Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: I really HATE the 2.3 !! (Read 24916 times) previous topic - next topic

I really HATE the 2.3 !!

Reply #75 –
Quote from: 1WLD BRD;200308
not you Aero, the claimed 300rwhp 4 cylinder DD car with 150+passes on it.:hick:


Frank was talking about my old TC and current Capri combo. Both cars where (TC) and are (Capri) daily drivers, and when raced, I bracket race, so they are tuned to go rounds, not all out ET's in general. I got into the parts hard this year with the Capri because I was pushing the T3's at the track beyond any reason. Anyone that has seen my cars at the track knows I drive them like rental cars, Neither ever left me stuck aywhere on the street, and I would (and have) driven either of them anywhere.

I can assure you, I've got nothing to prove to anyone.

Bob Myers

I really HATE the 2.3 !!

Reply #76 –
Were you running a ball-bearing SC50R? (I was the first running TC with one) 46# injectors? A237? Ported head?

Your car actually exactly proves my point. You're at that "happy line" on the 2.3 (300BHP, stock electronics/fueling). They will go high-mid 14's all day long on street tires, and generally be fun and reliable cars. Or basically equal a near stock 302 n/a.

Step over that line into the monster turbo/bigger injector/etc territory and everything changes. I've yet to see any 2.3T car do that, AND be stone-cold nuts DD reliable.

Whereas a 13-second or faster V8 can do it without breaking a sweat.

I really HATE the 2.3 !!

Reply #77 –
My dad and I were JUST talking about the 4 vs 8 thing today while riding in my car.  It really comes down to what kinda money you have to spend and what you want to get out of your car.  For max horsepower and reliability out of a particular budget, there is a much better likelihood of a V8 getting the most out of your money.  And like someone said earlier, reliable high hp 4 cylinders are the exception, not the rule.  And even then, everybody needs to remember that two 5.0 blocks may look the same and that two 2.3 blocks look the same, but they are completely different.  One 5.0 might drive 200,000+ miles with only regular maitenence and no problems.  Another 5.0 might not even make it home the first day without blowing a head gasket or something.  There will be horror stories on both sides of the fence, and there will be good stories as well.  However, since the 5.0 is extremely popular, there will obivously be more overall stories, so take that into account also.  So then we must go to precentages and ratios of good to bad stories.  Judging by what I've seen on this forum and what I've heard from Mustang guys, I'd take a 5.0 any day.

I really HATE the 2.3 !!

Reply #78 –
You crossed that line with the Capri Bob. Hence the lunched shortblock, the half-dozen T3's, and other maladies.

I really HATE the 2.3 !!

Reply #79 –
Quote from: dominator;200212
As for the 302 being 301cid i know i read that ford stated it was 299.8cid or something like that and it matches the displacement of the 4.9L inline 6 but since that displacement was already in use they had to bump it up to the public as a 5.0L so they would not get confused when buying a car as to what engine it had in it.
I'll try and find some info on that.

You're reaching... LOL

MY figures PROVE it's 301.5936... As for the 300 I6, using the SAME formula figures out to 300.08563... The 300 I6 did appear in the trucks in '65 some three years before the 302 first saw light of day, but it was never used in any passenger car...As for 5 liters, each is 61cu in, 305cu in is a true 5.0...

The first mention of 5.0 was on the '78 King Cobra Mustang II... The large 5.0 emblems that's so familiar, were first used on the '79 Mustangs and Capris... The 4.9L ID was still in the future...

I really HATE the 2.3 !!

Reply #80 –
Quote from: gumby;200310

my motor put down 246rwhp @ 15psi. using dominators generalization of 6hp per additional psi, i would have been makin 276rwhp @ the 20psi i normally ran around with, but i never dyno'd it with 20psi....i did run it at the track.
my best et was 14.68 @ 94.8mph; my best ever trap was 98mph. consistent 2.0-2.1 60fts
 



ok with that kind of power you ran the same MPH and ET as my 260XXXmile all original, 180rwhp, (IF i was lucky!) 302 in my bird WITH a 3.08 gear and open rear...  something doesn't add up here....  I have video of the run and timeslips...

I really HATE the 2.3 !!

Reply #81 –
Quote from: Aerobird Motorsports;200321
Were you running a ball-bearing SC50R? (I was the first running TC with one) 46# injectors? A237? Ported head?
i ran a stock T3(94mph) and a SC50(98mph). please go back and actually read my post. the answer to all the rest of your questions is there.
Quote from: Aerobird Motorsports;200321
Your car actually exactly proves my point. You're at that "happy line" on the 2.3 (300BHP, stock electronics/fueling).
you wanted to split hairs earlier when i said "over 300rwhp" and implied ~325rwhp; dont under rate my combo now. the numbers say it should have been ~325bhp @ 20psi not 300.
Quote from: Aerobird Motorsports;200321
They will go high-mid 14's all day long on street tires, and generally be fun and reliable cars. Or basically equal a near stock 302 n/a.
check my trap speeds. the truck ran mid-14's because i suck as a driver and it was a ranger. the traps along with the 3030 race weight are good for 13's with a better driver. and it was still fun and reliable.
Quote from: Aerobird Motorsports;200321
Step over that line into the monster turbo/bigger injector/etc territory and everything changes. I've yet to see any 2.3T car do that, AND be stone-cold nuts DD reliable.
you stepped over that line, and hardly went any faster than my combo. thats your experience.
ill let ya know how mine does when i cross the line further, but i know there are more than a few guys who have reliable combos makin more power than me; not every person who has more done than me is constantly breakin stuff jus cause you did.
Quote from: 1WLD BRD;200325
ok with that kind of power you ran the same MPH and ET as my 260XXXmile all original, 180rwhp, (IF i was lucky!) 302 in my bird WITH a 3.08 gear and open rear...  something doesn't add up here....  I have video of the run and timeslips...

ive got the dyno sheet, and the timeslips here as well.


dont get me wrong. i like my 2.3T, but 5.0's still have place too. the one in my mountaineer is great!
gumby - beauty may fade, but stupid is forever!

