Ford 2.3L Turbo Into S4 RX-7
12-29-05, 02:17 AM
#76
Originally Posted by digitalsolo
A few errors here.
Who is paying 300 dollars for a stock TII turbo?
Who is selling a good T3/T4 for the SAME PRICE?
A nice front mount is more then 120 dollars.
A nice manifold (one that won't crack in 6 months) is substantially more then 80 dollars.
I want to see a quality exhaust system built for 100 bucks.
I want to see a good intercooler piping system for 30 bucks.
Where's the rest of your fuel system?
I think you MIGHT be able to do what you're talking about for 3000-3500 bucks. Stable and efficient wouldn't particularly apply to it though.
FWIW, I don't think that Nihil's setup would be stable or efficient for less then 3000-3500 bucks.
Beyond all that, before I bought all my toys, the main parts of my LS1 swap were under 2000 dollars. Including engine and transmission.
Who is paying 300 dollars for a stock TII turbo?
Who is selling a good T3/T4 for the SAME PRICE?
A nice front mount is more then 120 dollars.
A nice manifold (one that won't crack in 6 months) is substantially more then 80 dollars.
I want to see a quality exhaust system built for 100 bucks.
I want to see a good intercooler piping system for 30 bucks.
Where's the rest of your fuel system?
I think you MIGHT be able to do what you're talking about for 3000-3500 bucks. Stable and efficient wouldn't particularly apply to it though.
FWIW, I don't think that Nihil's setup would be stable or efficient for less then 3000-3500 bucks.
Beyond all that, before I bought all my toys, the main parts of my LS1 swap were under 2000 dollars. Including engine and transmission.
Here is a very nice intercooler on ebay, took me seriously 30 seconds to find it, I could find better deals than this easy.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Mazda...25233849QQrdZ1
For the turbo it was a little harder-
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/T3-T4...24920756QQrdZ1
This one hasnt ended, but it will most likely end in the 300 range.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Brand...-Trim-350-450-
This is pushing it for 400hp, but all it needs is a cheap turbine housing.
Manifold, I used one like this for 2 years, and now someone else has been using it for over a year, no cracks.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/FC3S-...24461689QQrdZ1
I have sold at least 4 S5 turbo II turbos for OVER $300 each. If you market it right on ebay it so easy to do.
NOw I admit, I forgot the wastegate, so tack on another $189 to my est.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/TiAL-...spagenameZWDVW
Fuel is there, 1600cc secondaries, and two FD pumps in the tank, that is good for about 500+ in fuel. Three jegs mild steel U-bends, $14.00 each, cut and fab. to work, I did it. The stock reg. will work fine for just 400 fly power. I can weld together a pretty nice, mild steel exhaust for about $100 bucks. No its not stainless, but it doesnt need to be to just make the power. Cheap fast horsepower is what I was going for. Even with all these junk parts, its lightyears ahead of "nih"'s junkyard plan for turbo systems.
12-29-05, 09:32 AM
#77
Gto,
I see the numbers you're saying price wise, but repeat after me "Shiny does not equal fast"
LOL
Those parts MIGHT get you to your HP goal, but they aren't going to last long there. Like I said, not starting ****, just stating my opinion. To really do those HP levels and feel confident driving it 1200 miles, I think 3500-4000 would be more likely. I'm **** retentive though (read -AN fittings, braided lines, mandrel bends, yada yada...).
To put it better. You might make the power with those parts, but the magic 8 ball foresees issues in the future.
I see the numbers you're saying price wise, but repeat after me "Shiny does not equal fast"
LOLThose parts MIGHT get you to your HP goal, but they aren't going to last long there. Like I said, not starting ****, just stating my opinion. To really do those HP levels and feel confident driving it 1200 miles, I think 3500-4000 would be more likely. I'm **** retentive though (read -AN fittings, braided lines, mandrel bends, yada yada...).
To put it better. You might make the power with those parts, but the magic 8 ball foresees issues in the future.
12-29-05, 04:19 PM
#78
moon ******
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 1,308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Retentiveness is good for shows or building those drag bike engines. Im not building something up THAT FAR! The engine is strong and you dont stress it until you get over 400 whp, which is the ultimate goal. I dont plan on being able to just handle 400 whp right off the bat in such a light *** car. :p
Im gonna do a turboford style build, which is, as cheap as you can where you should cheap out... but not where you shouldnt.
The inexpense comes from 4bob, holset turbos, MS and JY FMICs and such. Im also probably going to use silicone **** for IC pipping so I dont have to weld it up.
Regardless, the only thing that could prove really expensive other than sticky tires would be an esslinger head, if I choose to go with one. A home port job has gotten over 400 whp from a holset anyway, so I might as well send off for porting or buy one thats already ported off someone else.
I do respect the rentiveness, though, its the best way to prevent anything from happening down the line from putting together a fly by night rig.
Also, 'gto', go to turbo ford and ask them about the turbo setup they run if youre so sure it sucks!
