Close



Results 1 to 19 of 19
  1. #1

    Thumbs down 4 cyl took a ****....swap questions

    ok guys well my 4 banger beast just started knocking today i believe its just a valve but...in my area theres an i6 for sale and i wanted to know if anyone has done this swap and what id need to do it thanks

  2. #2

    Default

    I think it's time for a V8...
    Former 4eyes:
    86 Saleen #25
    85 Saleen #14
    79 Turbo Capri (first car)

  3. #3
    FEP Member Andfab99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    N. Attleboro Massachusetts
    Posts
    256

    Default

    The short answer is yes but why would you want to go through all that work. You would need the K-member, transmission, motor mounts, radiator and other stuff I can't think of right now. The V-8 and 4cyl K-members are the same so you could swap in a V-8 as those parts are everywhere.
    Last edited by Andfab99; 02-09-2013 at 08:01 PM.
    Tim

    '80 Fairmont Boxtop

  4. #4

    Default

    Sounds like its time for a Coyote.
    Cheers!

    Mike (TopGear85)



    Have:
    85 Saleen #73-GT,2R,TuTone,Cruise,Pos,5spd,Charcoal
    ***August 2015 ROTM Winner!***

    Had:
    79PC-San Jose #2890
    86GT-9L,TuTone,5spd,T-Tops,Sand Beige
    86GT-9L,TuTone,5spd,T-Tops,Charcoal
    90LX-Oxford Wht,5spd,Sunroof,5.0 Hatchback
    90GT-Oxford Wht,5spd

  5. #5
    FEP Supporter webestang's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    St. Louis, MO.
    Posts
    4,484

    Default

    Sorry to hear about your 4-banger. I say go for the V8 also.

    Scotty
    1985 Fox Notch 4-banger Ranger tube header Eastwood Royal Blue
    1988 Fox LX 5.0 AOD Vert BBK 170mph speedo Candy Apple Red
    1999 Mustang Coupe V6 Auto Chrome Yellow (My Pop decided to borrow this instead of the Vic "It's too big!"...LOL)
    1996 Crown Vic LX 4.6 Silver "Gort" Daily Driver

    Past Pony's.....
    68 Coupe Inline-6 3-Speed-Man. Primer
    78 II Hatch 302 3-Speed-Auto Sunroof Black
    81 4-Eye Coupe 4-Banger 4-Speed-Man. White

  6. #6
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    2,606

    Default

    You need to be realistic. The 5.0 is the only game in town. And a turbo 2.3 is a pretty good option too!

    For performance per dollar, the I6 wins only in certain situations where you can find a dirt cheap transmission, axle and you are are lucky enough to get it legally registered as a direct mount 2-bbl with a 500 Holley. Theres 205 hp done right.

    For 266 flywheel hp or 211 rear wheel horsepower at 4850 rpm, and 287.5 lb-ft at 4850 rpm (227.5 lb-ft at the bags), this is pretty inspiring. A stove hot Esslinger 2.5 gives 268.1 hp at 7500 rpm and 211.2 lb-ft at 5750 rpm.



    http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images...ynorunuc9.flv/

    Problem is any 5.0 port EFI which has any good kind of roller cam an d the better GT40P heads withbthe right exhast and tune will easily give 300 hp at 4800 rpm, and well over 330 lb-ft at 3500 rpm.

    The modifed I6 above , It'll cost you the price on a CI head, a dyno tune, a Clay Smith cam, and you can do a blister pack rebuild of the pistons, besrings block and rings if its in good nick, 24 Hrs at Lemons style

    How to do it?

    Based on Ak Millers articles,

    Horsing around with the Mustang six

    http://www.classicinlines.com/HA1.asp



    and HRM's mustang magazine number 3
    http://www.invectivus.com/hrm_mustang3/Cover.jpg
    http://www.invectivus.com/hrm_mustan...090%20copy.jpg
    http://www.invectivus.com/hrm_mustan...091%20copy.jpg
    http://www.invectivus.com/hrm_mustan...092%20copy.jpg
    http://www.invectivus.com/hrm_mustan...093%20copy.jpg
    http://www.invectivus.com/hrm_mustan...094%20copy.jpg

    you could get anywhere from the stock 65 rear wheel hp till , I should get 125 rear wheel horsepower.

