My 1973 TVR 2500M : Renew and Restomod

In reply to dherr :

Ford Racing does indeed have a harness for engine swaps!  Both for the 2.0 and the 2.3.  They also have a kit for swapping a Focus ST engine to N/S configuration.  So I could go 2.0 with a NC Miata trans, or 2.3 with a Mustang trans.  Just a question of cost.

Another cool thing about the 2.0 swap harness is that it comes with colder plugs and the ECU is programmed for over 300 hp on premium.  So you get a fat boost in power just with the harness.

I looked a bit more at the 3.7 V6, and evidently you can reprogram the stock ECU to ignore the fact that all the chassis sensors are gone.  Maybe worth considering.  Probably the least expensive option - certainly not in demand at the junk yard.

When you find 3.7 swap info, please share. My best friend is dead set on that being the repower in his 82 b2000. I know nothing about them, and want to know what im getting myself into when i offer to do it for him.

Also, have you considered an lfx?

In reply to Dusterbd13 :

I looked briefly at the LFX, but not enough to consider it.  Maybe it'd be swell.  Honestly I'm kind of a Ford/Mazda guy with a liking for Toyota thrown in for flavor.  And British cars, of course.  With lots of malt vinegar.

I did find more info on the 3.7 Cyclone swap.  People are doing it.  Not a very good write-up here, but some info:

https://www.rx7club.com/other-engine-conversions-non-v-8-118/ford-3-7l-v6-fc-1080545/

Stock ECU / Wiring harness, and then had a place called HP Tuners reflash the ECU to ignore the non-essentials.  Sounds like you really want the whole wiring harness too.  Good to know.

They're also saying the 3.7 only weighs 300 lb, which is pretty compelling.  I'll have to dig around for dimensions, etc.

I love the Ford Ecoboost idea. My only thing is the 2.5 liter need in the TVR. Luckily the Duratec came in a 2.5 liter size... just not an Ecoboost version. I am guessing someone has done a mix to get a 2.5 Ecoboost however. Something to consider.

Flea Bay 

KohR Motorsports

2015 Mustng Ecoboost Engine Trans Subframe Cooling Package Etc.

Price:

US $1,495.00

oh my, a for dmod barely fits in the thunderbird.

that 4 cylinder has 100 more hp than it had stock...

damn, i bet my f150's 3.5 ecoboost would make the thunderbird scoot. 

In reply to Dirtydog :

"Removed from a flood vehicle."

Definitely the right idea, though.

In reply to USERNAMETAKEN :

Before you get too deep into either the EB2.0/23 or the Cyclone engine, get your tape measure out and start measuring the space you have.  And do it a lot.

When I looked at the front end picture with the I6 in it, it does not look like there's that much space.  Length, yea, no problem.  But width, and more importantly, height, look to be incredibly tight.  I'm sure that the EB engines are taller than the Triumph.  Not only taller- much wider at the top, too.  And the DOHC in the Cyclone makes it both tall AND wide.  

I didn't read the engine swap threads you posted, but did note that some seemed to be MGs- did any of them have to add a budge in the hood to fit the powertrains?  

Anyway, measure 10 times before you spend money you may not get back.  When you are done, the tape measure may make the decision for you.

For sure, I'm measuring twice, purchasing once.

I removed some of the turbo plumbing and the oil hoses yesterday afternoon.  It opens things up a lot.  There's a surprising amount of space in the TVR frame.  And another big bonus is there's no cross-member under the engine and the steering rack is well in front. 

I've measured 24" even between the frame tubes, about 4" above the engine centerline.  That's sort of my minimum point.  Generally, both EB engines are narrower than that, though they're widest at the very top, and then slim from there.  If things line up badly, the 2.0 would have the turbo discharge right into that frame tube.  If things are a bit more harmonious, the turbo will be below that tube.

Both Ecoboost engines are much shorter than the TR6,  though I'll admit I've not checked the height yet.

Still haven't dug into transmission lengths or shifter locations.

Marathon, not a sprint...

https://performanceparts.ford.com/download/PDFS/M-6007-20T_dimensions.pdf

In reply to RossD :

Oh yes.  I've had those pdf files for a week or so now.  There's one for the 2.3 as well.

