Topic: Duratec pinto conversion

[Ironman]

Howdy all,

I thought I'd start a new thread regarding the Duratec conversion. I will share everything I learn and will post photos of the conversion in detail in case anyone else wants to try it.

I went out today and got some "hands on" education regarding a possible conversion into a pinto chassis.

From this point on I'll refer to the sides as left right front back since that will be the orientation in the car.

As far as the powerplant being able to fit under the hood without a bunch of modification to the chasis looks very good, the overall hieght of the engine from bottom of sump to top of the cam cover is 24" this means the steering rack can remain in its original location. The suprise came in the length of the assembled engine. The Focus engine has an extended water outlet at the rear of the engine requiring 25" overall length,... 6" of wich extends rearward beyond the bellhousing mounting flange. However the 2.3L in the 06 Ranger is 4" less @ 21". I am aware that Raceline and maybe others build an aftermarket water outlet to help out on this. I'm cheap and like to build stuff so I'll build a water outlet instead of hacking the firewall if I can get away with it. The Ranger 2.3 also has a very nice Ehaust manifold that looks much like a block hugging Header.
I looked at eleven engines today, 8 were the 2.0 variety and they all had the intake on the drivers side  :smile:
On the peliminary I'm leaning toward the 2.3.

I did a quick calculation for this conversion.  its not the cheapest, but far less expensive than other HO combinations I've looked at.

I found several engines, 2.0 or 2.3 with less than 30K between $500-$750
I think the one I'm going to purchase is an 06 Ranger with 12K. for $550.
( I would have paid twice that for a good Cosworth head with cams)
The intake to fit DCOE style induction is $325
A pair of webers, $500-$800
Stand alone ignition $425
Bellhousing to adapt T-5 $475
T-5 with driveline  $250
8.8 from ranger $250
misc junk I'll need $300-$400
Total around $2600.
I expect 180 to 195 hp on pump gas and 28 mpg.
If I find enough funds available I'll opt for DCOE style throttle body fuel injection, that should put me around 225hp. with somewhere around 200+ ft.lbs of torque.
The later would also open a new door, managed fuel /ignition. at that point I suspect power levels could go as high as 250-270 hp, but I'm pretty sure the stock bottom end would give up before then.
The more I read about this engine the more I'm liking it. it has tremendous power potential at a relatively low cost. And its lighter than the stock unit.

[Ironman]

Going to pick up my engine tommorow.

Thought I'd put up a photo showing the rear water passage extention.
I wish the one I was getting was this pretty. The intake is smashed from the crash.

[lencost]

I look forward to fallowing this thread!

[apintonut]

i look forward to doing the fab. work !!!!

[Ironman]

i look forward to doing the fab. work !!!!

You think your cuttin on my pinto?!!
 You are a nut! 

We'll see how good you are with a mig.
If you can stick the thin stuff together, and make it look neat I'd welcome the help. I'm proficient down to about 090.

[Ironman]

The adventure begins!

I wound up with a higher mileage engine than I originally wanted, but I got it for $200 less.
$350 out the door with a 90 day warranty, (I better hustle on this project).

Engine is a 2.0L from an 06 Focus. I liked the Idea of using the same displacement engine the car came with. Just 35 years of technology and improvements.

I told the guys at the Wrecking yard what I was doing, and a couple of them thought it was a cool project and were real helpful. We did some experimenting  and found out some very useful information.

The Duratec 2.0L or 2.3L are almost Identical. Dimensionally the 2.3L has a 9/16" taller block, but as major componets go the intake and exhaust manifolds interchange. This means the aftermarket header thats available for  the ranger pickup  will bolt straight on!

Something else that bolts straight on from a Ranger is the 5 speed. The clutch from the focus splined!!  I was stunned. The 05 Ranger trans looks like a beefy unit, but maybe not too big to fit the Pinto chassis. The thing I did notice right off was the location of the shifter. I will have to measure the distance on my stock 4 spd to see if they are compatible.
I'm really hoping the Ranger trans will work. it looks like it could stand 300 hp abuse.
It would also cut the cost of the project by $500 - $600. The down side I see is the "beef" of the transmission probably negates the weight savings of the engine. I was really hoping to have the best of both worlds. More power and less weight.
I do know this, Heather let me wail on her 05 ZX3 yesterday,.. pretty zippy in the first couple gears, and pulled fair through third.
I did a little weight calculation.
The ZX3's curb weight is about 2750. The 71 Pinto is 1950. I'm thinking without any performance mods at all, losing 800 lbs is going to make a huge difference.
The trick will be keeping the Pinto at 1950. There is still going to be the issue of the rear axle.

