Ford 2.3L Turbo Into S4 RX-7
10-22-05, 10:20 AM
#26
Full Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Icemark
why would you want to use that 4 cyl... even turbo it is only a couple HP more than a stock non turbo motor
and an FYI to the person attempting the conversion, if your getting the motor out of a Mustang, if its a N/A 2.3L, only the 92-93's had MAF, so if you pick up a motor out of an 91 or earlier, your going to have to do an MAF conversion. theres a ton of information about it on http://www.corral.net. its not a big issue, really, its a cheap and quick mod. Just something to be aware of, because SD will not show any gains from a turbo charger.
12-04-05, 11:37 PM
#27
moon ******
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 1,308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BUMP. Grant's working on 2.3 FC mounts and someone already made plans for mounts if you just cant wait, and this is the direction Im going to take.
Just figured I'd share with everyone in this sub-forum about whats going on.
Just figured I'd share with everyone in this sub-forum about whats going on.
12-14-05, 10:19 AM
#29
moon ******
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 1,308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The more you email grant the more he'll know people are interested 
www.grannysspeedshop.com
A guy on turboford had some stupidly simple mounts he did that Id be doing if grant wasnt interested, the only prob is those mounts have the engine relatively high eyeballing it from the pov I saw in that pic anyway... and hes going with a full custom intake/IC and all tha tshit. Grant is working on a kit that would allow you to keep the SMIC and intake as far as I know - not that anyone would want to keep the SMIC for too long :P
www.grannysspeedshop.com
A guy on turboford had some stupidly simple mounts he did that Id be doing if grant wasnt interested, the only prob is those mounts have the engine relatively high eyeballing it from the pov I saw in that pic anyway... and hes going with a full custom intake/IC and all tha tshit. Grant is working on a kit that would allow you to keep the SMIC and intake as far as I know - not that anyone would want to keep the SMIC for too long :P
12-15-05, 10:32 PM
#30
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Malibu, CA
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whoa, if you could keep the stock **** for a while that would make it more convenient. Like ya' said though, you'd no doubt toss the stock stuff quickly, but still. Jeez, this sounds really sweet, I want them mounts!
12-16-05, 07:43 PM
#31
moon ******
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 1,308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, EMAIL him and let him know there are more people interested. If I didnt get the people to email him in the first place I doubt hed be doing this at all!
12-18-05, 08:32 AM
#32
Full Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Maryland
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good idea here, I am doing this swap. just emailed grannys. a turbo four is much more appealing to me than a big v8 and like the other guy said, it's so expensive to rebuild a rotary. and the parts for a 2.3 will be very cheap. a bunch of companies support the 2.3 for performance upgrades and theres been alot of r and d from the svo guys and the turbocoupe peoples... I'm in! 
12-18-05, 01:49 PM
#33
moon ******
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 1,308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NFG - lets not hate on the v8s here, theyve proven their performance and that they dont alter handling or weight distribution. 302's and LS1s BARELY weigh more than a 2.3T :P
That said, the 2.3T is easily one of the best bang/buck platforms Ive seen, and getting SERIOUS rwhp is inexpensive, even if you go with an e$$linger head. FCs have big FMIC options available and nice big underhood area, and T-5s have been put into them for years... and Ive even seen people make plates to mount a T-56 to a 2.3, not that youd NEED one anyway... heh heh heh.
That said, heres to hoping grants done soon so we can all spool some whoopass
That said, the 2.3T is easily one of the best bang/buck platforms Ive seen, and getting SERIOUS rwhp is inexpensive, even if you go with an e$$linger head. FCs have big FMIC options available and nice big underhood area, and T-5s have been put into them for years... and Ive even seen people make plates to mount a T-56 to a 2.3, not that youd NEED one anyway... heh heh heh.
That said, heres to hoping grants done soon so we can all spool some whoopass
12-19-05, 01:47 PM
#34
moon ******
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 1,308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another update. The engine fits and the 87-88 short intake will clear the hood - even the way that one TF guy mounted it in his FC, 2" up from the crossmember/rack.
So, this is obviously good news. It has room to spare and definitely does fit, even if you mount it high with those mounts vs pedistals.
So, this is obviously good news. It has room to spare and definitely does fit, even if you mount it high with those mounts vs pedistals.