Im gonna do a turboford style build, which is, as cheap as you can where you should cheap out... but not where you shouldnt.
The inexpense comes from 4bob, holset turbos, MS and JY FMICs and such. Im also probably going to use silicone **** for IC pipping so I dont have to weld it up.
Regardless, the only thing that could prove really expensive other than sticky tires would be an esslinger head, if I choose to go with one. A home port job has gotten over 400 whp from a holset anyway, so I might as well send off for porting or buy one thats already ported off someone else.
I do respect the rentiveness, though, its the best way to prevent anything from happening down the line from putting together a fly by night rig.
Also, 'gto', go to turbo ford and ask them about the turbo setup they run if youre so sure it sucks!
12-31-05, 10:47 AM
#79
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: MA
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grannys Speed Shop (their new swap)
Grannys just came out with the 30VG swap. Yep. The 300zx/maxima 3L 6. If you ask, i think thats the way to go reliability and performance wise. I think you get the best of both from that.
01-01-06, 05:30 PM
#81
Originally Posted by saltyslug
I think you bike is missing a couple wheels and tires. hell I can get a skateboard with a rocket engine to smoke that thing and still have four wheels.......cheater 
LOL
01-04-06, 03:23 PM
#83
Full Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are these ford engines based on the 1970s SOHC 1600 and 2l engines that were in some escorts and cortinas? if so do they still have bad top end lubrication - chewing out cam lobes etc? if it is the same as the older engines you could get real serious and put a cosworth twin cam 16 valve head
01-05-06, 01:14 AM
#84
moon ******
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 1,308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only DOHC heads that really fit on a 2.3T are volvo 16v heads, but those require modifications. Also, the stock Lima cams are flat tappet ones and theres PLENTY of oil up top to lubricate. Many guys convert to Ranger roller cams and end up restrictin some of the oil flow up top. 
Regardless, Esslinger makes a great aluminum street head that flows plenty, and because 2.3Ts often use turbos efficient at high pressure ratios headflow isnt that essential. Ive seen home ported iron heads break 430 whp.
And yeah, I know DOHC outflows at lower lifts - but high lift roller cams with high ramp rates negate that sort of issue - and, as I said, at high pressure ratios flow at the standard pressure difference isnt as important.
Regardless, Esslinger makes a great aluminum street head that flows plenty, and because 2.3Ts often use turbos efficient at high pressure ratios headflow isnt that essential. Ive seen home ported iron heads break 430 whp.
And yeah, I know DOHC outflows at lower lifts - but high lift roller cams with high ramp rates negate that sort of issue - and, as I said, at high pressure ratios flow at the standard pressure difference isnt as important.
01-05-06, 03:20 AM
#85
Full Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was just trying to figure out what the engine actually was, it does look like the 1.6 2.0 and 2.1 engines we get here but the cosworth head bolts strait on so it must be a different block
01-05-06, 03:23 AM
#86
moon ******
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 1,308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its a 2.3 liter engine from the Thunderbird Turbo coupe, SVO mustang, etc. Its nicknamed the "lima" and came with a T3 or IHI turbo... SMIC and a intake that went over the valve cover.
Lots of guys at http://www.turboford.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi have looked into 4v heads before, trust me. The Volvo head is only off with the bore spacing a mm or so only two of the cylinders, so there ya go.
At the end of the day, though, with a turbo engine the DOHC head isnt really that big of a deal. In the end youd have to make CUSTOM cams for it which is... well, $$$. Going with a NASH head (the 'street' head from esslinger) would be about the price of a port job on a rotary and get you all the flow youd ever want, anyway, and using a high pressure turbo negates the need for cfm flow at the pressure theyre tested at
Lots of guys at http://www.turboford.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi have looked into 4v heads before, trust me. The Volvo head is only off with the bore spacing a mm or so only two of the cylinders, so there ya go.
At the end of the day, though, with a turbo engine the DOHC head isnt really that big of a deal. In the end youd have to make CUSTOM cams for it which is... well, $$$. Going with a NASH head (the 'street' head from esslinger) would be about the price of a port job on a rotary and get you all the flow youd ever want, anyway, and using a high pressure turbo negates the need for cfm flow at the pressure theyre tested at
01-09-06, 02:54 PM
#87
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hey Nihilanthic,
I wanted to do 2.3T swap into rx-7 for long time. It looks cheap, but custom fabrication is gonna take some moeny/time, no big deal. parts are cheap and plenty that's good too. the problem is taht to make power you have to blow hard on that motor, I mean 20psi and more. you need standalone for that. Other problem is the rev. 2.3T dont like rev. people have problems with high output 2.3T anything above 6700 rpm.
I really want piston motor in my rx7 at some point, I love how my 2.4 nissan 240sx sounds. but sr20 is so cheap now, I can get shorblock for $300. direct bolt on.
I drift rx7, I wont run too much boost if it's gonna kill the motor. I run 10psi on my drift t2. When I drift, I'm at redline at almost all times. the topend of rotary and able to rev forever is the point here.
