Update on my 80 Cobra

[TopGear85]

Those valve covers are awesome! I am a little disappointed that you didn't go for the 24 carat gold covers, but the 1200.00 dollar price tag is a bit high. LOL. Seriously though, those are the nicest looking covers I have seen since the black crinkle Ford Motorsport covers were new. I wish they had some for EFI motors. Anyway, your car is beautiful and those covers are going to fit right in.

Very well done!

[snkchmr]

Thanks I seen them at SEMA & thought I really need these. Im up in air on the cleaner.

[Ackman70]

Im up in air on the cleaner.

I'm not feeling it myself. Especially with those valve covers.

[xctasy]

Take a look at Jon hubers 79!!

Ken

Your right,if two identical cars were for sale,I would have bought the V8 version And would have take out the 255 and replaced it.
I guess thats the same as going from carb to EFI because the 255 were rubbish too!!

Ken

My orchardist cousin had a four speed 79 2.3 Turbo, and he loved it, it was a sexy, good, noisy but fun car. The problem was a stock four speed European Mk 5 2.3 Cortina S had 114 hp, weighed less than 2486 pounds, and did 17.4 sec 1/4 miles too with a 3.45 diff. And it didn't need a turbo to do it. If it was emmissionised, it would have lost just 16 horspower, and done an 18.3.

The key is that the four best parts of the W option

1. the 9.5:1 TRW forged pistons,
2. it's Duraspark ignition advance,
3. the partly feedback Holley Weber 6500 carb,
4. the T03 turbo

were totally messed up by

this




5. the way the four pieces were melded together on that highly dubious bypass intake. The manifold was 'tempting fate'. The parts on there own were fine, but where as the 2bbl Pinto manifold was and remains one of the worlds best ever intakes for cylinder to cylinder air fuel distribution and flow efficency, the single hole W code intake was a centrifuge for fuel drop out. That kind of pathetic intake was worse than the 1-bbl version used on the 2.3 Ranger truck. And they persisted with this junk for 8 years after the carb turbo died because the EEC IV and Thick Film Ignition masked its uselessness.

and 6.

The awfull gear ratios, which lost four miles per gallon for the highway figure over the same version for the 1980 T5 was the other problem. I understand traffic jams, and CAFE and EPA constraints, but the diff ratios and the gapeing chasm between all four ratios was just plain stupid. My cousin had lots of import US cars. The Monza like some other 76 Chev's had the 5 speed ratios totally sorted out with the 76 Cosworth Vega/Monzas close ratio T5 gearbox. Ratios were 3.10,1.89,1.27,1.00,0.80 with a ballistic 4.1:1 diff in the 116 hp Cosworth Vega, but only 2.93 in his 125 hp Chevy Monza 5.7. I guess 132 hp could have enjoyed a close ratio 3.73 or 3.45 diff. Or the 86 SVO ratios.

Ford had access to the excellent MazDog via Toyo Kogyo's RX-7 and even had it in its Ford Courier 1.8 box, which had its ratios sorted out, yet the performance Mustang Turbo had the worst ratios ever! Since the Ranger could run the wide ratio T5, the ratios never improved untill the 86 SVO, and they have remained just as wonky in the 5.0. Fords early Toploader ratios from the Boss Mustang were the bees knees, and its taken years for Ford to sort the malaise out.


Ken, since you might have seen the earlier non EFI draw through turbo Colts and Mitsubishis, you'll be aware of just how good the early pre April 84 draw through carb black Mirage Turbo were

For Americans, they are a very, very early non EFI Dodge Colt Turbo


,


the Cordia GSR Turbo



and Tredia Turbo



These were for 1983 to 1984, these were excellent 105 to 116 hp hard chargers which would do sub 17 second quarter miles all day. And they didn't have problems with tuning, even though they were 91 RON Jap Emission spec engines stuck with a brew of 97 octane leaded posion.

