...and BTW, this is why we think we might get the curse:
...and BTW, this is why we think we might get the curse:
Hal wrote:btp76 wrote: Anybody have any off the beaten path ideas, maybe something from a focus, escort... Something else entirely? What can I bolt to the t5?You could use either the 2L Zetec or the 2.3L Duratec from a Focus. Both will put you in the 130 HP/135 Lb/ft at the crank range. T-5 Adapters for both motors are available from Quad 4 Rods.com but the cost ($475) would be a problem on a LeMons budget.
Not to mention that that's the same power as a na 2.5. Probably much less weight though.
btp76 wrote:Hal wrote:Not to mention that that's the same power as a na 2.5. Probably much less weight though.btp76 wrote: Anybody have any off the beaten path ideas, maybe something from a focus, escort... Something else entirely? What can I bolt to the t5?You could use either the 2L Zetec or the 2.3L Duratec from a Focus. Both will put you in the 130 HP/135 Lb/ft at the crank range. T-5 Adapters for both motors are available from Quad 4 Rods.com but the cost ($475) would be a problem on a LeMons budget.
Plus I know enough cheap tricks to convert those numbers from crank numbers to wheel numbers
RobL wrote:Jensenman wrote: Wait. Someone DYNOED a LeMons car?You've never seen this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RT-y8hyNVc
'A ?? shot of nitrous.' 
Back to the ol' 302 swap: since Mustangs were available with that motor it's an easy swap and a bunch of the parts like the oil pan can be found used for cheap.
My handy dandy engine weight chart shows a fully dressed 2.3 weighs about 307 pounds. A N/A 3.8 is 351 (I seriously doubt that number is accurate BTW) and a 302 is right at 460 meaning you add about 160 pounds to the nose of the car. If you get lucky enough to find a dirt cheap aluminum intake and a set of the tubular exhaust manifolds (or even build your own, it's not hard if you set your standards low) that will whack a lot of weight off.
we are running a 2.3 mustang at Lemons Ohio...(pushed back from Lemons New Orleans due to budget issues, and Nelson Ledges is a way cooler track)...and I just picked up a header at the pick and pull for 20 bucks...the deals are out there...have fun.
Coming from the index of effluency winner at CMP 08, I have a suggestion. It's a good one, compared to the other, I think. What can I say, I am humble.
Carbed 4.3L V6. Light, cheap, simple, and not a Ford. Lots of power too.
So are y'all dropping one in the 'Chucker?
btp76 wrote: Also, I don't think the 2.5 has provisions for a distributor, so we couldn't run our existing FI.
I did a bit of checking. A 2.5 is a 2.3 with a 7mm longer stroke and the piston pin height is changed accordingly. The bores are the same. 
Sounds cheap n' easy to me since the crank journals are the same. So grab the 2.5 Ranger motor, stick the crank and pistons in your 2.3 and voila! a 2.5 in 2.3 clothing.
From the H.A.M.B.:
http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?p=3399471
These motors are commonly referred to as either the Lima or simply the 2.X OHC (Over Head Cam) engines. They started life based on the German designed 2.0 EAO Sport motors that were first introduced to this country in the Mercury Capri’s from the early 70’s. They share nothing with the 2.3-2.5 litre HSC motors that were offered in the passenger car line from ’84-’91. Initially the 2.3 was supposed to be designed so that the 2.0 EAO parts would interchange, but due to different manufacturing processes it was not feasable) according to Ford, a couple of easy ways to tell if you have a 2.0L EAO engine, or a 2.0/2.3/2/5L lima engine is that the 2.0 EAO engine has 10 valve cover bolts while the Lima engine has only 8 valve cover bolts, and the distributor is in front of the number 1 intake port on the EAO engine, while the distributor is under the number 1 intake port on the Lima engine. The 2.3 first debuted in the 1974 Pinto using a progressive 2Bbl Webber/Holley carb and a points distributor. In ’75 they were upgraded to a Duraspark ignition system. They remained unchanged until about ’81 when the intake ports were changed from an oval to a D shape (flat floor). The 2.0/2.3 litre versions that were offered in Rangers starting in ’83 used a different head having four evenly spaced round holes of equal size. A 2.0 litre 1-bbl carbed version was offered in Rangers from ’83-’85, and in ’87-’88 with a 2-bbl in some parts of the US, Canada and Mexico. EFI was added to the engines in ’85. In 89 Rangers (91 in Mustangs) the 2.3 was changed to a DIS (Distributorless Ignition System) ignition utilizing a new 8-plug head. This head had larger evenly spaced D-shaped intake ports and was used until the end of production of the 2.5 in ‘01. The 2.5 litre version was only offered from ‘98 To ’01, when the engine was replaced by a 2.3 litre DOHC Duratec based engine.
