20 Guests, 0 Users

Author Topic: 2.3 mods  (Read 19721 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline slowride

  • Pinto Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 279
  • FeedBack: +18/-0

  • Total Badges: 3
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Windows User Fifth year Anniversary
Re: 2.3 mods
« Reply #30 on: January 19, 2012, 03:47:00 PM »
So in ANOTHER twist, I pulled the head off for a little freshening before my machine shop shuts down. Of course there was tons of carbon on the valves, chambers, etc, but looked ok. I dropped it off at the shop and called a little while later for an update. Long story short, the cam, lifters and followers needed to be replaced as well as 4 new exhaust seats. Since the cam needed to be replaced, I spec'ed out a Comp Cams 252h for a bit more lift and duration. Nothing radical by any means since going bigger wouldn't help with the header removed.
Today's the first day of my normal driving and on the way in to work it ran flawlessly. More low and mid range torque, and I got a cramp in my right ankle because I didn't have to put so much pedal into it to go the same speed. I still have the spacer on it, and the machine shop is milling the plenum on the other manifold. I am cautiously optimistic about much better gas mileage, though that may go away when I test the modified intake. Now if it's appetite  for new parts would calm down a little.....

Offline don33

  • Pinto Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 280
  • FeedBack: +5/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Another Pinto Driver

  • Total Badges: 4
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Fifth year Anniversary Poll Voter Windows User
Re: 2.3 mods
« Reply #31 on: January 28, 2012, 11:44:27 AM »
slowride, while  I understand and appreciate all the work you have done to your intake, that being said, it is a very flawed and limited design. the optimum option for flow purposes would have been to put all your efforts into moding a EFI intake. they are a waaaaaaay better design. the first thing a ministock racer does is toss that chunk of aluminum you have and convert to a efi unit.

Offline slowride

  • Pinto Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 279
  • FeedBack: +18/-0

  • Total Badges: 3
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Windows User Fifth year Anniversary
Re: 2.3 mods
« Reply #32 on: January 30, 2012, 12:02:27 PM »
Don, I may play with the EFI intake later, but this is just a $25 folly on my part. My concerns about an EFI manifold are twofold. First, the "D" port mismatch, and then the mounting issues for linkage and the stock 5200. I know I could go 4 barrel, but then that opens up another can of worms with an auto (kickdown linkage). This is my daily driver, so changes must be made in baby steps to keep it on the road day to day.
I have a "theory" floating around in my head, and this is just a quick and cheap way of proving/disproving it.

Offline don33

  • Pinto Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 280
  • FeedBack: +5/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Another Pinto Driver

  • Total Badges: 4
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Fifth year Anniversary Poll Voter Windows User
Re: 2.3 mods
« Reply #33 on: February 01, 2012, 07:20:05 AM »
the D port missmatch is not an issue, it has been prooven to be the best flowing stock set up for the 2.3 engine even with the missmatch..
with the skills you have shown in working on the stock piece I'm sure you could come up with something for the linkage...

Offline slowride

  • Pinto Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 279
  • FeedBack: +18/-0

  • Total Badges: 3
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Windows User Fifth year Anniversary
Re: 2.3 mods
« Reply #34 on: February 01, 2012, 10:38:06 AM »
I have no doubt that due to the EFI's port layout in the plenum it will flow better and more evenly from port to port. I've already been mentally sketching out a mounting bracket for the stock throttle cable bracket assy. My limitations are that I just don't have the room to put in the equipment I need to do this kind of fabrication. This would be SO easy to do with a mill......