I really HATE the 2.3 !!

Reply #82 –
Quote from: gumby;200328

check my trap speeds. the truck ran mid-14's because i suck as a driver and it was a ranger. the traps along with the 3030 race weight are good for easy 13's with a better driver. and it was still fun and reliable.
 


wrong, with that wieght and MPH your BEST possible ET MIGHT be a 14.0 or a 13.99.. IF your lucky and get a perfect run...

NOT an "easy" 13 by any means

I really HATE the 2.3 !!

Reply #83 –
I recently sold my turbo 2.3 Cougar, and I can say with complete confidence that my next Fox project will have a 5.0 under its hood.

I can see the performance potential with the 2.3, but I guess I'm addicted to the sound and feel of a V8.
I miss my '88 XR-7...
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

I really HATE the 2.3 !!

Reply #84 –
Quote from: 1WLD BRD;200329
wrong, with that wieght and MPH your BEST possible ET MIGHT be a 14.0 or a 13.99..

oops you are correct. i snagged the wrong calculator.....a straight HP to weight calculator showed mid 13's, but didnt factor in trap speed.

still yet, all the calculators show my driving abilites werent up to par with the vehicles capability
gumby - beauty may fade, but stupid is forever!

I really HATE the 2.3 !!

Reply #85 –
Someday when I get my 2.3 running right I will post a Dyno Sheet. I spent way to much money on this thing to change now.

Also before I went hog wild on this car I had over 160,000 miles on the engine as a daily driver pumping out 18psi on stock green tops and not cutting it any slack at all. I mean every light was a "Tree" at the track for this thing. Then I spun a rod bearing, and I still drove it home, ran pretty good too except for that unholy knock sound coming out from under the hood. So I do believe it to be a pretty reliable engine.
1985 Thunderbird TC
2.3l .03 over,Ported and polished Head and E6 Manifold, LA3, T3/T4 Hybrid Turbo, Stinger FMIC, Forge BOV, Full 3" Exhaust, Essy Timing Gears & UDP's, BBK 255lph Fuel Pump, Kirban AFPR, Kirban Short Shifter, K&N Cone, Forced4 VC Vent Kit, PA Performance 3g Alternator, Energy Suspension Bushings throughout, CHE LCA's, SFC's [/LEFT]

I really HATE the 2.3 !!

Reply #86 –
ok maybe not locked but the im glad to see that people sayin that each other dont no  about  is done!!!  but it is definitely been quite a debate!!!

I really HATE the 2.3 !!

Reply #87 –
Quote from: EricCoolCats;200195
2.3L...meh.

5.0L...bah.

Everyone knows the 3.8 is THE sleeper engine. Bow down to the almighty 3.8 V6!!!11!1!  :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

Dat's what I'm talkin' 'bout!
Quote from: TurboCoupe50;200199
Yeah if you don't mind replacing your hood hinges every week or two...

Isn't that about how long they last, with the amount of opening and closing necessary to keep one of those things going???

My T-bird has gone 50,000 miles without any issues besides regular maintenance or owner stupidity.
My cougar has averaged a breakdown every ~11,000 miles.


Between the three motors, there are more 3.8Ls on the road than 5.0s or 2.3Ts (at least in cars). The 3.8L was the last to die. So, really, the 3.8L is the best. ;)

I really HATE the 2.3 !!

Reply #88 –
Quote from: martin0660;200320
Frank was talking about my old TC and current Capri combo. Both cars where (TC) and are (Capri) daily drivers, and when raced, I bracket race, so they are tuned to go rounds, not all out ET's in general. I got into the parts hard this year with the Capri because I was pushing the T3's at the track beyond any reason. Anyone that has seen my cars at the track knows I drive them like rental cars, Neither ever left me stuck aywhere on the street, and I would (and have) driven either of them anywhere.

I can assure you, I've got nothing to prove to anyone.

Bob Myers


God yes bob you beat the living shiznit out of that car! U gave the other cars a hell of a run, till u destroyed that turbo
RIP 1988 and 1990 Lincoln Mark VII LSC
I welcomed the dark side and currently am driving a 2000 Dodge Durango SLT plus, with a 5.9, Code named project "Night Runner"
Shes black on black, fully loaded, with headers, 180 tstat, e fan, straight exhaust into a cherry bomb vortex ler, full tune up, ported intake and T/B, MSD coil, and round aircleaner.
Mods to come: Fully rebuilt and heavily modded 46RE, and a richmond rachet locker.
my $300 beater ;)
R.I.P Kayleigh Raposa 12/18/90 - 2/24/07

I really HATE the 2.3 !!

Reply #89 –
Quote from: gumby;200331
oops you are correct. i snagged the wrong calculator.....a straight HP to weight calculator showed mid 13's, but didnt factor in trap speed.

still yet, all the calculators show my driving abilites werent up to par with the vehicles capability


I dont use calculators, I used my experience from watching and reading and doing drag racing...;)