Vintage Mustang Forums banner

1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
48 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
I'm creating a new thread in the hopes that more people come forward with information on 2.3L EcoBoost swaps for the 65-73. I see enormous potential for this motor to be used in daily driver cars for something that's fun and has the utility of a modern car. With very simple mods (intake/exhaust/intercooler/tune), it will put down similar power numbers to a warmed up 302 (320 whp and 360 wtq), weigh a smidge less and get much better MPG, all while being dead reliable, quiet and clean. Good Mustang 2.3Ls are $1500 and dropping.

I have seen three examples of EcoBoost swaps in 65-73s.

1966 coupe - in progress - Newbie here with 66’ mustang swap

763167


1968 fastback - done with donor harness & MT82 -

1968 fastback - done with donor harness & MT82? - Lynette Axtell | Forgeline Motorsports Custom Made-to-Order Forged Aluminum Racing and Performance Wheels!

763165

763166



Foxbody notchback with 2.3 EB and 6R80. Used donor harness, has A/C, etc.


The builder of the '66 says they had to chop the towers on their car. It looked like it fit in the photos, but perhaps there would be contact when the engine torques to one side. The coolant lines to the turbo look like the limiting factor, which is solvable. The turbo itself and wastegate may come close, though. Clearance looks extremely tight on the high-pressure fuel pump, but engine placement can be manipulated to make this work. I wonder how the Precision turbo on the EB Fox notch would fit it if was moved forward slightly. Note that the black '68 clears with the towers in place.

But the swap is becoming more feasible since the aftermarket is stepping up. The engine itself is the easy part - I have an idea in my head of how the engine could mount without drilling any extra holes in the chassis, just fabricating new mounts. The FRPP controls pack makes it super easy to swap a manual transmission EB into your car. Gauges will have to be some sort of electronic replacement, which is okay - there are a number of SpeedHut setups made for early Mustangs, plus the Dakota Digital clusters should integrate with this system easily. Speed can be taken from the output shaft of the transmission, and the FRPP kit has outputs for engine RPM & coolant temp, etc.

Also notable is that the 2020 Mustang EcoBoost with the High Performance Pack now has 330hp (bridging the normal 310hp EcoBoost to the 350hp Focus RS). This engine with the 10R80 would make a great choice, or you can replicate it with two really simple mods: FRPP cams that are remarkably cheap, and a slightly larger turbo.

Air conditioning might be tricky without using a factory EcoBoost harness, although there may be potential with the FRPP kit (despite it saying there's no support). The FRPP Coyote kits have the same disclaimer, but people have wired it up and made it work. Power steering can be done with any EPAS kit.

The stock MT-82 is an option for people who are willing to cut the trans tunnel. Not a big deal, it's a decent transmission and doesn't need any adapting to the engine or clutch, however good clutch options aren't cheap. Budget for a hydraulic clutch conversion on anything with a manual. Transmissions appear around the $600-800 region.

763169

763170


The T5/TKO/T56 transmissions are a bolt-on affair since Quick Time made the (admittedly expensive) EB scattershields. For a T5, it just needs a 10", 10-spline clutch disc to make it work with the T5. Given that people put T5z transmissions behind 347s all the time, the T5z should handle the EcoBoost if the driver is kind to it. TKO transmissions are also an option, using typical installation parts for 65-73s. Good T5 swap kits, including trans, are around $3,000 plus the bellhousing, which is a bit steep.

T5 here:
763168


TKO here:
763171


What may be my choice though, even though I love manuals, the 6R80 is shaping up to be an absolutely fabulous transmission. The 2.3 EB loves to putt around at low RPM, which is a better match for automatics. It's becoming a popular swap transmission for Toyota Supras and heavy hitter SN95/New Edge/05+ street cars. It shifts lightning fast, the ratios are great, it can take power, it's totally tuneable, plus it's available for $200 or less (check Car-Part.com if you don't believe me!) I'd imagine that a 6R80 car is going to be faster than anything you shift yourself, plus it would return better gas mileage and be really easy to live with in the city. Watch the videos below and you might agree that it would be just fine for autocross and track work, too. Transmission tunnel cutting is necessary here, especially to achieve a proper pinion angle.