Offline slowride

  • Pinto Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 279
  • FeedBack: +18/-0

  • Total Badges: 3
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Windows User Fifth year Anniversary
Re: 2.3 mods
« Reply #35 on: April 11, 2012, 04:18:39 PM »
Good stuff going on in the next couple weeks. Finally ordered new carpet and went original.... dark saddle 80/20 loop.
The shift kit goes in this weekend, so I should get decent shifts out of the C3.
I've also been trying something called "Kreen" made by the people that make Kroil penetrant. You add it to the crankcase to dissolve the carbon buildup from the oil control and compression ring lands on the pistons. I've been running it for 2 days and have felt a noticeable increase in power (it's a 2.3... it's not hard to feel a little more power) and the idle has smoothed out a bit. The acid test will be when I fill up and check mileage. More on that later.....

Offline slowride

  • Pinto Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 279
  • FeedBack: +18/-0

  • Total Badges: 3
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Windows User Fifth year Anniversary
Re: 2.3 mods
« Reply #36 on: April 30, 2012, 01:36:08 PM »
Not a "mod" so maybe a bit off topic, but replaced the carpet over the weekend. It makes driving a lot more enjoyable than I thought it would. Less noise, somehow a few rattles disappeared, and it has that new car smell again.  ;D
Installed an ACC carpet kit, and it fit reasonably well from the E-brake forward, but behind it on the tunnel it has an odd "hump" in the carpet that the tunnel doesn't.   :-\ Still better than what was in there, and for a daily driver I can't really complain. I rate it a 7......

Offline dave1987

  • Pinto Sr. Master
  • ******
  • Posts: 3431
  • FeedBack: +25/-0
  • Gender: Male

  • Total Badges: 11
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Signature Tenth year Anniversary Poll Voter Mobile User Apple User Linux User Windows User 1000 Posts Fifth year Anniversary Photographer
Re: 2.3 mods
« Reply #37 on: April 30, 2012, 03:58:21 PM »
I have noticed the "hump" in the carpet behind the e-brake handle as well. I have ACC kits in both my 78 and my 73 and have the same issue. I think it has something to do with what they use to mold the carpet with.
1978 Ford Pinto Sedan - Family owned since new

Remembering Jeff Fitcher with every drive in my 78 Sedan.

I am a Pinto Surgeon. Fixing problems and giving Pintos a chance to live again is more than a hobby, it's a passion!

Offline slowride

  • Pinto Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 279
  • FeedBack: +18/-0

  • Total Badges: 3
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Windows User Fifth year Anniversary
Re: 2.3 mods
« Reply #38 on: May 12, 2012, 11:13:59 PM »
So after running the kreen in the crankcase for a few hundred miles, I've gotta say you wouldn't believe what this stuff does. I'll be doing a second treatment, but this has freed up horsepower you can FEEL. Gas mileage has gone up a bit (< 2mpg), but I'd get even better mileage if I could keep my foot out of it. It's just too much fun to jump on it even with an auto. I can actually holeshotl v8's from a stop, but after a car length or two the lack of torque takes it's toll. The real problem is, I've never driven another Pinto to get an idea if what I've done has made a marked difference from stock, or has just it made run like "new" again.

Offline slowride

  • Pinto Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 279
  • FeedBack: +18/-0

  • Total Badges: 3
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Windows User Fifth year Anniversary
Re: 2.3 mods
« Reply #39 on: March 20, 2014, 08:32:39 PM »
Back from the dead! New engine, Turbo/EFI intake sitting on the bench patiently, but I want to see how much of a difference the Weber 38/38 makes over the 32/36 progressive on the stock intake. Finishing up the adapter, so it should be test and tune time in a couple weeks. Then go EFI intake...... :o

 

Offline Srt

  • Original Pangra Master Builder
  • PCCA VIP
  • Pinto Master
  • ***
  • Posts: 1339
  • FeedBack: +100/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Pinto Stampede ROCKS

  • Total Badges: 10
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Signature Tenth year Anniversary Poll Voter Linux User Mobile User Windows User 1000 Posts Fifth year Anniversary Photographer
Re: 2.3 mods
« Reply #40 on: March 21, 2014, 03:41:32 AM »
Sorry for the delay, but other vehicles demanded attention.
I am actually taking a step backwards and removing the header and putting the exhaust manifold back on. Without a more aggressive cam. there is no benefit to the header, and to be honest, the slip-on collector on a Thorley header leaks like a biotch and has annoyed me to no end.
The main advantage of the spacer has been a bit more power, and a smoother idle. Gas mileage has increased maybe 1 mpg, but I also suspect I need to re-jet this carb.


i thought it was a hedman header

the only substitute for cubic inches is BOOST!!!