Then there was the early 80's raft of hot aftermarket RX7's in 160, 165 or 200 hp strengths from 15.5 second quarter miles down to 14 flat. The 160 hp carbed Elford ETL RX-7 conversion, a British market Mazda with just a fat SU carb 6 psi of boost, a MicroDynamics Ignition controller, a really good turbo. It went to 165 with EFI, and the Motospeed version, 200 hp. It was years before the Japanese EFI 13B Cosmo Turbo engine escaped Japan as the US Turbo RX-7 GSL-SE, but the earlier 12A turbo carbed versions were better than the stock 12A 4-bbl disaster. The carb versions also weren't slow like the 16.1 and 16.4 sec 1/4 miles and 123 to 126 mph top speeds typical of the anemic six port 13B, while the carb turbos were 135 to 145 mph machines.

And let's not forget the awesome 1978 Broadspeed TVR 3000, a 265 hp 2-bbl carbed device, the 133 mph TurboDelta Alfa Romeo 2 liter conversion for de Dion axled GTV'S, Guiliettas and Alfetta sedans from just 168 hp and 15.8 second quarters.

Specific other sucesses were the 230 hp Lotus Esprit Turbo, the 93 hp MG Metro Turbo, the 150 hp MG Maestro and MG Montego Turbo. Each had the same T3 60 turbo, was Lotus breathed, and coped just fine with hot weather heat soak because the carbs were set up properly and the ignition and engineering was splendid.


Blow through or draw through Carb turbos were reliable as long as a good intake was good. The 2.3 Lima intake item was one of the worst, which was a surprise since the earlier aftermarket versions of the Pinto 2000 Turbo kits were so good. In Scandinavia, 1300 and 1600 Pinto ohc engines got turbo carbed engines all the time, with real sucess.

If it had been an Ak Miller item like used in the 2.0 Pinto versions, and if it had been properly geared with the T5 from the outset, the 2.3 carb Mustang wouldn't have had to be rowed about with its gearlever and whipped with its accelerator, and probably wouldn't have been under such strain all of its life.

[dbest]

Nice research dude.

[aaronlstiles]

How you guys get off topic sometimes

[thunderbolt]

[IMG]

Where did you get these & how much?

[xctasy]

How you guys get off topic sometimes

He he he, still on topic in context of the 80 Cobra turbo and how its 2.3 turbo carb engine was, and could have been. If the above blurb inspires just one person to keep the stock combo, its worth it. The below 5.0 size 79 to 82 engines are even more fun than the 5.0.

Conversely, if snkchmr wants to place in the Windsor 5.0, he's not being disloyal, just thinking about what he wants, in relation to his knowlege and bank account rather than with an open view of how little it takes to make a 2.3 Turbo Carb good.

I want to say again, it was just the intake that caused the odd detonation based piston, turbo and rod breakage and reliabity issues, so an 2.3 EECIV EFI intake and later turbo and exhast manifold swap and T5 is the cheapest option for a 2.3. You can even run the stock HW 2.3 carb, and get emission compliance on visual inspection if you keep the CARB approved items.

I just didn't want any of us to be ignorant of how increadibly good a carb turbo could have been, and in fact were with most 1982 to 1984 Japanese cars with the same set-up. The Ford of course redemed themselves totally with the 1983 EECIV 2.3 Turbo Coupe, the EFI Mustang, and then exceeded every expectation with the SVO.

So don't discount the 2.3, the info is there on foureyedpride

What you US guys probably don't realise is that the 4.2liter 255 engine, although a total over geared and not so economical turkey in stock form, could become a 350 hp wild card with just a few 5.0 inclusions (good cam, 4-bbl intake, cam, AOD, good diff, rebalanced crank). Your US guys were reworking it with super results in 1981, and were exceeding the 2bbl GT's top speed and matching its acceleration.