12-22-05, 07:27 PM
#35
Full Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Draper, UT
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its a really easy swap, but I went the tougher route and added a volvo 16v head swap conversion ONTOP of that. so i'm really deep into my conversions. we shall see how the numbers end up in the end.
12-22-05, 11:41 PM
#36
moon ******
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 1,308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LOL... thats a lil overkill, considering w/ a holset you can just breathe hard on the ports instead of having to open them up more. IVe seen over 400 whp on stock iron heads with some work on them and a holset on pump gas at ~30 psi. Still on EEC to boot, IIRC. Its GT350's car (I think thats his name on Turbo Ford).
Still, I can't wait until Grant's done with his stuff and I can start my swap. If I hadnt asked him to start up w/ this and gotten ppl to email, I woulda started practicing my welding by now. Also, DEF gotta give him a vote to do this for the TFers and few people who know of the 2.3T who would wanna put one in a FC - DEFINITELY the bang/buck king right here.
Still, I can't wait until Grant's done with his stuff and I can start my swap. If I hadnt asked him to start up w/ this and gotten ppl to email, I woulda started practicing my welding by now. Also, DEF gotta give him a vote to do this for the TFers and few people who know of the 2.3T who would wanna put one in a FC - DEFINITELY the bang/buck king right here.
12-23-05, 08:44 PM
#37
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
kennedy engineering says they weigh 328lbs with no turbo compared to a N/A 12a that weighs 260lbs. both bare blocks with no water. I have a 12a in my baja now(solid mounts) and the smoothness is only compared to newer corvettes. The engine might need some rubber type mounts to keep you from rattlin your teeth. On a scale from 1-10 on smoothness it gets a 3 from kennedy, 10 being the smoothest(the rotary has a 9).
I am a big fan for conversions but only if they make sense or hp. this seems like you might be working backwards though if you are trying to save money. Its just not slap it in easy, but if you have the resources and the ability do it. Please take pics and write a list and keep working on it. I would try to find a later model t-bird with a 2.3 turbo and have alot of hp and fuel injection. good luck.
I am a big fan for conversions but only if they make sense or hp. this seems like you might be working backwards though if you are trying to save money. Its just not slap it in easy, but if you have the resources and the ability do it. Please take pics and write a list and keep working on it. I would try to find a later model t-bird with a 2.3 turbo and have alot of hp and fuel injection. good luck.
12-23-05, 09:51 PM
#38
moon ******
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 1,308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Im not keeping the stock turbo.... and I dont care about smoothness! Its a SPORTS CAR! LOL.
If I want something to ride smooth Ill get a luxury car. Even if the rotary has a 9 on some scale of smoothness, the suspension will be hard enough to not be especially comfortable, unless you have worn shocks - and this is a RX-7, not a grocery getter. Its supposed to be a high strung, corner-on-rails menace to the treadpatch of your tires.
Anyway, 2.3T's make tons of power, very cheaply. You ever seen the dynos of what these things can put out? They also put out more torque than a rotary at comparable power levels. Plus, HEAVIER engines have been put into FCs that didnt change distribution or add enough weight to it to actually effect the handling.
Oh, and its also a a lot more reliable, and gets good gas mileage - even with the EEC until you get into the mega power ranges, but Im going with megasquirt anyway, where I can run as lean as I want off boost and unless I get a wild cam I'll retain good mileage.
If youre going to say stuff about it, at least say something thats relevant (like we give a damn about subjective vibrational harshness? No offence...), and do some real research on it first. Ill make the same power as virtually any turbo rotary with less money invested and a much larger margin of safety and more torque and a broader powerband, with extremely cheap parts available and a totally different paradigm of performance modifications than the rotary has. I can blow hard on crappy flowing heads and still make tons of power (and, well, torque) or bother to get a cam, port the heads or get Esslingers aluminum heads for street cars that outflow totally ported iron heads for the price of a port job, and not have to worry about a ping resulting in a rebuild while tuning or if something happens while driving.
So no, Im not going backwards or doing it JUST to save money. The money savings is a factor, otherwise Id be going with a v8, but Im not going to turn down a chance to have my cake and eat it too and have more money for tires/wheels/coilovers and other assorted **** like, say, gasoline, or beer.
P.S. - Im most likely going to use hockey pucks in the engine mounts, so there ya go
If I want something to ride smooth Ill get a luxury car. Even if the rotary has a 9 on some scale of smoothness, the suspension will be hard enough to not be especially comfortable, unless you have worn shocks - and this is a RX-7, not a grocery getter. Its supposed to be a high strung, corner-on-rails menace to the treadpatch of your tires.