Offline slowride

  • Pinto Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 279
  • FeedBack: +18/-0

  • Total Badges: 3
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Windows User Fifth year Anniversary
Re: 2.3 mods
« Reply #41 on: March 21, 2014, 09:54:20 AM »
That was a mistake. I had the Thorley on my quad cab.... what a POS. Cracked at each port at the flange as well as the collector. The Hedman WAS on the Pinto, sorry.

Offline slowride

  • Pinto Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 279
  • FeedBack: +18/-0

  • Total Badges: 3
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Windows User Fifth year Anniversary
Re: 2.3 mods
« Reply #42 on: March 21, 2014, 10:21:49 AM »
To bring this up to speed. The original engine was getting tired and I had a cylinder drop compression, so before it died I built a replacement.


WHY did it drop a cylinder? Seems a 40 year old compression ring decided it had enough......


Offline slowride

  • Pinto Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 279
  • FeedBack: +18/-0

  • Total Badges: 3
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Windows User Fifth year Anniversary
Re: 2.3 mods
« Reply #43 on: March 21, 2014, 02:52:17 PM »
Found this carb adapter for the turbo manifold that intrigues me. If I have the additional 2" of hood clearance, I might test it.

Offline dick1172762

  • Vintage Pinto Racer
  • PCCA Management Board
  • Pinto Sr. Master
  • ******
  • Posts: 2623
  • FeedBack: +362/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a llama!

  • Total Badges: 7
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Windows User 1000 Posts Tenth year Anniversary Fifth year Anniversary
Re: 2.3 mods
« Reply #44 on: March 21, 2014, 05:18:53 PM »
What web site was that on? Interesting to say the least. I take it was 2" tall.
Its better to be a has-been, than a never was.

Offline slowride

  • Pinto Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 279
  • FeedBack: +18/-0

  • Total Badges: 3
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Windows User Fifth year Anniversary
Re: 2.3 mods
« Reply #45 on: March 21, 2014, 05:43:35 PM »
It's p/n CS-2300 at pricemotorspor t.com. I like that no alterations to the lower intake are required and it  extends the runners which should flow better. Now if I have 2" to spare.....

Offline 74 PintoWagon

  • Pinto Sr. Master
  • ******
  • Posts: 3105
  • FeedBack: +540/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Another Pinto Driver

  • Total Badges: 5
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Windows User 1000 Posts
Re: 2.3 mods
« Reply #46 on: March 22, 2014, 07:59:39 AM »
I like that, they have nice stuff. 8)
http://www.pricemotorsport.com/
Art
65 Falcon 2DR 200 IL6 with C4.

Offline dick1172762

  • Vintage Pinto Racer
  • PCCA Management Board
  • Pinto Sr. Master
  • ******
  • Posts: 2623
  • FeedBack: +362/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a llama!

  • Total Badges: 7
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Windows User 1000 Posts Tenth year Anniversary Fifth year Anniversary
Re: 2.3 mods
« Reply #47 on: March 22, 2014, 11:01:38 AM »
Don't know Art! Little or no pendulum  with this adapter. BUT it sure will be easyer to try out the EFI intake this way. 2" plus air cleaner equals a big hood dent????
Its better to be a has-been, than a never was.