I'd really like to get my hands on the 3D solid model of the 2.0.  Then I could do a model of my frame in Solidworks, and go to town.  Then I could design my motor mounts top to bottom.

Any SEMA insiders willing to share???

Do keep in mind that 289 and 302 Ford small blocks were swapped into these cars all the time, so there is room at the top for a wide motor. But agree that a tape measure is your best friend but even so, once you have the selected engine, you will still be moving things around to make it work. 

USERNAMETAKEN said:

In reply to RossD :

Oh yes.  I've had those pdf files for a week or so now.  There's one for the 2.3 as well.

I'd really like to get my hands on the 3D solid model of the 2.0.  Then I could do a model of my frame in Solidworks, and go to town.  Then I could design my motor mounts top to bottom.

Any SEMA insiders willing to share???

 

Now that is downright cheating!

One of my most favorite cars. Ever. Looking forward to your updates!

Just measured height on the TR6 block.  About 17.5 from C/L to the highest protrusion.  The EB engines are both roughly 20" high, so that will indeed probably be the limiting factor.

I would be able to mount them farther back, which would help some.

dherr said:

Do keep in mind that 289 and 302 Ford small blocks were swapped into these cars all the time, so there is room at the top for a wide motor.

To be fair, the small block Ford is a pretty compact engine for a V8 (although it's certainly wider than an inline 4 or 6.)

Is that the power steering pump that rides low near the oil pan of the 2.0 EB? Don't need that!

But would need this :

https://www.drysump.com/index.php/oil-pans/ford/67-ford-2002

Argh.  Just closed my window on a long post.  Operator error...

I popped the carb and plumbing back on to get a feel for the heights there:

High points are the dash-pot on the carb and the intake plumbing.  They sit about 1/2" to 1" higher than that lump on the side of the valve cover.  What is that anyway?  Some sort of aftermarket breather valve?  I'll take it apart eventually...

Front view:

Space to the back of the engine bay gets quite a bit higher.

The trim on the Focus engine is the high point, and that could be left off.

Power steering pump will get tossed.  A/C compressor will get tossed (unless I get REALLY into it...).

dherr said:

USERNAMETAKEN said:

In reply to RossD :

Oh yes.  I've had those pdf files for a week or so now.  There's one for the 2.3 as well.

I'd really like to get my hands on the 3D solid model of the 2.0.  Then I could do a model of my frame in Solidworks, and go to town.  Then I could design my motor mounts top to bottom.

Any SEMA insiders willing to share???

 

Now that is downright cheating!

Not cheating!  Using the tools available to me!

I took a "snip" of the engine pdf and dropped it into a Solidworks sketch.  Scaled the pic to match some  construction lines, and then started getting a feel for what all the dimensions are.  The large dims are mine, the small were on the original pdf.

The picture scaled reasonably, though my dim for bottom to C/L on the left is almost exactly 10 mm greater than their's on the right.  Typo?

Turbo outlet matches a 2" ID hose - without doing too much additional research, I assume that is it's size.  It's just a little above the C/L - a 90 elbow might snake just beautifully between my frame tubes.

More to come...

Have you considered the GM 2.0T out of the Solstice GXP/Sky Redline? 260hp stock, already oriented the right way, came with an Aisin manual transmission.

Well looking at the scaling of it you could tilt the motor the 10 to 15 degrees and that would shorten up the height some.

The motor looks to have sat at those degrees in the original car so it wouldn't cause any issues.

brad131a4 said:

Well looking at the scaling of it you could tilt the motor the 10 to 15 degrees and that would shorten up the height some.

The motor looks to have sat at those degrees in the original car so it wouldn't cause any issues.

That's a good point.

In one of those MG write-ups the builder bolted up the NC transmission and it was indeed rotated about 10 deg.  IIRC, he split the difference and tilted the motor about 5 deg.

There's always the well mapped out Mazda BP 1.8 and either super or turbo charging. Turbo makes more sense but superchargers always sound cool... 

In reply to pres589 :

That was totally my first impulse.  Buy a donor car, and part out everything but the drivetrain.  Add FMII turbo, make never-ending burnouts.

Nah, that has been done before :-)

Go for the Ecoboost, then we can race someday