Has anybody put a 2.4 turbo motor in a '75. Is the tranny the same. I'm sorry and hate to say it But I'm a Chevy guy. I don't want a chevy engine in my Mav, but I don't like shoehorned engine bays. I think the Turbo would be trick and quick and still Ford. Currently it's a POS 250 50 K org miles and has never run right. :confused:
Why not just go with a nicely built 302?? They fit without modifications and even several header companies build aftermarket headers to fit!! If you really want to get crazy put a turbo on a 302!!
since you're admitting to being a chevy guy, why don't you just give that ol' mav with the POS 250 to me and buy yourself a Camaro
not only that but the turbo motor for ford was a 2.3 and it has more than just a turbo its built up by svo
wouldn't be my first choice of powerplants. While the old 2.3L dates back to the pinto days, when coupled with a turbo it becomes quite an unreliable POS. The 2.3L is a great work horse but IMO requires too much maintance to be worth it. If you really want that powerplant, you may consider an early 80's svo mustang that came with them stock.
scrapper-I asked the same question a couple of years back. I guess the die hard ranger truckers picked up on the idea a # of years back, as I have heard that it is a pretty popular upgrade for the 2.3L rangers
If I were going to try it I would use a setup from a Thunderbird turbo coupe or a turbo GT Mustang since the SVO is a special car and has a few SVO only pieces. A friend of mine has an SVO and had to find a turbo for it and was eventually put in touch with a collector from Michigan and then had to pay $600 for a turbo since it has a SVO only mounting flange. Thunderbirds and GT's are still findable in salvage yards with swappable turbos intact.
you might want to look into how the internals in the 2.3 are themselves. I wouldn't be surprised if the internals in the turbo'd 2.3 are alittle stronger to handle the turbo. I would imagine you would have to snag the computer, and possible wiring harness. Possibly the injectors--as not sure if they upgraded that as well. You can find the turbo motors complete for almost literally a dime a dozen in the junkyards off of the 87-88 tbird turbocoupes, I would suggest just getting the whole thing---engine and turbo. Likely wouldn't cost you much more than a few hundred dollers.
don't let anyone tell you that a Turbo 2.3 is a turd. They're good engines...the blocks are beefier, the cranks are steel, rods are steel, pistons are forged units. Most people didn't like them because they had to be wound up to make power..what do you expect from 2.3 liters? You dont think a turbo 4 wont make power, check this out....the download takes some time but it's WELL worth it!! http://members.aol.com/fourced/video/GoodAir.mpg
a 4 cyl turbo would be neat in a mav, at the very least it would be differnt.. the big thing other then the rangers is to put the guts from a turbo coupe tbird in mustang II's and pinto's, there was one in hot rod mag a while back that was very impressive.. good luck with your project
A lot of Ranger guys are doing this. It takes computer swaps, and with older cars, all the sensors like o2 sensors ond converters and such. The later 2.3s, I believe from 89 make more power. I was thinking of doing this to my ranger, but I think I'll just get a V8 Dakota. Go to http://www.therangerstation.com to find a lot of details in the FAQ section. They have a BB with friendly people too.
Interesting that you speak of a v8 dakota, today I drove one for the first time. It was a 5.2/5-speed '99 model. I was not that impressed, for a v8 in a small truck it felt more like a v6 in a mustang. Perhaps the 5.9L is better? Overall, though, it wasn't a bad truck, still a Slow-par, but not too bad.
bhrivers, you never mentioned if you have a manual or auto tranny, but the 2.3 bell is different from 250's. if you still want to do this swap keep in mind what mavman said about winding it up, it will be easier to rev up with a stick. I would get the tranny from the donor car as well, Go with a five-speed that originally came behind that motor. On a side note, the biggest sleeper at our local track is a turbo Mopar Omni with the wastgate turned way up. That thing looks like a grandma's car but runs high 13's smoking alot of V-8's! Go for it and you'll one of kind until someone admires it enough to copy you. mavman & maxpower, a friend of mine has a V-8 Dakota and ran 14.50's with it two weeks ago with no traction for about forty feet. mostly stock w/upgraded computer from mopar performance.
I raced a v8 dakota once in my 86 mustang gt. Fast as hell, must have been a 5.9L or was fixed up, cause I could only get a car length on him by the end of second gear.
reminds me of the second and last time I ran my '84 GT. The guy I bought the car from said that he could only muster a 12.08 out of it, so I got to work. First pass, I touched nothing on the car, ran it as I bought it and went 12.10 @ 92 (1000'), and that was granny shifting because I had not raced a 5-speed before. Went back to the pit, advanced the timing by ear, leaned out the Edelbrock carb a couple sizes, and adjusted the clutch. Second (and last) pass I banged the t5 pretty hard, could not tell it was not an automatic trans from watching the video. Ran a 11.36 @ 95 mph 1000'. 60' was 1.77 on some offbrand radials (DOT street tires). I ran against a 5.9 R/T Dakota which was fun, because by the time I was 330' out, I could only see a little black truck in the mirror with a big cloud of smoke behind it. It ran a 12.89 @ 78, which is respectable for a stock truck. We also have a 4 cyl Dakota Service truck where I work, which is a Dog with a capital D, but it does it's job and is fairly tough. It's just too small for me, being 6'5" tall. I think my old '91 Ranger was more comfortable to drive. I'm not saying I hate the dakotas, just that I do not fit in them. Besides, it's not a Ford