    [1977 to latest 2013 data shows rear wheel T5 manual trans to 225/60 Tire/ 7.5 " diff rear wheel flywheel power an torque are 1.264 times the calibrated dynomometer figure; with automatics, it varies due to torque converter stall speeds, from as little as 1.333 with a shift kitted low stall C4 to as much as 1.6 with a low stall AOD]


    But stock, forget the I6. Any 2.3 will walk over it at the drags, and its only around the city that its lazy torque is of any advantage. Then it eats fuel at a 5.0 rate when trashed. When you start spit polishing the turd, it can really shine, but for every dollar, the 5.0 outshines it nearly always. I'd say a good I6 on a pre 1975 car like a Maverick would be a good option because the law wont makeyou put five on the fender if you put three carbs and a big header and cam in it, but in the Fox, the stock log head I6 is such a dog it should be left chained to the fence. Especially if your in Cali or Collarado or some sniffer state. Then they'll ask you for EO numbers, CARB certs and you'll be sunk.

    I mean a 1979 I6 verses a 1979 5.0.
    85 HP verses 139 hp,

    or 1982 94 hp verses 5.0 GT 157 hp,
    or 1983 91 hp verses any EFI 5.0 150 to 225 hp, or 240 hp etc etc...


    Anywhere in the world, I can still pick up a stock B code 1981 for no money, add a $1500 US alloy head, a rebuilt carb, 264 cam and forged rods and get goodness know how many hp



    or just wait around till the next cookie cutter SEFI V8 comes to the market, and get this sold a few years back.


    Problem is that the T, B and X codes with any change won't meet the emissions regs. I'm sure you could bolt up a 7448 or emissions spec 2300C Holley 2-bbl with all the stock emissions gear, but its technically gonna cause problems modifying a six. A V8, not a problem.

    Although there were factory experimental 2-bbl set ups which turn up on ebay every now and then



    or you can do a whole reworked E0 iron head like a practically stock 15.17 second/87.7 mph 205 hp Falcon drag car,

    http://fordsix.com/forum/viewtopic.p...440076#p440076

    Choice is yours bro
















    If you can tract down a little T5 gearbox, a 5 speed 5 point Oh would be where the money's at. That little gearbox makes a Fox body such a lot of fun, and is like bolting on another 10 or 15 flywheel hp. Or if you could find a four speed rear drive only 5.0 Explorer XLT, you'd have everything from wrecked Sloder, and it would all bolt in, even the drive shaft. With 31 spline axles and the 3,27 8.8 inch traction lock diff centre, you'd be the aappiest customer

    And that came from a die hard I6 lover.

    Unless your really freekin good with tools and getting parts, a 5 point Oh is the best street swap, and you won't have the potential emissions problems each inspection.

    The I6 can be redone, but there is only 85 to 94 hp stock and your not able to screw up the HP without there is an issue with emission compliance. Geting exapctly the right modifictions is key to, you can't play with an I6, they are very specific to cam, head and manifolding machining. Although, I cant see how you couldn't just pick up a pristine X code 1983 engine, wack in some new Duralite X-flow 250 pistons and a 1500 dollar Classic Inlines head, and a4180 5.0 4-bbl with a 264 cam, and not get 210 rear wheel hp at just 4850 rpm with a stock four cylinder T5.

    Like this guy....http://www.classicinlines.com/Dyno2.asp


    It's nothing to make a 2-bbl 3.3 make 200 flywheel hp with an iron head, 500 cfm Holley 2-bblfor 2 grand all up. Or a turbo 3.3 doing 13.5 sec for about 2 grand worth of ebay TO4 and intercooler and a 24Hour At Lemons style junker X code engine. They aren't high winders like SBF, they are more like 300 cube 4.9 F150 truck engines, with a huge amount of off idle torque which V8's just don't have.

    Add an alloy head, and that allows you to go hunt 5.0 , we've got plenty of 350 hp up turbo and supercharged 3.3's for about 5 grand all up, but....

    you know you can get an explorer GT40p from an 98 to 2001's for about 500 ping, and use its EFI and register it as a compliant 98 to 01 and never have a problem. Its a no brainer...

  7. #7
    FEP Member 83glxdroptop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Southeast Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    155

    Default

    Why not drop in another 2.3? Or rebuild the one you have? As far as dropping in an I-6, as everyone on here has started, it is a lot of work.

  8. #8

    Default

    I vote 5.0. The parts are everywhere and so is the knowledge and nearly endless modification.

  9. #9

    Default

    I'm going to second the just drop another 2.3 in it if you need it running quick or just step up to the v8 Andfab99 covered most of the things you need for the swap (basically a complete donor car) I swamped the 3.3 for a 2.3 (with turbo) and it took realistically two weeks working on it a couple hours after work each day to get everything done. The 3.3 doesn't have any power advantage because of the log head. If you want to do it to be different I'd say warm up a ranger 2.5 a little bit, it might surprise you.