I'm really worried that 2.3T is not not gonna like 6500prm redline even at 15psi.
I wanted to do 2.3T swap into rx-7 for long time. It looks cheap, but custom fabrication is gonna take some moeny/time, no big deal. parts are cheap and plenty that's good too. the problem is taht to make power you have to blow hard on that motor, I mean 20psi and more. you need standalone for that. Other problem is the rev. 2.3T dont like rev. people have problems with high output 2.3T anything above 6700 rpm.
I really want piston motor in my rx7 at some point, I love how my 2.4 nissan 240sx sounds. but sr20 is so cheap now, I can get shorblock for $300. direct bolt on.
I drift rx7, I wont run too much boost if it's gonna kill the motor. I run 10psi on my drift t2. When I drift, I'm at redline at almost all times. the topend of rotary and able to rev forever is the point here.
I'm really worried that 2.3T is not not gonna like 6500prm redline even at 15psi.
01-10-06, 05:35 AM
#88
moon ******
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 1,308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grants nearing completion of his 2.3T mounts for the FC, so the only custom work would be rotating the intake if you dont buy a rotated/gutted or custom intake from 40bob
The other thing is.. you dont HAVE to rev high with this motor, and the turbos they tend to use for them are efficient at high PSI anyway (which might be because the stock heads dont flow very well). Sure, you could get a hogged out iron head or a esslinger head that flows insane amounts and run a lower boost turbo if you want, but theres no NECESSITY to do that.
Theres absolutely nothing wrong with an engine making power at "lower" rpms. Revs are a means, not an end. If the turbo is being overspun at that point and that pressure ratio, and/or the cam/intake runners are out of their rpm range, then power will drop. But, well, why does it matter? The engine still has a broad powerband, so why rev further?
You COULD get a 2.3T to rev higher if you want, just get a cam rated for the higher rpm range, and gut out the lower intake manifold a little (er, after you measure the runner length to see if you need to) and make sure your turbo matches up.
Also, just for contrast, rotaries tend to favor flow at lower pressures *porting* vs just upping the boost for various reasons, and it acts like a 2.6 liter piston engine. A 2.3 is.. well, 2.3. There are lots of variables at play as to why each engine gets to the same ends via different means to deal with - but 6500 rpms redline is just peachy for a 2.3T. But remember, theres no NEED to go higher! Many guys are well over 400 whp by that point. If youre just a stickler for top end, get a 3500-7000rpm cam, and go to turboford and ask around how to do what you want to do.
The other thing is.. you dont HAVE to rev high with this motor, and the turbos they tend to use for them are efficient at high PSI anyway (which might be because the stock heads dont flow very well). Sure, you could get a hogged out iron head or a esslinger head that flows insane amounts and run a lower boost turbo if you want, but theres no NECESSITY to do that.
Theres absolutely nothing wrong with an engine making power at "lower" rpms. Revs are a means, not an end. If the turbo is being overspun at that point and that pressure ratio, and/or the cam/intake runners are out of their rpm range, then power will drop. But, well, why does it matter? The engine still has a broad powerband, so why rev further?
You COULD get a 2.3T to rev higher if you want, just get a cam rated for the higher rpm range, and gut out the lower intake manifold a little (er, after you measure the runner length to see if you need to) and make sure your turbo matches up.
Also, just for contrast, rotaries tend to favor flow at lower pressures *porting* vs just upping the boost for various reasons, and it acts like a 2.6 liter piston engine. A 2.3 is.. well, 2.3. There are lots of variables at play as to why each engine gets to the same ends via different means to deal with - but 6500 rpms redline is just peachy for a 2.3T. But remember, theres no NEED to go higher! Many guys are well over 400 whp by that point. If youre just a stickler for top end, get a 3500-7000rpm cam, and go to turboford and ask around how to do what you want to do.
01-12-06, 03:30 PM
#89
moon ******
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 1,308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UPDATE:
The only Turbo engine we could get our hands on at the time had the SMIC already removed, but i'm pretty sure it will fit anyway. We are currently using the stock 2.3 aluminum mount extensions (XR4 ti). Our current bracket design attachs to the RX-7 frame rails and to the stock rotary engine mounting points. We originally wanted to use our SBC V-8 cradle as a base, but we felt designing dedicated parts would bring the total cost down and make the 2.3 a more appealing option.
We're getting there people!
The only Turbo engine we could get our hands on at the time had the SMIC already removed, but i'm pretty sure it will fit anyway. We are currently using the stock 2.3 aluminum mount extensions (XR4 ti). Our current bracket design attachs to the RX-7 frame rails and to the stock rotary engine mounting points. We originally wanted to use our SBC V-8 cradle as a base, but we felt designing dedicated parts would bring the total cost down and make the 2.3 a more appealing option.
We're getting there people!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
sherff
Adaptronic Engine Mgmt - AUS
9
02-24-19 12:09 PM
Turblown
Vendor Classifieds
0
08-18-15 10:01 PM