763173

763164

763172


Some people say the 6R80 weighs 215 lbs (converter and fluid have some weight), but here's a video showing it's 165 empty without a converter (and 10R80 at 177). For reference, a C4 is around 110 lbs empty. Installation is straightforward now with the Baumann Quick6 controller and Lokar 6R80 shifter, which makes electrical integration really easy. The great part is that you can have a tame around-town mode, an aggressive Sport mode, and manual shifting, plus it can all be tuned.

The Quick6 controller apparently controls the 10R80 now, and it's almost identical in size to the 6R80, and mounts the same. This transmission already has a great reputation, so I think it's a great idea to use.

The EcoBoost & 6R80 seems to be a killer combination in a Fox - it absolutely scoots.

Examples of the 6R80 working in the Supra:
http://instagr.am/p/CBe-DKAltVx/ http://instagr.am/p/CBQtV34AYrd/
If you have anything relevant to the EcoBoost swap, post it here!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,796 Posts
I'm creating a new thread in the hopes that more people come forward with information on 2.3L EcoBoost.

If you have anything relevant to the EcoBoost swap, post it here!
I have a '15 Mustang EcoBoost with the 6R80.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,046 Posts
Subbed. I really want to put one in a MII
 
  • Like
Reactions: QuietChris

·
Registered
Joined
·
48 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
MARS, a common supplier for Coyote swaps, seems to have figured out how to do a standalone kit for the EB. Their kit is very pricey at $5,000 plus transmission, but saves the $1,250 Quick6 module and $1,650 FRPP controls pack. Since it's all OEM components, perhaps A/C, cruise control and OEM gauges could be done (these are all out of the question on OEM parts with the FRPP kit). It would still be nice to know how to strip down a factory harness to use in swaps.



If you do choose to pursue the FRPP Controls Pack route, it should be noted that there are reportedly no off-the-shelf tunes for it, but COBB does make an AccessPort for it. Take note that Launch Control & flat shifting are not available.

Also, there are aftermarket cruise control kits that may be able to integrate with the existing electronics - specifically, the Rostra 250-1882 that works with DBW: 250-1882 Universal Cruise for Drive by Wire ETC Hotrod classic Cars.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,626 Posts
Slightly off the subject, but one of my favorite Gas Monkey builds was when they installed an EcoBoost in a 72 Pantera. 3.5 out of F150, new rings, bigger turbos and SCT tune put down 476 HP to the rear wheels.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
213 Posts
This is a great thread, in fact, the best EB thread on the internet. I really appreciate you guys starting this thread and posting so much excellent tech.

I have thought about doing the Mustang EB engine into a 1999 Ranger. My biggest question is are the motor mount locations on the 2.3L EB in the same location as on the 2.3L Duratec engines used in the 2001ish Rangers.

Thanks in advance.

Andrew
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
825 Posts
Love it. Great concept and I'm excited to see where it goes. I always thought it'd be cool to drop the SVO turbo 4 into a 65-66 but this is a more spruced up version of that. What's the weight of the 2.3l? Personally, the T-5z would be perfect and is probably your lightest option. Since these cars don't weight much to begin with you can really get a great corner carver and drop some weight but maintain the performance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
48 Posts
Discussion Starter #9 (Edited)
This is a great thread, in fact, the best EB thread on the internet. I really appreciate you guys starting this thread and posting so much excellent tech.

I have thought about doing the Mustang EB engine into a 1999 Ranger. My biggest question is are the motor mount locations on the 2.3L EB in the same location as on the 2.3L Duratec engines used in the 2001ish Rangers.

Thanks in advance.

Andrew
There is a swap thread on a 2002 Ranger - not a bolt-on affair, but a good reference here:

Love it. Great concept and I'm excited to see where it goes. I always thought it'd be cool to drop the SVO turbo 4 into a 65-66 but this is a more spruced up version of that. What's the weight of the 2.3l? Personally, the T-5z would be perfect and is probably your lightest option. Since these cars don't weight much to begin with you can really get a great corner carver and drop some weight but maintain the performance.
The 2.3L is not as light as people imagine, it's still a big motor. I've had a big problem nailing down an accurate weight on it, but there are some clues.