Offline 74 PintoWagon

  • Pinto Sr. Master
  • ******
  • Posts: 3105
  • FeedBack: +540/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Another Pinto Driver

  • Total Badges: 5
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Windows User 1000 Posts
Re: 2.3 mods
« Reply #48 on: March 22, 2014, 11:29:10 AM »
Yeah, it does lack plenum but for just a driver don't think it would hurt, air cleaner could be an issue wonder what the difference in height is between the Autolite and the Weber/Holley???..
Art
65 Falcon 2DR 200 IL6 with C4.

Offline dick1172762

  • Vintage Pinto Racer
  • PCCA Management Board
  • Pinto Sr. Master
  • ******
  • Posts: 2623
  • FeedBack: +362/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a llama!

  • Total Badges: 7
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Windows User 1000 Posts Tenth year Anniversary Fifth year Anniversary
Re: 2.3 mods
« Reply #49 on: March 22, 2014, 12:43:26 PM »
Autolite looks lower, but the big problem it the air cleaners driver side corner, as that is the first place that will hit the hood. Just making the stock air cleaner 1/4" higher WILL hit the hood. The 80's Mustang hood scoop will really look good on your wagon.
Its better to be a has-been, than a never was.

Offline amc49

  • PCCA VIP
  • Pinto Master
  • ***
  • Posts: 1256
  • FeedBack: +242/-1
  • Another Pinto Driver

  • Total Badges: 4
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Poll Voter Windows User 1000 Posts
Re: 2.3 mods
« Reply #50 on: March 22, 2014, 02:15:41 PM »
No way would I be putting that flow killer part on my stuff. Fuel distribution will take a dump there. You don't run around at wide open throttle all the time, start thinking about what happens when throttle blades are open 25% or less and that adapter then looks HORRIBLE. Opening up the base instead of 4 holes addresses that to a point and better and better as the carb base to top of runner increases at least to 2-3 inches. Not thinking here, when carb only open to feed off say transfers (low cruise), one side of the carb is feeding straight air, the other side of butterfly is feeding air/fuel. Main booster venture has not activated yet. You're not allowing any verticle distance for those two streams off each butterfly to fully intermingle. Two cylinders will run richer than the other two. Why many V-8s pick up power from adding a  spacer under carb, the spacer allows more turn room at top of runners but also allows better mixing up of the streams.

Can't use a 32/36 with that divider there.

Asking to make the runners longer there is a mistake, they already come far too close to carb base as it is. Why people who port the lower always end up lowering the 'X' center portion; that allows better interfeeding of all ports with each other. You cannot jam a carb base right up against individual ports without suffering pretty big power losses. Why the stock 2.3 carb manifold will not flow any more than the stock 32/36 carb even with every mod done to it you can possibly think of. 38/38 on one of those is a power detune. And thinking earlier in the thread that the D port intake was a problem? We should all have such problems, Edelbrock made millions doing the same thing with their Torker line of intakes. NONE of those match the head ports and all intentional. Some of the mismatches were quite dramatic, enough that they warned you against trying to match them back up, doing so was a massive low end power killer.

You can easily INCREASE plenum and gain low end as long as it is not out of shape size wise. There is a ratio there that all engines pretty much like, a 2 inch tall open base adapter on the EFI lower is not out of that range. I'm betting that simply using the two inch thick open base adapter will be about the same as putting on a 38/38 over a 32/36, or very close. Hood clearance is the problem there.

Look at pic on the left, you can easily see shrouding of a port by how shallow the adapter is. Big no-no there. And I don't care for the middle cross which has no gasket under it, thin enough it could crack from vibration, look at further pics on the website. It may be thin enough to crack as well if you put a 4 hole gasket under it. The squeeze may do it.

Biggest rule of porting for ANY kind of power, low or high end, regardless of how big or small ports are-------------you STRAIGHTEN things out.  If you must turn then you figure out how to do it gradually, sharp turns can NEVER be made to flow well, you are defying physics.  Anything doing otherwise costs you power. Shallow adapters that force fuel to go down then sideways and then down again are the bane of good power and a hundred manufacturers make them. They get two parts to sell instead of one for the money spent in material. One of Offenhausers' biggest flaws, they made wonky parts that defied physics to throw away big power. Much of their stuff looked cool but actually junk.

