is anybody on here running one of these??? I have one on my motor, but I have yet to even start it.  I've been told that "they" used to run 12's with it back in the early 70's.  I'd just like to here from somebody who is running one first hand...

samgcpo, im not really sure what you are talking about. that is a 2.0L.  

Tony Reiners

That IS a '72 2.0L, and yes it is a draw through... the carb isn't mounted in the picture.  and it's a rear sump

Well , finally a response a previously ignored post.   This interesting engine went for quite a while with no comment.  With only one picture angle of  this mystery engine, I feel that my original assesment would be correct.

Note to future posts.....Iden tify what you are are talking about.  There are many transverse engines that look simular to the earlier straight- fours that Ford used,  and give a thought to when the first turbocharged  engines were introduced.

Ford did not go turbo with the four cylinder engines until the later 70's.  The 2.0 is a very capable engine, and I would love to see a tubocharged version in action.

Now with that said, this setup, as shown in the pic,  will not work with the draw-through intake system as pictured.  You just can't go top-mount with the carb system.  Injected will work with the proper intake manifold, but the pictured engine requires a fuel injected system to work.  Which precludes the mechanical fuel pump that is pictured.

Physics is physics,  and turnip blood is not  easily produced.  Convince me that this is a bonified operational engine.

~Sam

Uh oh...

Someone poked the bear.

To allay some apparent confusion:

Sam~ That's a 2.0L with an aftermarket AK Miller turbo kit. Thus, your argument about when *Ford* began manufacturing its turbos is irrelevant. Not sure what you mean by "false" turbo setup. It's not factory original, that's for sure, but the term "false" implies that it's a non-working mockup primarily for looks. The carburator issue seems clarified by HighHooder's follow-up post. The question you raise about the oil filter may simply be one of having a remote filter system applied. I don't know about that for sure since this isn't my engine (although I wish it were). Certainly it's a viable explanation, though.

Also if Brad (turbopinto72) says he has 2 just like it, there's no question in my mind that it is a functional system. From the several chats I've had with him, he's not the sort to perpetuate misinformation about the mechanics of the Pinto. It would undermine his authoritative duty as Master Mechanic and it's not in his nature.

I may be wrong about this next point, and if I am, Brad (among others) will certainly set me straight. In the Pangra article in the bric-a-brac section, Pangras (an aftermarket modification of the Pinto) had turbo units applied to their engines. And Pangras were being built before the 2.3L was introduced in the car. So it is entirely accurate for 2.0L turbo engines to be in Pintos (even though these would have been Pangras [EDIT: most probably would have been Pangras, I do believe there were other homespun turbo apps to standard Pintos]). However, these would not have been *Ford* turbos. That's how Brad can have *2* 2.0L turbos with such a setup, (at least) one being in a Pangra. As he said, check out his Pangra project. He has pictures of his engine there.

just some more pictures to make things REAL confusing

My appologies to all offended.

I don't know as anyone was necessarily "offended," perhaps confused is a better description. You were going on the limited information presented on the engine (and I think you were approaching it as a stock Ford application), and others were confused as to why you would say the setup didn't work. I think it was simply a misunderstandi ng perpetuated by the fact the original, single, head-on photo didn't have the carb mounted and there were other changes from the stock 2.0L (ie remote oil filter application). I mean, your original assessment of the engine (an early turbo app like an MII) seems right on, but you were looking for a fuel intake source (carb or injection) and there wasn't one in the pic.


I just didn't want the discussion to escalate into something ugly and I could see where both sides of the discussion were basing their statements. Just thought I'd play impartial moderator for a sec and try to prevent hard feelings down the road.

i do have a few possible suggestions on improving efficiency in the pictured setup.  if you have a way to intercool the charge air at all, you will be able to throw more boost at the engine before you start pinging.  with an over valve cover setup, an SVO / turbocoupe type intercooler would work well if you can provide airflow over the cooler that does not draw hot air up from the engine.  my second thought is on the plenum, from my experience, reading, and observations, having a larger plenum area than you have before the runners seemes to help more on low end torque.  thats about it for now.  so.....do your thing, get it in the car and lets see how she does.

Matt

well...that shows that i dont know carbed turbo setups.......s orry for making myself look foolish.

for me, i have some experience with EFI turbo setups.......t ons of reading, have asked tons of questions, sat around Daves shop (I guy we call turbo Dave) and helped him out......and read even more.  all of it has been gear for EFI and the project i am working on.  I guess if i am going to say anything on carbed turbo setups, i need to stick to general engine work and wait for more experience with the carbed turbo.  At least you jumped in and pointed to where i was wrong so that he didnt start working on following my advice.  if you can point me to where i can read up on carbed turbo setups, i do need to learn them, a buddy of mine just picked up a '79 turbo cobra and i will probably end up working on it with him.

-Matt

This is a draw through set up I have on my Pangra. The carb sits on top of a plenum which is attached onto the compressor side of the turbo. The Air/Fuel mix runs through the turbo and over the top of the valve cover into the intake manifold.

This is a draw through set up I have on my Pangra. ...

Brad, is your exhaust manifold polished? chromed? or just brushed shiney???

Ok Y'all have covered draw thru turbo setups (and thier lack of intercooling) how about a "Blow Thru" setup?
If I'm not mistaken this would lend itself well to intercooling as the pressurized air is forced thru the carb. BUT how do you keep the carb working? I understand Bernoulli's principle sucking fuel from the float bowl. However wouldn't boost slow the rate of fuel? To compensate you'd have to up the mixture to a point that it'd almost flood off boost.

I'm interested as I've found a cool lil IHI turbo that should make about 6psi of boost that would wake up my Lil' Horse without a major rebuild & investment in parts.

Thanks for the quick reply Brad. I'm still trying to decide which route to go with my 2.3L. The long block has less than 30k mi on it so I'm thinking 6psi of boost on a 8:1 compression stock motor would be reliable. However, I'm looking to get just 130-140hp from the motor. At that level of HP I could get by with just a good carb/intake/cam/header setup on a n/a motor. A 42HP increase would be just shy of 50%. do you have any suggestions on how I can get  this without opening up my motor? I'm open to a cam change as the head doesn't really have to come off. but I'd rather not pull the head of a good running motor if I don't have to

You can get 130-140 hp out of a N/A motor with a few tweeks. Cam, cam pulley, jet the carb, re-work the distrubtor and add a good ignition and header. Just my 2c.

I second that. I had 119 hp at the rear wheel with a cam a fuzz bigger than stock (.484 240* I think), a cam pulley, header, gutted offy intake, msd, and a 390 carb.
Went up to 121 with fuel injection last time I made a dyno run. I think I was making more than that after we tuned it more, but those were the last numbers I got.
If you figure 20% loss from flywheel to rear wheel, that's 143hp for the carb, 145hp for the injection.

Crazyhorse, you mention changing the cam without pulling the head. Doesn't the cam come out of the back of the head? I have always pulled it.