-Ford Racing's website cites the "packaged weight" of a M-6007-23TA crate motor at 568 lbs. This includes crate, turbocharger, engine wiring harness, manifold, throttle body, high pressure fuel pump, alternator, starter, flywheel, everything.
Ford Racing also quotes the crated Gen3 Coyote at 564 lbs dressed without an alternator, but sources put a Coyote with flywheel around 430 lbs without starter, alternator or wiring. So around 400 lbs for a bare longblock with intake manifold/TB. We can guess their crate is around 100 lbs, but expect the EB longblock to come in around 80-100 pounds lighter than a Coyote - I'd say right around 400 lbs for an EcoBoost with its turbo, intake manifold, a flexplate. Some other misc. things will have to be added, such as the intercooler & piping, for it all to add up. Coyotes need a pair of headers and dual exhaust, so there are so many things to consider here for weight.

-One forum poster said "Fully assembled and ready to run 2.3 eco weights 418 lbs."
This matches the calculation above. Flywheel not mentioned here, though.

-Another user estimates his 2.3 EB swap is around 100 lbs heavier than a SOHC 2.3 Lima engine, but there are a lot of factors at play here


I found the following weights floating around.
AOD (without converter or fluid) - 150 lbs
AOD stock torque converter - 34 lbs
C4 (without converter or fluid) - 110 lbs
C4 torque converter - ? lbs
C6 (without converter or fluid) - 140 lbs
C6 torque converter - 30 lbs small block, 31 lbs big block
6R80 empty - 165 lbs
6R80 with converter - 215 lbs
MT-82 dry - 123.5 lbs
OEM flywheel for 2.3L (MT-82) - 30.5 lbs
OEM clutch for Coyote (MT-82) - 25.6 lbs (not sure about EB)
T5z transmission (empty) - 90 lbs


I'd expect the 6R80 car to be around 20 pounds heavier than an MT-82 car after clutch hydraulics and fluid are filled - not the end of the world. The T5z would be closer to 50 pounds heavier than the 6R80 when used with the OEM EB clutch PP & flywheel, but that comes at the cost of the extra gear and some fragility.

The new automatic Mustangs are faster than the manuals, get better gas mileage, and honestly look to be about as much fun. Lots of 6R80 converts are saying they wouldn't go back to the stick.

In all, this swap is probably going to balance out with a carbed SBF & C4/Toploader combo. Probably a bit lighter than a 5.0L EFI motor with AOD. Until we have accurate weights posted by someone, I would not do this swap with the intention of losing weight, unless you're specifically using the T5z transmission option with a lightweight flywheel & clutch. But it's picking up a lot of efficiency with its direct-injection, modern electronics and killer transmission when used with the 6R80.

Here are the EcoBoost's dimensions: they measure 665 mm (26.18") at their widest point, which is at the wastegate, to the intake manifold/TB. The 67+ cars got bigger shock towers, so they'll fit easily there, but 65/66s look like a tight squeeze that may need just a bit of notching on one side to clear (mounts are a different fitment issue).

This (tuned) power curve explains why it's such a good daily driver option - look at that low-RPM torque. It's going to move you around very nicely, while getting great gas mileage. A 2016 Mustang with 2.3L and the 6R80 gets 21mpg city and 31mpg highway - imagine what it would do in a car that's 800 pounds lighter. An easy 25 mpg city and it would still be a mid 12 second car on the stock turbo.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,615 Posts
It seems as if the stock shock towers may be more of an issue than at first glance. As you can see in the first picture you embedded, the turbocharger is not in place...the manifold plus turbo take up a lot of space....as well as the direct injection pump...it might fit with shock towers, but will likely be pretty close. You can always use a custom header to relocate the turbo anywhere above the oil pan fairly easily...but I don't think you can do much of anything about the injection pump. In addition to that, as I have run into with the 3.7L swap, accessories are going to be tricky with as far back as the engine sits, parts of the shock tower are in the way for the AC compressor, and I had to re-mount the alternator much lower that stock on the driver's side. Also, you can expect to run into engine height limitations...meaning...oil pan. If you retain the stock steering box, the drag link dictates the minimum engine height...that is why I had to cut my tunnel so drastically to fit the MT82 trans...you will likely run into a similar issue with any modern front-sump engine regardless of the trans used.(Speaking of the MT82 its not true that there aren't cheap clutch options...the limitation is the dual mass flywheel...but it can easily be converted to single mass using a Coyote 5.0 single mass flywheel and clutch...all you need is a spacer for the hydraulic TOB...I suspect you can actually use ANY modular 4.6l or 5.0l clutch and flywheel at least for the 3.7L and likely the 2.3L as well, but can not yet confirm that)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
48 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Note: The turbocharger is in place in the first photo, it's just small 😂 The empty bracket belongs to the wastegate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,615 Posts
Love it. Great concept and I'm excited to see where it goes. I always thought it'd be cool to drop the SVO turbo 4 into a 65-66 but this is a more spruced up version of that. What's the weight of the 2.3l? Personally, the T-5z would be perfect and is probably your lightest option. Since these cars don't weight much to begin with you can really get a great corner carver and drop some weight but maintain the performance.