I'm going to run up to Brian's tomorrow, and see if he'll be willing to help me drop the engine into one of his chassis for a trial fit. The thing is light enough, I think the two of us could tie it to a 2"x4" and hoist it in and out of the hole without much effort.

[apintonut]

well i talked to ironman tonight. he asked about dropping the engine into my 74 turbo project (as i have the engine back out for painting)  so he's coming by tomorrow and were setting it in with the engine in carefully with the hoist. im kinda interested to see how it fits.

we also discussed the ranger trans. he was asked what i thought about a couple things. the weight, the size,and the shifter position.

im of the opinion that if you hafta add weight there's no better place then in the middle of the bottom of the car. for handling and weight transfer.


for the size it should fit but there is room to move the engine and trans forward.

 as far as the shifter go's i went to the rangerstation. com   to get a look at the trans the ranger trans shifter set almost in the same as the t5 so i thinking that it will set 2" forward so we made need to make a shifter but the ranger shifter is very long so we may be able to heat and bend it the cut to the right length

[Ironman]

Y not try thos refridgerator straps or something simular instead of a 2x4???

Just my sense of humor.  Kinda.

Years ago a girlfriend had a pinto wagon with a 2300. the engine went TU. We had very little money. I found an engine for $100 bucks, we did the swap with a 4x4.  :smile:

Sorry Apintonut,.. I didn't know the car I was looking at was your turbo project. I thought it was a parts car.
And I wasn't aware you had an engine hoist there. My bad :look:

I've thought about the transmission thing, and it will all hinge on shifter placement.
Moving the engine forward really isn't an option for a few reasons.
Besides being counter productive to handing it would make the shifter problem even worse as I believe it to be too far forward all ready.

The shifter itself is easily removed leaving a stub to attach whatever type of shift lever suits the individual. There may be issues with how much force it takes to shift if the lever is cut down/shortened. The transmission was designed to make smooth effortless shifts with a 14" lever,.. changing that to say an 8 inch lever may have an undesired "resistance" when trying to grab a gear.

The transmission needs to shift smoothly with little effort like a sports car should. That is after all the goal. Driveability has to remain a constant. If the dimensions lend themselves to the transplant I'll go back and test the gear selector at about half lever for "feel".

I went to the "rangerstation. com" site and viewed their transmission ID.

This is the closest thing I could find,.. but it still isnt quite the same as the one I saw at the wrecking yard. I read the charts on the ranger site and they dont list the transmission for the Duratec 2.3L.
My guess is the transmission is a version of the Mazda M 50 D

I think the shift lever would need to be where the arrow indicates for correct placement in the car.

[Ironman]

First test fit today,

You were right pintony, the rack interferes with the oil pan.

The car I tested it in was a 74 and the rack was held in place by 3 bolts anchoring it to the crossmember in a horizontal orientation. The other two styles I've seen are either like my 71 which is bolted straight down to the crossmember brackets, or like the other I've seen, wich I believe to be a 73, which secures the rack in huge rubber gromets that have straps over them.

Of the 3 types I've seen the 74 and 71 require the least amount of pan modifications,.. I'm not sure you could easily modify the pan enough to work with the "73" style.

However, if you have the funds, a dry sump cures all problems for the cars I've seen, and even gives you "extra" room.
I've included photos to show the pan and the mods that need to be done to fit either the 71 or 74 style racks.
That is the route I'm going to take.

Photo 1 shows the greasy "witness" marks where the rack contacted the pan. After I modify the pan, the drain plug area should clear the rack by 3/8ths of an inch.

Photo 2 shows the pan off with the baffle still attached.

photo 3  is viewed from the right side of the engine, and shows the area that needs to be removed for ample rack and crosmember clearance. The area to be removed is outlined in green. The red arrows indicate the existing pan "floor". As you can see the bulk of the pan area to the rear is webbing. The yellow arrows indicate a web/girder inside the pan that will make an excellent point to attach the forward section of the new pan floor.

Photo 4 is the pan with the baffle removed, the blue rectangle is where the oil pickup tube is located,.. the yellow arrow shows the "girder" I'll use for attaching the forward part of the  "floor".
The red area is what gets choped out. there is a nice "shelf" all the way around the area that should make an excellent point to attach the rear portion of the new pan floor.

The area just forward of the pickup tube is a raised section that was designed for a sensor that this engine did not come equipped with. I might make modifications to the pan in this area to recoup oil capacity lost to the rear mod.