Offline 74 PintoWagon

  • Pinto Sr. Master
  • ******
  • Posts: 3105
  • FeedBack: +540/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Another Pinto Driver

  • Total Badges: 5
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Windows User 1000 Posts
Re: 2.3 mods
« Reply #51 on: March 22, 2014, 02:24:30 PM »
Well, I may try both with the Autolite and see what happens, what the heck..
Art
65 Falcon 2DR 200 IL6 with C4.

Offline 74 PintoWagon

  • Pinto Sr. Master
  • ******
  • Posts: 3105
  • FeedBack: +540/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Another Pinto Driver

  • Total Badges: 5
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Windows User 1000 Posts
Re: 2.3 mods
« Reply #52 on: March 22, 2014, 02:24:56 PM »
Autolite looks lower, but the big problem it the air cleaners driver side corner, as that is the first place that will hit the hood. Just making the stock air cleaner 1/4" higher WILL hit the hood. The 80's Mustang hood scoop will really look good on your wagon.
Yeah I noticed that when I measured mine it's awful close, probably need to make a custom deal to move the element towards the center?... Hmmm, never thought about that scoop they do look cool..
Art
65 Falcon 2DR 200 IL6 with C4.

Offline slowride

  • Pinto Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 279
  • FeedBack: +18/-0

  • Total Badges: 3
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Windows User Fifth year Anniversary
Re: 2.3 mods
« Reply #53 on: March 22, 2014, 11:56:29 PM »
Biggest rule of porting for ANY kind of power, low or high end, regardless of how big or small ports are-------------you STRAIGHTEN things out.  If you must turn then you figure out how to do it gradually, sharp turns can NEVER be made to flow well, you are defying physics.
Had to narrow down a garbage post to this. So you'd blend a manifold and create MORE horizontal shear ? You did remember the throttle shafts on on a 38 (what my post was referring to) are parallel, right?  Don't quote theory unless you can apply it accurately.... ....

Offline amc49

  • PCCA VIP
  • Pinto Master
  • ***
  • Posts: 1256
  • FeedBack: +242/-1
  • Another Pinto Driver

  • Total Badges: 4
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Poll Voter Windows User 1000 Posts
Re: 2.3 mods
« Reply #54 on: March 23, 2014, 01:40:00 AM »
Thank you very much. 

The adapter picced is essentially not 2 inches tall if the manifold runners are continued inside it. Recreating the same problem the shorter 1 inch one does but for more money. Funny. You can buy the 1 inch thick one, save money and hood space.

When one takes mixture, goes straight down, turns ninety degrees sideways, then ninety degrees down again and all in a relatively flat top-to-bottom package you are making far more shear than I could ever do 'blending'. I would think that is not hard to understand but I guess I'm wrong there. You apparently have never looked inside an ultra high rpm drag race tunnelram before. 

Cramped tight like that, flow to outside of all 4 holes will be blocking flow to inside and vice versa. Reversion pulses will find an easy upper 'cover' to bounce off of to rob cylinder of mixture at higher speeds, you better look at that broken piston/ring pic again. The obvious shrouding there only makes it worse. The pulsing issues there will be horrible.

When restricting the free movement of fuel/air by tightening up all airspaces there you create all sorts of oddball effects, exactly what a 2.3 stock manifold does. When you open up a plenum to a certain amount you allow the fuel/air intermixing to complete and then you don't get things like that burned piston you picced higher up. Overheating from lean and detonation jack, and most likely fuel distribution issue as well. I could point out other engines I worked on with crap adapters/manifolds like that and burned pistons in them as well, but garbage post to you.

You're focused on shear and not your issue at all.

Luck.......... ...........