Anyway, 2.3T's make tons of power, very cheaply. You ever seen the dynos of what these things can put out? They also put out more torque than a rotary at comparable power levels. Plus, HEAVIER engines have been put into FCs that didnt change distribution or add enough weight to it to actually effect the handling.
Oh, and its also a a lot more reliable, and gets good gas mileage - even with the EEC until you get into the mega power ranges, but Im going with megasquirt anyway, where I can run as lean as I want off boost and unless I get a wild cam I'll retain good mileage.
If youre going to say stuff about it, at least say something thats relevant (like we give a damn about subjective vibrational harshness? No offence...), and do some real research on it first. Ill make the same power as virtually any turbo rotary with less money invested and a much larger margin of safety and more torque and a broader powerband, with extremely cheap parts available and a totally different paradigm of performance modifications than the rotary has. I can blow hard on crappy flowing heads and still make tons of power (and, well, torque) or bother to get a cam, port the heads or get Esslingers aluminum heads for street cars that outflow totally ported iron heads for the price of a port job, and not have to worry about a ping resulting in a rebuild while tuning or if something happens while driving.
So no, Im not going backwards or doing it JUST to save money. The money savings is a factor, otherwise Id be going with a v8, but Im not going to turn down a chance to have my cake and eat it too and have more money for tires/wheels/coilovers and other assorted **** like, say, gasoline, or beer.
P.S. - Im most likely going to use hockey pucks in the engine mounts, so there ya go
12-26-05, 01:17 AM
#39
Vibrational harshness is the worst thing ever. You can tolerate a stiff suspension, but when you have a engine vibrating through the chassis with poly or other very stiff motor mount, it shakes and rattles EVERYTHING! Your shifter becomes hard to hold onto! The only way to know, is to experience it. If I was building this engine, might as well have it all dynamically balanced, not expensive, but very nice payoff. How far along are you on this project? Are you going to be ready by summer "Nih"? Did you ever make a deal with getting that FC? Might want to make it first before bragging. But thats just a opinion.
12-26-05, 05:37 PM
#41
moon ******
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 1,308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by GtoRx7
Vibrational harshness is the worst thing ever. You can tolerate a stiff suspension, but when you have a engine vibrating through the chassis with poly or other very stiff motor mount, it shakes and rattles EVERYTHING! Your shifter becomes hard to hold onto! The only way to know, is to experience it. If I was building this engine, might as well have it all dynamically balanced, not expensive, but very nice payoff. How far along are you on this project? Are you going to be ready by summer "Nih"? Did you ever make a deal with getting that FC? Might want to make it first before bragging. But thats just a opinion.
Also, the stock internals can take it to PAST 400 whp, so why would I have to balance a damn thing?
Yes, Ill be ready by summer. The only reason I dont have the FC to work on is I have to find a place to DO so, I dont have a driveway and my apartment complex has exercised its right to be a bunch of ******** and change their mind about letting me do anything on it.
The only way I can work on it there is if I can drive it to a different spot to park every day so nobody reports it as a broken down vehicle
so most likely Ill do the swap in a friends driveway, or a storage unit, or the parking lot of an Advance Auto Im buddybuddy with.Regardless, I could get a roller, engine/tranny/ecm/turbo and stuff to make mounts with for 500-1000 depending on what Im willing to look hard for vs just pay for upfront. However, the real reason I havent started yet is me and others have asked grant to make us some 2.3 FC mounts and hes started to make them already.
Im not gonna be an ******* and have him start this, then make my own and not buy a set of his own.
12-27-05, 08:18 PM
#42
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well have fun with that tractor eninge, I personally like the jap ferrari and the potential is way higher with the rotary than with a piston of equivelent size displacement.
I run with people that have these in thier rails and bajas and all they complain about is the roughness of the engine(which should be a huge consideration when building any type of street driving car). it can literally fall apart from the vibration. I guess your car falling apart because of vibration is not relevant issue with you.
it sounds like you have to convince yourself, no offense
I run with people that have these in thier rails and bajas and all they complain about is the roughness of the engine(which should be a huge consideration when building any type of street driving car). it can literally fall apart from the vibration. I guess your car falling apart because of vibration is not relevant issue with you.
it sounds like you have to convince yourself, no offense
12-27-05, 08:57 PM
#43
Originally Posted by saltyslug
well have fun with that tractor eninge, I personally like the jap ferrari and the potential is way higher with the rotary than with a piston of equivelent size displacement.
