car (unless the car is an import- the RX7, 240 swaps are kinda cool since those cars are so light).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,556 Posts
you use 4.6 motor mounts anda 4.6 K member with a fox. LS1s are 10 times better engine than small block fords. Stock heads and a cam you can make 400 rwhp. there is no way $ for $ you can make a sbf have more power. There are guys making 700hp on stock ls1 bottom ends. the aluminum ls1 block can handle 1000 HP
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,556 Posts
the ls1 with all accessorys oil etc weighs 395 pounds so thats what 100 pounds lighter than a stock 5.0? that is a #### load of weight off the nose of a car with ####y balance. As for the wiring harness thats super simple so many company's make plug and play setups or MSD makes a ignition setup so you can run a carb. as for a trans I am putting my ford TKO in it going to use a quick time bell housing and use the aluminum drive shaft I already have for it. as for headers you can get expensive kooks headers or do what I am doing mac 351 swap headers cut the flanges off and weld new flanges on.


as for seeing none at nasa events idk ive only seen a hand full of lsx mustangs on the internet never any in person. Most people with mustangs are "purists" and dont want to put a "chevy" motor in their car
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
574 Posts
I've seen guys with stock bottom end 5.0s making tons of power too, but that doesn't mean it's going to last in a high rpm for 20 minutes at a time environment, in fact two friends of mine have blown new LS motors in their cars at the track, one with stock power, the other with about 450 to the wheels. I've read the LS1 weighs 430 lbs w/gear, I've never weighed them so I can easily be wrong since I'm quoting internet bozos. If taking 50 lbs off of the 302 w/heads makes them 450lbs, you'd be at either a 20lb or 55lb difference. I guess depending on who's right, there's a medium or small difference.

As I said, everything is available but it all adds up, wiring, driveshaft, motor mounts (I didn't know you could just use 4.6L mounts- does that put the trans in the right place for the shifter, I wonder), accessories, flywheel, balancer, etc.

Yes, the LS1 can make 400hp with a cam and other bolt ons, you can make 400 hp out of a 302 with heads, cam and other bolt ons so price difference is still close.

I won't argue the LS series motor is hard to beat, I'm just argueing the value propostion in stuffing it in a Mustang unless you have one laying around.
 
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Top