See Restoring the American Dream:130 mph for the Masses
by Csaba Csere

http://www.ascmclarencoupe.com/Liter...Oct81_2_01.jpg
http://www.ascmclarencoupe.com/Liter...Oct81_2_02.jpg
http://www.ascmclarencoupe.com/Liter...Oct81_2_03.jpg
http://www.ascmclarencoupe.com/Liter...Oct81_2_04.jpg

In our antipdean 4.2 and engines of the same base as the 5.0 engine, we used to find the smaller pistons and capacity allowed the engine to become a real screamer, good for 290 to 334 hp with just a 465 or 600 Holley. This is totally relevent to the US 4.2 255 verses its 5.0 302 brother, as a debored smaller engine can carry as much hp through the block reliably as the 5.0 with the right mods, and probably pass the insepction requirements if the parts are factory spec. I can't see how a JB welded up water way 255 block couldn't take 5.0 parts, and make more hp than a warmed 5.0.

SM Little league 334 hp 253

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j3...p/scan0058.jpg
http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j3...p/scan0059.jpg
http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j3...p/scan0060.jpg
http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j3...p/scan0061.jpg
http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j3...p/scan0062.jpg
http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j3...p/scan0063.jpg


So don't discount the 4.2, the info is here on foureyedpride.

If you want to preserve the cars as original as possible daily runners, the knowledge is power made and dollars saved, and its all been done before, all over the world.

And if you wanna modify it, thats cool too. Back to the regular broadcast

Love the ohv Windsor rocker covers, by the way.

[TopGear85]

Where did you get these & how much?

Go to factoryspeedparts.com for those valve covers. They run $263.73 for the ones he got. Polished covers are $246, chrome are $352, and 24K Gold are $1195. I'm not kidding about them offering 24K Gold, and the price is $1195!

[snkchmr]

Go to factoryspeedparts.com for those valve covers. They run $263.73 for the ones he got. Polished covers are $246, chrome are $352, and 24K Gold are $1195. I'm not kidding about them offering 24K Gold, and the price is $1195!

http://www.latemodelrestoration.com/...m-Valve-Covers

Go with these guys $229

[dbest]

He he he, still on topic in context of the 80 Cobra turbo and how its 2.3 turbo carb engine was, and could have been. If the above blurb inspires just one person to keep the stock combo, its worth it. The below 5.0 size 79 to 82 engines are even more fun than the 5.0.

Conversely, if snkchmr wants to place in the Windsor 5.0, he's not being disloyal, just thinking about what he wants, in relation to his knowlege and bank account rather than with an open view of how little it takes to make a 2.3 Turbo Carb good.

I want to say again, it was just the intake that caused the odd detonation based piston, turbo and rod breakage and reliabity issues, so an 2.3 EECIV EFI intake and later turbo and exhast manifold swap and T5 is the cheapest option for a 2.3. You can even run the stock HW 2.3 carb, and get emission compliance on visual inspection if you keep the CARB approved items.

I just didn't want any of us to be ignorant of how increadibly good a carb turbo could have been, and in fact were with most 1982 to 1984 Japanese cars with the same set-up. The Ford of course redemed themselves totally with the 1983 EECIV 2.3 Turbo Coupe, the EFI Mustang, and then exceeded every expectation with the SVO.

So don't discount the 2.3, the info is there on foureyedpride

What you US guys probably don't realise is that the 4.2liter 255 engine, although a total over geared and not so economical turkey in stock form, could become a 350 hp wild card with just a few 5.0 inclusions (good cam, 4-bbl intake, cam, AOD, good diff, rebalanced crank). Your US guys were reworking it with super results in 1981, and were exceeding the 2bbl GT's top speed and matching its acceleration.

See Restoring the American Dream:130 mph for the Masses
by Csaba Csere

http://www.ascmclarencoupe.com/Liter...Oct81_2_01.jpg
http://www.ascmclarencoupe.com/Liter...Oct81_2_02.jpg
http://www.ascmclarencoupe.com/Liter...Oct81_2_03.jpg
http://www.ascmclarencoupe.com/Liter...Oct81_2_04.jpg

In our antipdean 4.2 and engines of the same base as the 5.0 engine, we used to find the smaller pistons and capacity allowed the engine to become a real screamer, good for 290 to 334 hp with just a 465 or 600 Holley. This is totally relevent to the US 4.2 255 verses its 5.0 302 brother, as a debored smaller engine can carry as much hp through the block reliably as the 5.0 with the right mods, and probably pass the insepction requirements if the parts are factory spec. I can't see how a JB welded up water way 255 block couldn't take 5.0 parts, and make more hp than a warmed 5.0.