I run with people that have these in thier rails and bajas and all they complain about is the roughness of the engine(which should be a huge consideration when building any type of street driving car). it can literally fall apart from the vibration. I guess your car falling apart because of vibration is not relevant issue with you.
it sounds like you have to convince yourself, no offense
I run with people that have these in thier rails and bajas and all they complain about is the roughness of the engine(which should be a huge consideration when building any type of street driving car). it can literally fall apart from the vibration. I guess your car falling apart because of vibration is not relevant issue with you.
it sounds like you have to convince yourself, no offense
Japanese Ferarri is the NSX, not the RX7. RX7 is much closer to a Corvette then anything.
If you have any more nuggets of wisdom, please share. You're making Nihil look useful.
12-27-05, 11:33 PM
#44
moon ******
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 1,308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by saltyslug
well have fun with that tractor eninge, I personally like the jap ferrari and the potential is way higher with the rotary than with a piston of equivelent size displacement.
I run with people that have these in thier rails and bajas and all they complain about is the roughness of the engine(which should be a huge consideration when building any type of street driving car). it can literally fall apart from the vibration. I guess your car falling apart because of vibration is not relevant issue with you.
it sounds like you have to convince yourself, no offense
I run with people that have these in thier rails and bajas and all they complain about is the roughness of the engine(which should be a huge consideration when building any type of street driving car). it can literally fall apart from the vibration. I guess your car falling apart because of vibration is not relevant issue with you.
it sounds like you have to convince yourself, no offense
Now, all this falling apart.... Id love to see some evidence of it.
Also, I dont need to convince myself a god damn thing. I guess a "dyno graph" is too far above your level to comprehend?
WHAT a piece of ****.
Kiss my *** and come back with something useful and relevant, ok? Or are you going to tell me a rotary is REALLY a 1.3 liter engine? 
12-27-05, 11:36 PM
#45
moon ******
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 1,308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by digitalsolo
If you have any more nuggets of wisdom, please share. You're making Nihil look useful.
yep. youre right. I should just go shut up...
12-28-05, 12:30 AM
#48
My R/c car used to be .21 cu-in with 3.8 hp, but now I guess its really a .42cu-in But damn its like, at least half the size of the .42 4-strokes, what gives guys? Is my .21 in a different scale of reality? I SO CONFUSED RIGHT NOW!!!
Oh yeah "Nih" your whole 1080 degrees, 3.9 liter, slow and such is total bullshit. The rotary is working just like a 2-stroke, I compare it to a, I dont know a fictional piston engine with a clyinder head that rotates to a identical head each time it fires. It has 3 heads, all the same, and it too would take 1080 degrees, buts its still the damn same displacement, nothing is changing the 1 power stroke per 360 degrees. And all motors dont "comform" to the slower 4 cycle engines. When you double the rotary's displacement, its for competitive racing, and takes all the advantages away from its design. Which is the only 4 cycle 2 stroke engine, and almost as efficient as a 4-stroke.
Oh yeah "Nih" your whole 1080 degrees, 3.9 liter, slow and such is total bullshit. The rotary is working just like a 2-stroke, I compare it to a, I dont know a fictional piston engine with a clyinder head that rotates to a identical head each time it fires. It has 3 heads, all the same, and it too would take 1080 degrees, buts its still the damn same displacement, nothing is changing the 1 power stroke per 360 degrees. And all motors dont "comform" to the slower 4 cycle engines. When you double the rotary's displacement, its for competitive racing, and takes all the advantages away from its design. Which is the only 4 cycle 2 stroke engine, and almost as efficient as a 4-stroke.
Last edited by GtoRx7; 12-28-05 at 12:41 AM.
12-28-05, 12:33 AM
#49
moon ******
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 1,308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by GtoRx7
My R/c car used to be .21 cu-in with 3.8 hp, but now I guess its really a .42cu-in But damn its like, at least half the size of the .42 4-strokes, what gives guys? Is my .21 in a different scale of reality? I SO CONFUSED RIGHT NOW!!!
Clearly, as this has zip.**** to do with a 2.3T in a FC...