This is actually a spruced up version of the Ford 2.3L Turbo(lima engine, not ecoboost) that I have been building....its a Hybridized engine using a 16v DOHC Volvo head mated to the Ford block....it is NOT a practical engine and certainly not worth the work I have put into it...but it sure is a fun project. Still not finished, but built to make 500HP or so. Currently sitting in a FC RX7
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,626 Posts
There is a swap thread on a 2002 Ranger - not a bolt-on affair, but a good reference here:



The 2.3L is not as light as people imagine, it's still a big motor. I've had a big problem nailing down an accurate weight on it, but there are some clues.

-Ford Racing's website cites the "packaged weight" of a M-6007-23TA crate motor at 568 lbs. This includes crate, turbocharger, engine wiring harness, manifold, throttle body, high pressure fuel pump, alternator, starter, flywheel, everything.
Ford Racing also quotes the Gen3 Coyote at 564 lbs dressed without an alternator, but sources put a Coyote with flywheel around 430 lbs without starter, alternator or wiring. So around 400 lbs for a bare longblock with intake manifold/TB. We can guess their crate is around 100 lbs, but expect the EB longblock to come in around 80-100 pounds lighter than a Coyote - I'd say right around 400 lbs for an EcoBoost with its turbo, intake manifold, a flexplate. Some other misc. things will have to be added, such as the intercooler & piping, for it all to add up. Coyotes need a pair of headers and dual exhaust, so there are so many things to consider here for weight.


Just to add to your info:
My Gen 3 Coyote was listed by the freight company at 578 pounds,
This was no accessories and full of oil, AND with a very heavy dual mass flywheel. Came on metal engine stand inside a substantial crate framed up of 2x4s bolted to large pallet so loosing the flywheel and seriously heavy crate would probably get it in the range of Fords advertised 445 pounds.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,615 Posts
Just to add to your info:
My Gen 3 Coyote was listed by the freight company at 578 pounds,
This was no accessories and full of oil, AND with a very heavy dual mass flywheel. Came on metal engine stand inside a substantial crate framed up of 2x4s bolted to large pallet so loosing the flywheel and seriously heavy crate would probably get it in the range of Fords advertised 445 pounds.
Just FYI....what the freight company lists is not a reliable measurement, all they list is what is on the Bill of Lading, the BOL is supplied by the shipper as an estimated pallet weight. When I issue a BOL for a freight pickup, I will often enough estimate the weight based on known factors, but that does not mean its always perfectly accurate(as an example, I add in 50lbs for pallet weight, even though pallets have all kinds of different weights). Occasionally a carrier will actually weigh a given pallet and if the weight is over what is listed on the BOL they will charge back to the shipper, but billing corrections like that don't appear on the BOL.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Huntingky

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,626 Posts
Just FYI....what the freight company lists is not a reliable measurement, all they list is what is on the Bill of Lading, the BOL is supplied by the shipper as an estimated pallet weight. When I issue a BOL for a freight pickup, I will often enough estimate the weight based on known factors, but that does not mean its always perfectly accurate(as an example, I add in 50lbs for pallet weight, even though pallets have all kinds of different weights). Occasionally a carrier will actually weigh a given pallet and if the weight is over what is listed on the BOL they will charge back to the shipper, but billing corrections like that don't appear on the BOL.
Yeah, I figure there is some fudging built in just in case it goes over estimate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,520 Posts
I think its always interesting and read worthy when people try these type of swaps. Besides the overcoming the hurdles and having the pride of workmanship, is it really worth it? A well built 302 stroker with the new and expanding EFI technology will be just as reliable with no expansive modifications. With few exceptions, the early Mustang is no ones daily driver and will never will be with so many reasons not to be.

