More Horsepower!

Topic: More Horsepower! (Read 10223 times) previous topic - next topic

More Horsepower!

Reply #30 – August 10, 2013, 12:27:04 PM

Quote from: Dougy_Fresh;419788

i'd like to see proof of this, as in both engines on a scale.

I have both here, but don't have a scale big enough to weigh them. i'm guessing he was using cast iron intake and exhaust manifolds on that 5.0. the turbo manifold/turbo is ridiculously heavy. the blocks are nearly the same size with the 2.3 being taller, but narrower and the 5.0 being shorter, but wider. 5.0 has one less head and the 2.3 head seems to be larger than a 5.0 head as well.

I agree with you. I wish someone with a heavy scale would weigh both engines complete as they come from the factory & put this conflict to rest once & for all.
Ron

More Horsepower!

Reply #31 – August 10, 2013, 03:25:44 PM

I am willing to bet by looking at the front spring rates those 2 engines are within 150-180 LBS of each other!!

More Horsepower!

Reply #32 – August 11, 2013, 09:15:36 PM

As a guy that had lots of fun with the 2.3T in basically stock form in my 1986 XR7 besides a frontmount IC....went 13 flat all the time and 12.96 once....my point it was faster than 98% of the V8 birds/cats on this board.

2.3T can makes lots of power...but it will never have that V8 sound or low end torque feel. But the comment that its biggest problem is its missing 4 cylinders is silly to say the least.

Like Tom R. Said 2.3T are tough and pretty reliable...if u want to rock something different.... Its a good option.

Its like everyone in the world now this LSX engines are the only way to go fast.... So any other method is stupid....I believe that is lame.

Travis

P.S. off soapbox

More Horsepower!

Reply #33 – August 12, 2013, 06:24:42 AM

I think it's obvious my comment was meant to be silly...

More Horsepower!

Reply #34 – August 12, 2013, 02:06:08 PM

Quote from: TOM Renzo;419718

I really dont think the absence of 4 cylinders means much. As the 2.3 is pretty stout against some ford engines of bigger displacement. I have had many 5.0 guys scratching there head when i POP the hood of a 4 BANGER after smoking them. OUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You were probably smokin' something alright. Stock for stock, a 5.0 will beat a 2.3T in otherwise identical cars every single time. The 5.0 made more torque than the 2.3t. And got only slightly less mileage to boot. The weight isn't that much of a difference, either.

Then there is the cost of making a 2.3 fast. You can't go to the junkyard and find 10 sets of GT40 2.3 heads, can you? What about intakes? Sure, they are out there, but again, they're not as cheap as even a used Cobra intake.

What's next, you outran a GT500 on your rascal scooter?

More Horsepower!

Reply #35 – August 12, 2013, 02:43:50 PM

Quote from: Thunder Chicken;419922

I think it's obvious my comment was meant to be silly...

Likewise.

More Horsepower!

Reply #36 – August 12, 2013, 05:42:21 PM

Quote from: ThunderbirdSport302;419932

You were probably smokin' something alright. Stock for stock, a 5.0 will beat a 2.3T in otherwise identical cars every single time. The 5.0 made more torque than the 2.3t. And got only slightly less mileage to boot. The weight isn't that much of a difference, either.

Then there is the cost of making a 2.3 fast. You can't go to the junkyard and find 10 sets of GT40 2.3 heads, can you? What about intakes? Sure, they are out there, but again, they're not as cheap as even a used Cobra intake.

What's next, you outran a GT500 on your rascal scooter?

Actually the cars are pretty heads up when you look at Time slips. And just for the record getting a 2.3 over 300 WHP is not that difficult. Compared to a 302 yhe little 2.3 can hold it's weight to a 5.0 fairly well. Bottom line and i will get hammered with this one. The 302 is one of the worst v8 engines to modify for a HP to dollar ratio. It is really pethedic that with modest mods the 2.3 can handle many mild built 302 equipped cars. Just saying

More Horsepower!

Reply #37 – August 13, 2013, 02:23:38 AM

Quote from: TOM Renzo;419941

Actually the cars are pretty heads up when you look at Time slips. And just for the record getting a 2.3 over 300 WHP is not that difficult. Compared to a 302 yhe little 2.3 can hold it's weight to a 5.0 fairly well. Bottom line and i will get hammered with this one. The 302 is one of the worst v8 engines to modify for a HP to dollar ratio. It is really pethedic that with modest mods the 2.3 can handle many mild built 302 equipped cars. Just saying

:disappoin:whatever::shakehead

More Horsepower!

Reply #38 – August 13, 2013, 12:34:48 PM

I will agree with Mr. Renzo. The 302, particularly in the fox tbird platform, is certianly NOT cost effective to modify to make any serious horsepower. Just look at power per cubic inch ratio. The 2.3T in stock form makes the same horsepower as the 5.0 with less half the displacement, and that's in from-the-factory stock trim. I think the 2.3 is 122 cubic inches making 180 STOCK spower while the 5.0 is 302 cubic inches making 180 horsepower ONLY in the better versions, remember my '84 T-Bird is making 140. Thats 1.48 HP per CI for the turbo four-banger and .59 HP per cubic inch for the V8....ouch.

