View Full Version : 2.3 SOHC Turbo + 24mpg = Ford Goofed
02-22-2005, 04:31 AM
I'd like to understand how I can build 90 Mustang with a 2.3 Turbo (out of a '88 T-Bird) for under 3000$ that makes 250hp and 24mpg, yet Ford doesn't seem to be able to do the same with all the ressources it has?<p>I've been into cars for a few decades now and it's always the same BS. "We can't make it more powerful! It's a tough design! It's too expensive! BLAH! BLAH! BLAH!"<p>Suuuuuuuuuuuuure it is.<p>A 1989 Suzuki Swift with a 1.0 3 cylinder engine made what? 48mpg?<p>How much does a Prius do again? 55? An Insight is 63. Wow... a whole 7 to 15mpg for cars that are "only" worth 25,000$ more. If I'd been designing the Prius I'd have put in a diesel engine and it would be making 75mpg, not 55. It's insane how they hold back from really going the whole way.<p>Modern technology my derriere. Older crap works better in some cases than the insanely complex (and expensive) modern stuff. So it's not a question of fine tuning, but one of willfull public manipulation.<p>Whatcha all think?
Those older gens 2.3 were over built and can take over 500hp. The heads don't flow too well but that's why you got turbos. The motors are actually from the older Pinto's that were 2.0. Everything the same but bigger dispalcement.
02-22-2005, 09:58 AM
Absolutely, I'm always amazed at how much power this old junkyard engine makes. It's got a ton of mileage on it and a bone stock base. Yet it pulls like a 5.0<p>I just love the looks on people faces when I tell them that it cost me less than the price of their stereo system to build my entire car. (I paid under 3000$ FYI)<p>But this kind of stuff got me to thinking about how much companies hold out on us. My 2.3 is fast and indestructible and costs nothing to repair. Anything breaks I just go to the scrapyard and get it off a 4 cylinder Ranger. When I look at all this exotic high buck stuff on cars today it's just mind blowing.<p>Not only that, but why the heck did Ford replace the Lima 2.3 SOHC in the Rangers? The engine lasted 200,000 miles easy. I've seen some with 300,000. All it really needed was a DOHC head. That would have cost a lot less than building a wholly new Mazda based block. Plus the parts were dirt cheap for Ford. Sometimes I wonder what they're thinking...
02-23-2005, 11:11 AM
There are other issues such as emissions... Also, it costs companies a lot of money to modify anything as they have to test the heck out of it to avoid reliability issues. I am sure you got it right but there are many that tinker with cars and just screw them up...<p>There was an interesting interview to the kids (they were really young) "builders" that helped Chrysler develop the SRT 4 Neon. They were amazed of all the difficulty that manufacturers go through. These kids were top Tuners from the LA area so they did know what was going on.
02-23-2005, 05:11 PM
I seem to agree with montreal mustang on new technologies not being necesarily better than older ones. Take the case of Lotus and their much praised aluminum chasis, but there are other steel spaceframe cars that are lighter. The best example is the Ariel atom which is about 160kg lighter than lotus' own 340R.
02-23-2005, 10:56 PM
umm... lupo tdi diesel 95mpg, 100 km using 3 litres. The prius is just pointless and pricey.