    Blake

  10. #10

    Default

    Are you sure the 2.3 has a rod knock? When a cam lobe goes flat on those suckers, the follower makes a hell of a racket. At the very least, pull the valve cover and check the condition of the cam and followers. Also check the HLA's. You could have a collapsed unit.

  11. #11

    Default

    Don't go V8, everyone's got one and they aren't as fun and odd to mod. The 2.3L is plenty sturdy and is literally a blank sheet of paper for customizing. The V8's are too easy (Ha, I know, but some people actually like a unique challenge....). I would also look into a collapsed lifter. If it's a real loud tick from the top end, that's your culprit. These engines are really sturdy so it may even be worth repairing even if it is a lower end issue. As for the I6, those are tons of fun and are torque monsters and I would even consider one of those before a V8, but they are very heavy and you would need to swap a ton of stuff to get one in there. The crossmemeber in your car is made for a v8 or 4 cylinder. Honestly, if you're on a budget and want reliability and fuel economy, see about swapping an EFI 2.3L out of an 87-90 Mustang. You'll need the fuel tank, fuel lines, a fuel sending unit from an 83-86 EFI Mustang/Capri, the engine and wiring harness/computer and that's about it. If you can get the transmission with it, that's even better yet since the manual transmission would be a 5 speed T5 and the automatic would be an A4LD automatic overdrive unit.
    86 Mercury Capri GS 2.3L
    11 Ford Ranger XL 2.3L
    17 Chevy Cruze 1.4T




    14 Years of Foureyedpride.com

  12. #12
    FEP Member dbest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Auckland New Zealand
    Posts
    386

    Default

    Yes yes yes for the late model 2.3T swap,Im sure you wont be disapointed and its easy.

    Ken

  13. #13
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    2,606

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blake4591 View Post
    I'm going to second the just drop another 2.3 in it if you need it running quick or just step up to the v8 Andfab99 covered most of the things you need for the swap (basically a complete donor car) I swamped the 3.3 for a 2.3 (with turbo) and it took realistically two weeks working on it a couple hours after work each day to get everything done. The 3.3 doesn't have any power advantage because of the log head. If you want to do it to be different I'd say warm up a ranger 2.5 a little bit, it might surprise you.

    Blake

    Quote Originally Posted by dbest View Post
    Yes yes yes for the late model 2.3T swap,Im sure you wont be disapointed and its easy.

    Ken
    I don't think you can make a mistake with any Ford engine.
    There is 39 years of 2.3 experience,
    49 years of small block Windsor experience,
    and 53 years of I6 3.3 work.

    Each have alloy head variants, with the I6 the cheepest, the 2.3 the most expensive.

    Each have the ability to make a NASCAR style 128 hp per liter (865 hp with 5.817 liters).

    A twin carb or twin TWM EFI Esslinger 2.5 engine can make over 325 hp at just 7500 RPM.

    A stock triple carbed 4.1 can make 344 hp at 6000 rpm and 341 lb-ft of torque with just a set of 45 DCOE's and an alloy head

    Search 250 dyno video and see what comes out...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YK7tJg99zjA

    And a stroked out 5.0 can make 700 hp without a turbo.

    Even 2-bbl Esslinger 2.5 gives 268.1 hp at 7500 rpm and 211.2 lb-ft at 5750 rpm with just 11.5 compression and one 2-bbl Holley 4412 500 cfm carb. That's the limit for about 5500 dollars of engine, but a turbo 2.3 will do all that for a lot less.

    Any XR4TI Merkur or Turbo Coupe will exceed 145 hp with an automatic, and the Bosch L type vane air meter is the worlds simplist EEC system. The expertise is everywhere. With a boost up, the SVO went to 175 and then 205, and there is up to 325 hp with the stock systems and an intercooler.

    Or non turbo with EFI, or non turbo with carb, 155 hp isn't out of the question with stock head, intake exhast and carb castings, and you'll pass the emissions tests if you use the right Holley Weber carb and do some simple 30 mm and 31 mm primary and secondary venturi enlargements and use the right cam and head mods. The energy the circuit and off road racing guys have put into this little engine is exceptional.

    I'm sure dbest can vouch for how much a little 2.3 responds to the right Esslinger head.

