TCs with 250,000 + miles?

Topic: TCs with 250,000 + miles? (Read 3195 times) previous topic - next topic

TCs with 250,000 + miles?

Reply #15 – January 18, 2013, 02:11:37 PM

Quote from: Crazy88;407374

A twin-turbo Coyote powered ground pounder.

I'll be waiting for that thread. I keep liking the idea of a newer power plant, rather than a pushrod 402/408. It's always back and forth in my head. By the time I'm done with the rest of the car, I assume a coyote swap will be much cheaper than it is now and we'll have much better longevity numbers. To do a proper 408 build will take close to $10k in itself so I don't see how one can lose with the new 5.0.

TCs with 250,000 + miles?

Reply #16 – February 10, 2013, 03:52:22 AM

Well my 93 Ranger with a 2,3L rode its odometer around three times making it to almost 330k before i decided to pull the limping motor. I pulled the head to find a burned exhaust valve that was the cause of my almost nine month misfire. Found a used 2.3 from a mustang with a t-5 that pushed almost 200k miles for 200 bucks. swapped the motors and trannies, and gave it to my mom a few months ago. plan on seeing the truck run for another 20 years. the only parts it used was, four alternators and three clutches and a lot of oil changes.

TCs with 250,000 + miles?

Reply #17 – February 10, 2013, 02:36:02 PM

Gotta love ford

Just take care of them and they will run forever

TCs with 250,000 + miles?

Reply #18 – February 11, 2013, 02:25:59 PM

Quote from: STANG8U;409051

Just take care of them and they will run forever

I think that's true of MOST vehicles. The problem is people DON'T take care of their vehicles. If everything is properly lubricated (fluids not worn out, built properly on the assembly line), wear will be negligible for a long time. On transmissions, think about how many people properly change their automatic's fluid every 1-2 years as the fluid degrades from heat. Changing clutch (hydraulic) and brake fluid annually can also make those parts hold up indefinitely.

I've seen just as many Hondas puffing down the road as any other make due to maintenance neglect. I don't understand the mindset of many that Hondas and Toyotas last forever - most gutless motors are designed well enough to last with the power they put out. As with any vehicle, make more power per cubic inch, increase the loads and wear. Know what? My 3-cylinder Honda motor is as gutless as they come, but they also appear to commonly reach 400-500k and still have only minor internal wear. The heads wear some (and the valvetrain needs adjustment often), but the shortblock is great. It's making 67hp.

TCs with 250,000 + miles?

Reply #19 – February 11, 2013, 09:53:04 PM

Well i have to chime in here. The older motors from 1974-1977 were very bad. As you know i worked with Ford on this engine to fix a piston scuff issue. With that we are talking TC so here goes. The bottom end is extremely strong. The cast crank has held up very well in turbo applications and it's rod and main bearings were extremely good. The Forged pistons were excellent. Rings were high quality MOLLY and served the engine proudly. Basically the rotating assembly was bullet proof. BUT the 2.3 has an issue with 3 things. CAMS (sliders) and dizzy gears and head cracking. These three things are sereyous flaws. With that the later 2.3 Fords came with Roller Followers and that was the fix for the cam issues. But the dizzy or AUX shaft is still a pain. And head cracking is a given. With that i had a bone stock TC with 220 and have since sold the car. It had 3 cams in it since it was built. And 2 heads were replaced. Thanks

:flame:

TCs with 250,000 + miles?

Reply #20 – February 12, 2013, 11:43:52 AM

Quote from: TOM Renzo;409128

Well i have to chime in here. The older motors from 1974-1977 were very bad. As you know i worked with Ford on this engine to fix a piston scuff issue. With that we are talking TC so here goes. The bottom end is extremely strong. The cast crank has held up very well in turbo applications and it's rod and main bearings were extremely good. The Forged pistons were excellent. Rings were high quality MOLLY and served the engine proudly. Basically the rotating assembly was bullet proof. BUT the 2.3 has an issue with 3 things. CAMS (sliders) and dizzy gears and head cracking. These three things are sereyous flaws. With that the later 2.3 Fords came with Roller Followers and that was the fix for the cam issues. But the dizzy or AUX shaft is still a pain. And head cracking is a given. With that i had a bone stock TC with 220 and have since sold the car. It had 3 cams in it since it was built. And 2 heads were replaced. Thanks

:flame:

Tom,
What year did Ford convert the 2.3 to rollers? A friend & I were wondering that just the other day as we discussed the engines in our SVOs.
Ron

TCs with 250,000 + miles?

Reply #21 – December 17, 2013, 11:03:33 AM

A little late to the party, but our race team had a support TC that was at 246K before the front subframes caved in.

Put in fresh bearings, honed and re ringed w/ boport rings. (the cross hatching was still there)

Put into our 24 hours of Lemons 87 mustang, and it has run, almost flawlessly for about 75 race hours. Only ran 12 lbs or so, but for the last race we bumped it to 14. Ran with most of the V8's in the straights and outstopped and outhandled most of them in the twisties.

YMMV

TCs with 250,000 + miles?

Reply #22 – December 17, 2013, 06:00:06 PM

I have 242k miles on my5.0 tbird right now, though the trans died at 190k. I believe this will be my 4th 5.0 bird over 250k on original engine.