Also during the test fit I was able to see if the rear water outlet is going to be an issue. There is gonna be be some pretty snug fits, and I'll have to fabricate a low profile outlet but it looks like it will all fit without rubbing on anything.

The bellhousing is going to be snug as well,.. it may not be possible to change the clutch with the engine in the car.

I could make everything fit much more easily if I were to "clearance" cut portions of the car, but as the project develops the goal for zero chassis body mods,  and squeezing it out on a budget anyone could afford becomes more important to me.

[Ironman]

Pan update,

I put the pan on a mill tonight and started hoging away and I realized I dont have to take as much material as I had first thought.  The top photo is the new cut line.

[Srt]

where's the crank centerline on this motor?  if it's right there at the pan rail it looks like you may have clearance problems with the rotating/reciprocating parts of the motor.

looks like a loss of a lot of oil capacity too

[Ironman]

Todays progress,

One advantage to being single is not having to explain why you drilled holes in your front porch to use it as a "work station" to modify your oil pan.  :smile:

I didn't get as much done as I would have liked but I also spent some time learning about home built fuel injection.

I did get the pan cut out though and I'll make the replacement floor tommorrow.
I started by geting out the heavy duty drill and "holesawed' a 2" opening on each side. I then put it on a mill and leveled the webbing at the back of the pan so it will clear the crossmember. I took a hack saw and removed the bulk of the sides. I finished with a course half round file and a 2" sanding drum with 50 grit.

SRT,.. the crank is deep inside the block,.. the counterwieghts are flush with the pan rails.
The pan is also a structural device to help stiffen the bottom of the block so I will use some care in how I choose to attach the pan floor.

As far as the lost oil volume, there is allready a plan to regain 100%, and perhaps increase the capacity. Its about as complicated a procedure as  the current modification.

[dholvrsn]

I take it that the engine has a deep enough skirt so that the rods won't be knocking the new section when it's welded in. And that this isn't one of the engines with the balance weights flipping around down there.

[Ironman]

I take it that the engine has a deep enough skirt so that the rods won't be knocking the new section when it's welded in. And that this isn't one of the engines with the balance weights flipping around down there.

Yes and yes. None of the 2.0L engines have the balancer in the pan. That is a 2.3L item only. And not all 2.3's have it. The balancer can be removed at any rate and several manufacturers make a block off plate for the oil passage. (once you see the part you'll probably make your own).

Nothing of the reciprocating mass extends past the pan rail of the block.

The only Issues I see are going to have to do with the welding. The pan is cut so deep that when its welded it will seriously distort. The pan will have to be welded when its bolted to the block,.. It will probably have to be stress relieved as well,.. other wise when its unbolted I think it will "spring"

[Ironman]

Anyone have any experience modifying cast aluminum pans? Several things went wrong today, the major goof was that I used the wrong type of aluminum to make the patch.
The pan is a structural piece so I figured I'd use some pretty rigid stuff  (1/8" 7075), spent way too long pressing and hammering that dang thing to fit.

Apparently its too hard of a material to make a good weld to cast.. what grade of aluminum should I use,.. 6061?  I have know Idea,.. the word I got was "softer" material.

What a fantastic grade,... SOFTER!!  must be some of that Fancy engineer talk!
So when I go to the metal supermarket,......."Yes sir, I would like a piece of softer aluminum,... no the grade doesn't matter,.. just make sure its softer" I'm sure that will work just fine!  :mad: :mad:

[apintonut]

i dont know much about grade but i do know tinsel (spelling that wrong)  strength.
the higher the tinsel the harder it is. u need something with a lower tinsel strength. aka softer.  u can have low tensile large gage

[Ironman]

I'm with ya Brian,.. but what?

I do not fully understand the grading of Aluminum.
But tensil strength isnt exactly how hard a material is,.. its how "strong" it is

I believe the first 2 numbers indicate tensile strength. I've been told two different stories on what the last 2 numbers stand for. either hear treat, or alloy.

I have allways believed  the last two were heat treating.

So something like 6061 would have 10,000 lbs less tensile strength and 14 levels difference in heat treat than 7075? I don't know if this is true, and I still don't know what kind of sheet aluminum will lend its self best to the pan mod.

[douglasskemp]

The folks welding onto the back of a 2.3L Volvo head (cast aluminum) are using 6061, so I would imagine that would work for your app...  I have no actual experience in this field though.