Boost is the differene.

A N/A 2.3 is a wuss, and the money a person can spend making a 2.3 N/A fast is endless. Spend about $2,000 on an Esslinger aluminum head with a roller solid lift cam and 11-12:1 compression dome pistons for about $40 a piece from Weisco and modified Chevy 5.7" rods and a Stroker crank will run you another $800 and finally another $200 for a pro-grade balance job to make it live at 6,000 RPM and up, which is where it will make power in NA trim. Thats a lot of money for 300ish horsepower. Easily $4,000

Sure, a turbo on a 5.0 will make big power, but you have to spend big bucks to upgrade the fuel system, timing and spark systems AND buy a turbo and manifolds and improve the lacking internals to handle the boost. That costs money too.

So I don't think anyone can argue that the boosted 2.3, which if you shop a bit you can buy a functioning example of for around $2,000 off craigslist, is a great buy and very affordably modified into the 300-400 HP range with about $1000 worth of parts and still drive the car daily. We'll call that 3 HP per cubic inch on a modified 2.3T.

I want to see someone put together a 900 HP 302 car for $3000 and then drive it daily.

More Horsepower!

Reply #39 – August 13, 2013, 02:35:41 PM

Quote from: ThunderbirdSport302;419969

:disappoin:whatever::shakehead

It's true, facts can be hard to swallow if they conflict with your own way of thinking.

I have owned several of each, (2.3NA, 5.0, 2.3T) from 79 Mustangs to a couple of Tbird TCs. I don't find it any more expensive to build a 2.3T than a 5.0, as long as a person stays under about 350hp.
As far as I have seen, both if these engines lose a lot of streetability with any higher hp than that.

A stock SVOs have always run very well against any "close to stock" Mustang 5.0.
For that matter an 87/88 TC that has been allowed to breathe properly with a K & N & larger diameter exhaust will do the same.

The biggest complaint that I have with 2.3T cars, is they sound too much like a John Deere Tractor. On the other hand, a well setup 5.0 usually has one of the greatest exhaust sounds out there, in my opinion.
Ron

More Horsepower!

Reply #40 – August 13, 2013, 10:56:38 PM

Bottom line here is simple both the 2.3 and the 5.0 engines suffer from poor head flow. But an ESSI head on the 2.3 (140 CUIN) engines will wake it up. Or a BO PORT head and cam setup and the 302 is HISTORY. Sorry to say the 302 lacks head flow. If you can't pump air the engine just can't make HP. And lets not forget the HP to cubic inch ratio. Based on that the 302 LOOSES BIG TIME. Bottom line it takes a tun of bucks to make 400+ WHP from a 302. Everyone knows that. It is no secret. But the 2.3 for what it was out performs the 302 by leaps and bounds. Dollar for dollar the 302 is to expensive an engine to make decent HP. That is just a FACT!!

More Horsepower!

Reply #41 – August 13, 2013, 11:10:54 PM

Quote from: TOM Renzo;420028

....................Dollar for dollar the 302 is to expensive an engine to make decent HP. That is just a FACT!!

Yeah Tom, I agree, but I wish it wasn't so.
Ron

More Horsepower!

Reply #42 – August 14, 2013, 05:02:33 PM

My 88 GT Vert ran a 13.6 @ 101 with a stock intake 55mm t body long tube headers, high flow cats with stock after cat exhaust. 3.73 gears and the excuse there is no free horsepower, 10 second tune up. 14 degrees initial timing 94 octane gas and power shifting. This is a fairly heavy car also. Throw on a 100 shot zex kit and it is a mid 12 second car. Plus it has the bottom end torque that feels sweet on the street. Sure a hci upgrade costs money but cutting down the 5.0 is extremely short sighted imo/ I know lots of people that run high tens or low elevens with ac, and very streetable with very little money invested. I like the 2.3 turbo but to cut down the engine that has made its mark in history and revived the modern hot rod, well no offense Tom, is very biased and not a very reasonable thing to say.

More Horsepower!

Reply #43 – August 14, 2013, 05:42:17 PM

Did someone say GT500? Mmmmm......I love delicious GT500's, especially when my 2.3T keeps them in the rearview mirror.

Edit: My sig needs updating, lol. High 11's..pfft, now high 10's

More Horsepower!

Reply #44 – August 14, 2013, 06:42:20 PM

Ron dont get me wrong you can build a respectable 302 but basically it needs BOOST. Weather a turbo (best way to do it ) or a blower. Either way that is what it takes. So building a 302 with a blower for example will cost app 8 GRAND and get 400 Wheel HP. That is not a good buy back for your DOLLARS. But a 2.3 with app 5 Grand worth of mods will net you 400+ and that is a fact. Dont underestimate the 2.3 Ford you just might meet up with one that will BLOW YOUR MIND. They Run They are relatively cheap to build and they make good PONIES. Thanks!