In ’79-‘81 a high compression drawthru carb’ed turbo version of the 2.3 was offered. In ’83-‘88 a lower compression EFI turbo version was offered in T-birds, Cougars, Mustang SVOs and Merkur XR4Ti’s (through ’89).
Some of the changes to the motor over the years were: Rear main seal changed from a two piece to a one piece design in ’86. Roller cams were installed from ’88 on in Rangers and ’91 on in Mustangs. Crankshaft main journal sizes were reduced starting in ’88. CPS (Cam Position Sensor) was added starting in ’95 (’94 in California). At this time Ford changed to a 104-pin computer (it was a 60-pin) and moved the DIS functions into the computer, previously the DIS system had a TFI module as a separate unit mounted on the front of the intake manifold.
Major engine specs are .......................................2.0........ .2.3 Early....2.3 Late.....2.5 Bore...............................3.520........3. 780.........3.780......3.780 Stroke............................3.126........3.1 26.........3.126......3.401 Bore Spacing...................4.173........4.173...... ...4.173......4.173 Main Journal Dia..............2.3986......2.3986.......2.2055.. ....2.2055 Rod Journal Dia...............2.0468......2.0468.......2.0468. ....2.0468 Con. Rod Length..............5.2047......5.2047.......5.204 7.....5.457 Crank Center to deck.......8.368........8.368.........8.368......8 .368 Piston pin height...............1.583........1.583.........1. 583.....1.2105
Differences between major engine parts are as follows: Blocks- 2.0 is an underbored 2.3, with the exception of the bore the blocks are identical to all 2.3’s (note the ranger 2.0 block can not be bored out to accept a 2.3 pistons). ’75-’88 2.3’s are interchangeable. ’89-’94 same as ’83-’88 2.3’s but have a smaller main journal saddle, the oil pan seal surface was changed in ‘87 to eliminate the 4 piece seal and holes were added in the front to bolt on the DIS’s crank trigger assembly. ’95-‘01 similar to the ’89-‘95’s but a Cam Position Sensor was added behind the aux sprocket, the hole for the distributor was eliminated and the oil pump was moved in place of the aux. shaft itself. Turbo blocks are identical to the ’83-’88 Ranger blocks but have an additional boss w/ a hole threaded in the pass. side about ½ way back that provides a place to drain the lubricating oil back into the engine from the turbo.
Cranks- 2.0 and early 2.3 Lima cranks are identical. Late 2.3 Lima cranks have smaller main journals. 2.5 Lima cranks are identical to 2.3 Lima except they have a longer stroke. Rods- 2.0 and 2.3 (including turbo) rods are identical up through at least ’94. In fact they still have the original D4 (’74) casting number on them. Pistons- The 2.0 pistons are unique and don’t interchange. The 2.3 pistons are all the same excluding the turbo versions, which were forged. Low compression (8.0-1) in the ’83-‘88’s and high compression (9.0-1) in the ’79-‘81’s. The 2.5 pistons are similar to the 2.3’s but have a different wrist pin height.
Heads- All 2.0/2.3/2.5 heads will physically bolt in place of each other, they all have similar exhaust port shape and placement. All cams are interchangeable as long as they are used with the proper followers. Later model ('95 and newer) roller cam followers cannot be easily swapped onto an older head as the valve stem size was reduced in the newer heads and matching slot in the follower was reduced, the 83-88 2.0 carburated Ranger engine and 2.3 carburated Ranger engines have the same small round intake ports spaced evenly apart, they differ from each other in their valve sizes though.