  14. #14

    Default

    Esslinger isn't the only game in town for a good 2.3 head. There's at least one good iron aftermarket head out right now, and one more on the way. Both for a bit cheaper than the alloy versions, and pretty good on the street/strip.
    If you're inclined to do your own work like I am, working over a factory iron head can unlock some pretty good power. Cam selection is important to unlocking serious power.

  15. #15
    FEP Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    911

    Default

    It was somewhat easier for me to swap to I6 because I got all the parts from a car that was being swapped to 351W. I bought all the parts that came off.

    I have had numerous 2.3L Fox bodies and three I6 cars.

    I could not tell difference between the 2.3L and I6 in handling. I could tell the difference in low end torque, the I6 has noticeably more low end grunt.

    The 2.3L is without a doubt going to be much cheaper to hop up and modify and will get similar power levels as the I6 and get better gas mileage.

    Food for thought...

    Due to shortage of good used Ford 2.3L heads due to the exhaust ports cracking some guys looked into modifying Volvo 530/531 head castings.

    You have to block off two coolant ports and a oil passage in 2.3L block and I think add a aluminum spacer block to back of the head.

    This is supposed to be a lot easier than the b234 DOHC swap since the cam belt gear lines up with 2.3L unit. IIRC you have to mod the intake to clear the 2.3L distributor.

    The Volvo head flows about same as stock 2.3L OHC Ford but weighs less and is repairable. And seem to still be fairly cheap at yards.

    http://forum.turboford.org/cgi-bin/u...593;p=0#000000
    85 Mustang Coupe, 3.3L I6, C4, 8.8 3L23, 17x8 wheels. About 70% towards firing it up.

  16. #16

    Default

    Either rebuild the 2.3 or go with a v-8. 6 bangers are nice, but I prefer them for truck duty.

  17. #17
    FEP Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    911

    Default

    You might be surprised to find out the 3.3L (200 cid) Inline six actually weighs a little less than the 2.3L OHC 4cyl.
    85 Mustang Coupe, 3.3L I6, C4, 8.8 3L23, 17x8 wheels. About 70% towards firing it up.

  18. #18
    FEP Super Member IDMooseMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Nampa ID 83686
    Posts
    4,878

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anlushac11 View Post
    You might be surprised to find out the 3.3L (200 cid) Inline six actually weighs a little less than the 2.3L OHC 4cyl.
    How is that possible?
    Craig "IDMooseMan" Peters
    1979 Mustang Ghia Notchback, 2.3L, Holley 5200, 4-spd, 3.08:1 7.5" diff, A/C, PS, PB, AM/FM/8-Track, Sunroof, Rear Defroster
    USAF SSgt 1983 - 1992; Co-Founder and Vice President, Omega Delta Sigma, ID-A 2/2015
    To those that serve and have served, "Thank You", to those that haven't, "You're Welcome"
    2.3L Horsepower Potential Thread
    Buyer/Seller Experience Link
    Build Thread
    The Four-Eyed Game - 2017 Version

  19. #19
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    2,606

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anlushac11
    You might be surprised to find out the 3.3L (200 cid) Inline six actually weighs a little less than the 2.3L OHC 4cyl.
    Quote Originally Posted by IDMooseMan View Post
    How is that possible?

    All up, a carb 2300 is 310 pounds. Turbo and EFi and 2.5liter are heavier.

    Stock, the ancient old 3.3 liter "200" in line six is a very light engine, 4.08" bore spacings, 187 thou average wall thickness, but it is factionally heavier.

    It varies from 365 to 385 pounds, but the Classic Inlines and Vintage Inlines aftermarket aluminum head and just an alternator and header brings the engine right down to less than 310 pounds, ready to run.

    The 2300 OHC engine was made in two plants, the US Lima plant (where the 460 was made) and Brazillian plant engine. They are not 100% thinwall designs like the Windsor 4.2 and 5.0 and 5.8 V8's are, they have lots of iron in the casting to quell vibration damage.

    It was an emergency engine, made with the basic Pinto 2000 Ford Of Europe Cologne "EAO" design, but with massive modification to bore spacings and has a lot of very thick bulkheads and the deck height is way up. The four bearing support OHC head, not 3. The Hydraulic tappet adjustment, the downgraded conrod bearing and wrist pin size is the only thing smaller.

    It has the Volvo bore spacings averaged out, about 4.170" bore spacings vs 4.015", 8.9" tall deck verses the shallower 288 pound Pinto 2000 block height, and due to its vibration, they had to make it with very thick castings. Its heavier than the 304 pound 231 cube 3.8 liter Ford V6 for a start. Average casting thickness is way up on stock, about 220 thou in most areas.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •