Vintage Mustang Forums banner

21 - 31 of 31 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,664 Posts
An electronic wastegate is NOT an advantage in a turbocharged application....not from a practical standpoint at least. The high heat of a turbocharger makes the failure rate for any electronics mounted to it very high compared to vacuum actuation. You are far better off running an electronic boost controller paired with vacuum actuation. The only time electronic is preferable is when you are working with a VNT/VGT turbocharger....like the one in the picture on my "Folvo" engine above...and that is only because it allows the effective size of the turbine wheel to be small at high load/low RPM and large at high load/high RPM while still being large at low load/low RPM...which is very difficult to achieve with vacuum actuation....well, that and with electronic actuation you can control the ramp speed of VGT/VNT more precisely giving you better traction control.

Just FYI for planning purposes, the drag link moves maybe 3/8" front to back as you cycle the wheel lock to lock...it does not move at all vertically. This means...you have a 1"-ish diameter drag link...but that divot will need to be a minimum of 1 5/8" wide to provide enough clearance for the drag link not to contact the pan under normal steering maneuvers(maybe more). The divot location will also dictate the engine position front to back....it could set the engine into the firewall if you insist on using the divot(fairly likely judging by the amount of stuff hanging off the back of the engine). You are better off cutting the pan down similar to mine, making a trump front sump.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
Discussion Starter #22
The divot is made to clear the 4WD setup on the Ranger, which I would think is close to the spec needed, but it does look just a smidge too far forward. Taking a chunk out of the Ranger sump looks like the best option, but the Mustang sump is hopeless. Some better pictures of this pan would be nice.



Here's the EB Mustang oil pickup setup that sits at the back of the pan - the tube could be relocated for a front sump but that's getting a bit complex for a swap that's supposed to be easy.

763777
763778



The Ranger engine is probably going to be loads more difficult to swap by itself - the FRPP kit won't work, and companies like MARS probably won't waste their time to do the wiring on it. The EGR stuff looks like a boat anchor, I don't like the look of that oil filter placement, and the oil pan & pickup might not swap over either:

"Although the top is almost identical to the Focus RS block, the bottom has been modified and has a slightly different casting. The oil pump has been moved from its location beside the crank gear and now runs off the balance shafts in the oil pan. This move was likely done to make the front a little narrower in order to make space for the four-wheel drive components that will be used in the Ranger. "

I can't find photos of that, but the EB Mustang's oil pump runs off of the front of the crankshaft.





Do those rack & pinion setups from Flaming River or TCI, etc give any additional clearance? The 65-70s hate these rear sumps.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,664 Posts
You know...while ecoboost may seem like a good idea because its a complete package...I honestly think you would be better off with a built 2.3L Duratec



This is a Focus variant....which as you can has a divot much more conveniently located. Aniother advantage to the Duratec over the Ecoboost is you get rid of the direct injection....which sounds counter-intuitive, but direct injection has a LOT of factors that limit you:

1. You are stuck running an injection pump...this physically takes up space and adds weight that you don't really need.
2. This limits you on injectors greatly. If you want to make more power than stock, there is a limit to injector choices, aside from adding extra port injectors to make up for it, you don't have a lot of good options.
3. You almost completely shut down the possibility of running a standalone ECU. Most of them will not easily run a direct injection motor. That means you have to deal with factory wiring with P.A.T.S, Canbus, etc etc.

If it were me, I would build and turbocharge a Duratec 2.3 instead of running an Ecoboost 2.3


Alternatively, it is also possible that the Duratec oil pan and pickup could bolt on to the Ecoboost engine. The Ecoboost was derived from the Duratec after all, its worth looking into.

Realistically speaking though, I doubt even a stock Duratec pan would fit without modification. It is not ONLY the drag link you have to worry about, there is also the engine crossmember, which in the picture from my thread wasnt on at the time:



this is closer to the reality of the space you need
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
755 Posts
@wicked93gs, I've been looking at the 2.3L EcoBoost for my 66 T-code convertible. My research suggests it's a rather bad idea to push the EB beyond the stock 350-ish HP. While it's certainly possible to push the stock long block beyond 400 HP, almost everyone who does destroys the engine within a year.

Then I always back up and ask myself, "Why would I push a 350 HP 4-banger?" It's already an insane engine out of the crate. Ford engineers did all the hot rodding. If I want more than 350 HP, then I Coulda Had A V8.

I agree 100% a Rebuilt 2.3L Duratec long block is a very cool option for an economical cruiser. An aluminum block Duratec holds more interest to me because it's so widespread (Focus, Ranger, Mazda) with tons of tested N/A and boosted aftermarket parts thanks to midget racers. I have no idea if the cheesily-named "PROFormance Powertrain" company is any good, but $3K give us a fair idea of a basic long block price. Amazon offers rebuilt long blocks? Look out Summit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,664 Posts
@wicked93gs, I've been looking at the 2.3L EcoBoost for my 66 T-code convertible. My research suggests it's a rather bad idea to push the EB beyond the stock 350-ish HP. While it's certainly possible to push the stock long block beyond 400 HP, almost everyone who does destroys the engine within a year.

Then I always back up and ask myself, "Why would I push a 350 HP 4-banger?" It's already an insane engine out of the crate. Ford engineers did all the hot rodding. If I want more than 350 HP, then I Coulda Had A V8.

I agree 100% a Rebuilt 2.3L Duratec long block is a very cool option for an economical cruiser. An aluminum block Duratec holds more interest to me because it's so widespread (Focus, Ranger, Mazda) with tons of tested N/A and boosted aftermarket parts thanks to midget racers. I have no idea if the cheesily-named "PROFormance Powertrain" company is any good, but $3K give us a fair idea of a basic long block price. Amazon offers rebuilt long blocks? Look out Summit.
I have built a few 400+ HP turbo 4 cylinders(That Folvo 2.3L is one of them), blown up a couple of them too.....while you can do it and do it safely in my experience they almost always end up with driveability issues. They become high maintenance high-strung engines that just are not what you want for a daily driver. They are prone to doing stupid things like blowing up because your water injection system had a leaky check valve and leaked water freely into the intake manifold until the engine sucked in enough that it was waterlocked....or an injector fails under 30psi of boost. Little things that under extreme conditions will kill an engine fast.

In the end, like most engine swaps you come back to the question of "why bother?" Even after successfully doing the swap you often realize that the end result was not worth the effort when the basic engine that comes in the car from the factory is capable of 90% of what you want anyway. I love to do engine swaps in all sorts of cars....but I would never ever recommend other people do so. I do it because I like the challenge the build presents...not because its a practical solution.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
Discussion Starter #27
A bit off-topic, but the 3.5L HO EcoBoost is MEAN on E85. This engine would be a great match for bigger bodied cars...my folks have a '64 Galaxie 500XL that might fit the bill. Even for a performance application that needs to be swapped from scratch, it's difficult to contend with 603whp/666wtq on stock longblock and stock turbos for the price they're available at. With the 6R80 and stock ECU, it would be incredibly civil, too.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,664 Posts
At 630HP, those stock turbos are hairdryers blowing hot air....sounds like a recipe for disaster to me, a couple of bigger turbos or a large single would keep the combustion chamber temps under control a lot better. Good numbers for stock turbos...but a very limited lifetime.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
Discussion Starter #29
At 630HP, those stock turbos are hairdryers blowing hot air....sounds like a recipe for disaster to me, a couple of bigger turbos or a large single would keep the combustion chamber temps under control a lot better. Good numbers for stock turbos...but a very limited lifetime.
It's impossible to say without knowing what the pre- and post-intercooler IATs are like, and we haven't seen compressor maps for these turbos yet. Regardless, E85 can take a lot of heat out of that intake charge, and even if 3 psi was knocked off to make it safer, it's still a ton of value. The truck that this tune was on ran 11.6 @ 116.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
Discussion Starter #30
Here's a home-made solution to needing a front sump EcoBoost/Duratec engine. This individual made a pan to swap a Duratec into a BMW 2002; this would give the necessary clearance for the steering components in an early Mustang. It's unclear to me at the moment what to use for the oil pickup, but that's an issue that could be solved with some measurements and fabrication.

767837

767838

767839

767840
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,664 Posts
That pan looks like it would do the trick, though the sump[ is a bit deep, might cause road clearance issues? Its a clever design...he uses angle iron for the rail for strength and flatness and fabs the sump out of sheet metal, although it does increase the amount of welding needed(more welds means more potential leaks)
 
21 - 31 of 31 Posts
Top