There are several variations on the 2.3 heads though they break down into 4 distinct types: 1. Passenger car oval port heads-’74-’80 Mustang, Pinto, Fairmont, Bobcat, etc. 2. Passenger car D-port head-’81-’95? T-bird, Mustang, Etc. 3. Truck round port- ’83-’88 carburated Ranger 4. Truck D-port- ’89-’01 Ranger. The '89-'94's and '95-'01's have different combustion chambers and ports. Do not make the intake ports larger on the 2.0 EAO, or 2.3 Lima with the oval ports as they are all ready too big for the size of the engine which is why in 1981 they went to the d-port intake port, on the 2.0 EAO you can actually fill the bottom of the intake port with a 1/4 inch of epoxy (or your favorite filler) making it a d-port, you will not lose any airflow (cfm) but you will drasticaly increase port velosity which = more power.
Roller Camshafts '88-'94 Ranger Roller cam .215" lift at lobe. Lobe is .675 wide Follower's roller diameter is .900" '95-'01 Ranger Roller cam .215" lift at lobe. Lobe is .510 wide Follower's roller diameter is .900"
Head gasket for turbo or any Lima engine (0-27psi)- Fel-pro #1035 Recommended Valve Seals (Good for N/A too) Intake- E7ZZ-6571-A Exhaust- E7ZZ-6571-B
Cylinder Head Flow Numbers D=d-port / T-D= turbo d-port / L-dual= 97-01 dual plug / E-dual= 88-96 dual plug / Ess-D= Esslinger ported d-port/ inches D T-D Oval Round L-dual E-dual Ess-D ported ARCA
.050"---27.55--27.8---28.6---31.0---30.0---27.3---28.1---33.2---33.7 .100"---48.9---54.5---55.9---59.0---58.0---54.9---51.4---65.6---61.3 .150"---61.8---75.4---78.9---77.7---86.7---78.3---76.7--106.5---91.6 .200"---75.2--100.6--100.3--101.6--110.7---96.1--105.5--138.8--122.0 .250"---88.0--120.7--122.3--122.0--130.3--109.4--132.3--169.3--149.8 .300"--101.6--132.3--136.8--135.5--143.3--120.4--156.3--196.5--175.8 .350"--116.5--140.1--146.6--142.7--153.1--128.4--177.7--218.6--198.5 .400"--131.0--144.0--150.5--145.3--158.9--132.3--190.7--234.8--218.6 .450"--144.0--149.2--153.1--145.9--164.1--134.9--199.8--247.1--236.1 .500"--151.8--154.4--156.9--149.2--166.8--136.8--205.6--250.4--252.3 .550"--158.2--159.5--156.3--150.5--168.8--138.8--210.1---------265.9 .600"--163.4--160.8--156.3--151.8--170.2--140.1--214.7---------275.0 .650"----------------------------------------------206.9---------283.1 .700"----------------------------------------------207.6---------290.2
Our pile of crap moved under its own steam again today. I think we are going to be real hard on brakes this year.
Nashco wrote:Buzz Killington wrote: you'd be shocked at what can be done w/ in the cap. we were talking about that the other day...about how luxurious a $2009 budget would be ("you mean we have another $1509 to spend?!?!?").Yeah...although it's nice in LeMons that you don't have to worry about being pretty or even being fast. You just have to keep it running for several hours a time. When $2009 competitors are running 10s in the quarter and come with a fully repainted car, that's a whole new ballgame compared to the rats we've brought out to LeMons.
you make an excellent point, sir.
Jensenman wrote: Wait. Someone DYNOED a LeMons car?
We dyno'd our LeMons car, but it wasn't "to see what kind of power it makes" it was to make sure our AFR's weren't going to bring our effort up short in 16-18 hours of driving in "anger"!
It also helps to have free access to a dyno...
I've dyno'd everything in my stable... just because I can...
I would have been afraid to dyno the 3.8 in the terd because it didn't sound real healthy to begin with. AFR wasn't a problem since it randomly belched black smoke for no reason and the blue smoke told us all kinds of stuff was getting oil.
ThunderTurd Dyno:
Est HP 16' of black on Jensenman's driveway and out of the gas to keep from parking it on top of the Abomination.
Yep, we used the redneck dynamometer.
16' = 128.7whp!
I bet that figure doesn't include me getting out of the gas before I ran out of room. 
We used a digital dyno on the Tunchucker Volvo.
Did it accelerate on the test drive or didn't it? This was the only "test drive" before the event last year. The car did, in fact, gain speed over the length of several blocks.
Acceleration = Does.
You'll need to log in to post.