SM Little league 334 hp 253

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j3...p/scan0058.jpg
http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j3...p/scan0059.jpg
http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j3...p/scan0060.jpg
http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j3...p/scan0061.jpg
http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j3...p/scan0062.jpg
http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j3...p/scan0063.jpg


So don't discount the 4.2, the info is here on foureyedpride.

If you want to preserve the cars as original as possible daily runners, the knowledge is power made and dollars saved, and its all been done before, all over the world.

And if you wanna modify it, thats cool too. Back to the regular broadcast

Love the ohv Windsor rocker covers, by the way.

Love your Southern passion!!

Love your fox

Ken

[snkchmr]

Placed another nice order from Late Model Restoration today
convertible motor mounts
blue ford wires
BBK headers
SVE caster camber plates
Stage 8 bolts for the headers
Eibach pro kit
KYB gas shocks & struts
2 Chamber catback
BBK off road H pipe
Pro 5.0 shifter

[xctasy]

Love your Southern passion!!

Love your fox

Ken

Cheers, but it was Fords fault. All there engines took turbo carb installations like ducks to water. The 2.3 Carby Mustang was the only turkey.

It doesn't matter to me if its 2.3 or 5.0. (As long as its running!!), but a good copy to me is one which is as close to factory combination as possible, that actually works.

Like this one below. If its gonna be turbo carbed, this is is effort required. And it was why Michael Kranefuss Michael and SVO got the job for reworking the 2.3 Turbo engine for the Mustang. This car by Janspeed. The first SVO was 12 or so hp shy of this 188 hp carb turbo effort.



It was a 200 special build of ballistic 134 mph German Capri 2.8 Turbos, a fat fendered freak which took the 4-speed gearbox out to 188 hp at 5500 rpm and 206 lb-ft with a Garret T04B50 turbo at 5.5 psi.

It was the last salvo of old leaf srpung Capri work before the Tickford Aiston Martin reworked Fords of 1984 to 1987, and the birth of the SVO Motorsport homolgation for the IMSA/GTP Mustang, Maclaren Capri, the Group A Mustang 5.0, and the SVO Mustang.

It had a simple 38 Solex 2-bbl turbo carb engine which made Fords Mustang 2.3 carb Turbo look lika an amature effort.




See the smarts that were to come by 1984.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QdxZ5XZ_UM
MK made sure both the Mustang5.0 got Group A, for sucess in European and Australaian Touring Car racing, and the Merkur and SVO's. Redeemed!!

Gotta go, make that 5.0 a real party animal!

[snkchmr]

Nothing crazy but you have to start somewhere.
I cleaned/blased then painted the front spindles, dust shilds, cross member & sway bars

[dburdyshaw]

What is the interior color of your car? It looks great!

[snkchmr]

Blue I was going to change to black but I think Im thinking of doing the SVO seats in blue leather from TMI

[snkchmr]

Picked up my front brakes & also started preping the motor for detailing & cam install.

[snkchmr]

[dbest]

Lookin great,keep up the good work and the pics.Thanks

Ken

[02Z06]

Great looking work! Is that your Boss in the background?

[1980Cobra]

good looking work!

[escogt]

Nice resto on that rear.

[EJSVO]

I agree completely with Esco on that rear axle work -

Nice clean job !

[richstang]

You're moving along nicely with the suspension clean up. Well done!

[snkchmr]

I look at the parts & wish I would have put a little bit more detail in them but this car will be a driver & thats why I went all black on most stuff.
The Boss belongs to my Dad & I also have a 2011