I appreciate the motive and extensive workmanship and I will continue to follow. Does it make it a feasable swap for early Mustang owners? I don't see it with the 302 options out there.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,046 Posts
I think its always interesting and read worthy when people try these type of swaps. Besides the overcoming the hurdles and having the pride of workmanship, is it really worth it? A well built 302 stroker with the new and expanding EFI technology will be just as reliable with no expansive modifications. With few exceptions, the early Mustang is no ones daily driver and will never will be with so many reasons not to be.

I appreciate the motive and extensive workmanship and I will continue to follow. Does it make it a feasable swap for early Mustang owners? I don't see it with the 302 options out there.
Sometimes its not about whats cheapest and easiest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Huntingky

·
Registered
Joined
·
48 Posts
Discussion Starter #18 (Edited)
I think its always interesting and read worthy when people try these type of swaps. Besides the overcoming the hurdles and having the pride of workmanship, is it really worth it? A well built 302 stroker with the new and expanding EFI technology will be just as reliable with no expansive modifications. With few exceptions, the early Mustang is no ones daily driver and will never will be with so many reasons not to be.

I appreciate the motive and extensive workmanship and I will continue to follow. Does it make it a feasable swap for early Mustang owners? I don't see it with the 302 options out there.
Everything is difficult when you trailblaze - once there is a recipe, it's really not even that difficult anymore. There is a reason why Ford makes base model Mustangs and why they outsell the GTs. That's because there are lots of people who don't want or need that V8, and a person restoring a car from bare shell can do whatever they please. It's also nice knowing that you can blow one up, go to the junkyard and be on the road again $1,000 later. If you blow up your shiny modern 347, you'll pay out $5,000 to replace it. Once this swap is figured out, I imagine it could be done for as little as a donor car - maybe $2,500 and a bunch of time to install it. We're not there yet as a community, but after a few people put in some time, we will be. Even right now, there is nothing about this swap that is more difficult than installing a Coyote, and it's at least $5,000 cheaper (probably closer to $10,000). It's even easier for the 67+ guys because they can keep their engine bay intact. I don't understand the whole defeatist mentality of it's "no one's daily driver and never will be" - if you can have something that drives like a modern car and looks like a classic Mustang, why the heck wouldn't you build it so that you could use it every day? They made 2 million of these things and automotive technology is exponential, there is no reason why we can't be creative. We install suspension setups that remove everything from the firewall forward. We have IRS setups for the rear, or 3-links that rival modern muscle cars. We can order kits to put a Coyote crate motor in our cars. We have supercar-style brake systems that bolt on. We can order entire custom interiors from a TMI catalog that only the best classic upholstery shops were able to do 10 years ago. There was a time that these things looked like impossible modifications, but now you can literally do them by clicking "add to cart" and whipping out the credit card because someone did the work to figure it out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
48 Posts
Discussion Starter #19 (Edited)
The drag link definitely looks like a problem for the EcoBoost Mustang oil pan.

Selfishly borrowing from wicked93gs' thread, rear sumps are an issue.


There's a big ol' oil sump there.


Maybe it's worth exploring using the 2.0L EcoBoost oil pan, since it's much lower profile and has a well-spaced divot where the drag link might fit.


But may I present....the EcoBoost from the Ranger! I do note that the oil pan looks a bit lower profile and it has a center divot. It also looks a couple of inches narrower due to the turbo packaging, and rumor is that the turbo is in fact a bit larger than the Mustang, but it has an electronic wastegate (!!!)

(Focus RS left, Ranger right)







This engine is down on power vs. the Mustang, at 270hp/310tq vs 310hp/350tq, but not really, since they both seem to dyno 260whp/270wtq? That 40hp/40tq difference would be really noticeable, but even if the lower numbers are true, it responds really well to an E50 tune!! Note that the torque comes in later than the Mustang EB, which would indicate this thing probably does have a bigger turbo. Results with intercooler, downpipe, intake and tune will be interesting.


And a 93 tune...


So, maybe worth exploring the usage of a 2019+ Ranger with 10R80 for the 65/66?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
48 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
Some junkyard pics confirm the pan and turbo setup are indeed different, making this a friendlier packaging:

763682
763683
763684
763685
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Top