[Srt]

as far as the welding goes i do know that the aluminum, being porous, will absorb oil into the surface of the metal.  it needs to be really clean in order to get a decent weld

[Ironman]

Thanks,

I'm making a new patch from a piece of scrap 6061 I got from a friend, (much easier to work with).
I'll clean the pan a couple more times.  Its been cleaned inside and out with CRS "heavy duty engine degreaser"  and then two scrubs with Castrol Superclean full strength. Hopfully I'll get it all.

[Ironman]

Well I'm glad that the first patch was the wrong stuff to use,.. the second patch is shaping up much nicer. After its welded I'll have to fill in the gap on the inside and at the back of the patch with Epoxy, or maybe JB weld, so the oil will return smoothly to the sump.

[Ironman]

More fun with the oil pan today. Had to mill the rear section down another 1/4 inch.
Got a quote for hourly rate to weld it up. $75 an hr. !!  It looks as though one of the most expensive parts of this conversion is going to be the oil pan.

[Ironman]

lol,..

I expect the most expensive part to be the Fast stand alone fuel/spark management with a wide band o2 sensor. I also bought another 2.0L duratec from the bone yard today to use as a dummy engine and welding jig. They are dang near giving the things away because the engines dont die like the SOHC, or the ZTEC. They cant sell em!  The engine I bought today has a stainless shorty header and is in better condition than the first engine I bought,..... And I paid 50 bucks less!! The only part thats hard to find is an intake manifold.

BTW Tony,..I sold the car to my brother the next day after our last conversation. I wouldnt have done it, but once he thought the car may actualy be worth money if it was restored he stepped up to the plate. ( I made 3 times what I would have parting it out ) I'm not sure what the cars value is, but I know someone drove a long way to look at one that was $4500. Walt gets a little carried away on these kind of projects, so they often take a few years to complete,.. but he does really nice work, and he has an eye for detail.

[turbopinto72]

If you want to go to a Mega Squirt system, I have one that I am not using any more and can make you a deal on.

[Ironman]

Hey Ironman,
 Whe he has 10,000.00 in it and gives up trying to finish it give me a call!!!
 I'll give him the 4500.00

ROFLMAO,..

No problem man. I think hes got twice that in his current project  :lol:,.. The part that was priceless was imeadiately after he handed me the money he asked if I knew where there were any parts cars?
I swear Apintonuts turbo project was not the first thing that came to mind :smile:

[apintonut]

ROFLMAO,..

No problem man. I think hes got twice that in his current project  :lol:,.. The part that was priceless was imeadiately after he handed me the money he asked if I knew where there were any parts cars?
I swear Apintonuts turbo project was not the first thing that came to mind :smile:

why not my 73 out back that i started to part out or the 73 that is cut up in my front yard or the 73 at my friends house or my 73 in portland or the 71 (that will most-likely be my baby sis first car) that my dad just went and got for me........ well i may have some parts but the 74 is off the table.

[Ironman]

why not my 73 out back that i started to part out or the 73 that is cut up in my front yard or the 73 at my friends house or my 73 in portland or the 71 (that will most-likely be my baby sis first car) that my dad just went and got for me........ well i may have some parts but the 74 is off the table.

He he he.

[Ironman]

If you want to go to a Mega Squirt system, I have one that I am not using any more and can make you a deal on.

Thanks,

I lookled into that option, it looked like more homework than I wanted to do,.. and after reading and getting a little insight from some other guys who have done it, I think I want to run a closed loop system.
I'd also like to use all Ford parts, but I may wind up using twin throttle bodies from a couple of Volkswagens. I might have to use GM IAC's as well,.. the later is still unknown.

If you were able to get a system up and running with the Mega Squirt, you must have a pretty good working knowlege of EFI.  Would you mind if I asked you some questions when the project nears that stage?

[Ironman]

Been busy with junk,

Price is falling so I've been going full bore, they are only going to hold me at current price for 1 more week.
I've been "tinkering" with the pan in the evening. I'm putting 2 fittings, a 3/4 high and in the front, and a 1 inch low and in the side. These will be the oil passages to the remote reservoir. The system will carry one pint more than stock. As soon as its all done I'll post some pics,.. could be as late as the end of the week.

[turbopinto72]

Thanks,

I lookled into that option, it looked like more homework than I wanted to do,.. and after reading and getting a little insight from some other guys who have done it, I think I want to run a closed loop system.
I'd also like to use all Ford parts, but I may wind up using twin throttle bodies from a couple of Volkswagens. I might have to use GM IAC's as well,.. the later is still unknown.

If you were able to get a system up and running with the Mega Squirt, you must have a pretty good working knowlege of EFI.  Would you mind if I asked you some questions when the project nears that stage?

No problem with asking questions. I will try and answer the best I can.........