02-23-2005, 11:04 PM
The reason lupo is not in America is because of the simple reason that it's fuel efficient. It doesn't satisfy their appetite for fuel wasting.<p>Americans love to waste energy in the most unwise ways possible. Like bogging around the neighbourhood in off-roaders that drink 2 gallons of petrol every 2 cm and use the most energy in the whole entire world. More than the whole EU which has 10 times america's population. It's also the reason why America has the worst quality fuel in the world, because since they are so much in off-roaders that it's not worth it giving them higher octane fuel. Which is bad news to drivers who drive decent cars.<br>
02-24-2005, 05:01 AM
Actually the reason that fuel is wasted in America is that it's so cheap. Like I said, I built a 250hp Mustang for under 3,000$ (1,815 euros). Try doing that in europe. I didn't get it inspected, it has NO exhaust system beyond a straight pipe. The insurance for the car is a piddling 50$ a year and It only costs me 40$ to fill up the tank (which lasts me about 2 weeks in normal driving).<p>Gas in europe is monstrously expensive and cars cost a LOT of money. Plus theres insurance and parking and yearly inspections. All of which cost a helluva lot more than 50$<p>My car isn't exactly maintained either. Here's a pic:<p><A HREF="http://pages.videotron.com/knox/mustang.jpg" TARGET="_blank">http://pages.videotron.com/knox/mustang.jpg</A><p>It has no speedometer, the electric windows work when they feel like it, it has no parking brake and the suspension is so shot that the car bounces for the next ten miles after hitting a bump. Not to mention that the tires I have on the car were FOUND in the woods behind a junkyard where the owners throw away stuff that they can't sell.<p>So as you can see, this would never fly on the other side of the ocean. I can't imagine driving this thing in England. First time I'd set off a car alarm while driving by (the exhaust is a tad loud) I'd get ticketed.<p>I love the engine and how this thing drives even though it's not pretty, but it's no refined ride by any means. My ultimate goal is 400hp. That way I can make everyone who races me cry when I win by a mile <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.germancarfans.com/images/forums/icon11.gif" BORDER="0"> <p>As for Americans and their love of SUV's. Hey, I sympathize with you, I hate those big gas hog trucks too, but to be honest most people no matter where they come from have no taste. Look at all those van "things" that are being sold in Europe. Those aren't exactly pretty. I'm dead certain that if they had the room and the money they'd drive crap just as bad as any Yank.<BR><BR>
<i>Modified by MontrealMustang at 8:26 AM 2/24/2005</i>
02-24-2005, 08:54 AM
I have to agree with you on that one Montreal. Having owned a second gen diesel VW Golf I must I can verify that old technology is nowhere near as worthless as some would think. I used to get over 50 miles per gallon on that thing (in city driving) and had no loss of speed or added expense (due to the fancy powertrain). I used to have to fill it up about once a month (twice if I was doing a lot of driving), and once drove it from southern Virginia to New york city in under 3/4 of a tank. (I drove for a week in NYC before I had to add fuel again. Sure it didn't have direct injection and winter starts produced a puff of blue smoke that would make environmentalist cringe. However, as I understand it, many of those issues have been largely resolved with modern diesels. Amen to your words my brother.
02-25-2005, 12:21 PM
I would have to congratulate you on your achievement Montreal. Every single automaker is guilty of not making the best decisions when it comes to fuel economy. Even Toyota that keeps receiving praise for the prius is still building new truck plants in the US, churning out more trucks while they sell a minute number of the expensive prius. <p>I see turbos as a way of closing the gap between diesel and petrol efficiency. The good thing about turbos(especially with direct injection) is that when the power is not needed, the boost is lowered hence lowering fuel delivery and fuel consumption. seems smarter than cylinder cut-off technologies that still have the pistons running and casing frictional loss.
02-25-2005, 07:39 PM
Careful of driving that banger of yours, with 250 hp on tap and super bouncy suspension you could really prance like a mustang on the turns. <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.germancarfans.com/images/forums/laugh2.gif" BORDER="0"> <br>I would not be complaining the crazy amount of off-roaders on American roads if all the mothers need to drive over treacheous rough mountains to ferry the kids to school. Is that really the case? If so, sorry... I didn't know it's still uncivilized over the pond<br>If not, then it appears that Americans are trying to do the simplest task (taking kids to school) by the most fuel wasting, polluting, and unelegant way (going to school on a T-rex? not for me!)possible.<p>Prius is just pathetic, with so much complicated technology underneath and selling for so much money it can't even match a simple little lupo in fuel economy. Prius is a slow, complicated, pricey, not very fuel efficent and pointless way of getting around. <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.germancarfans.com/images/forums/1orglaugh.gif" BORDER="0"> <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.germancarfans.com/images/forums/bangin.gif" BORDER="0"> <p>Montreal, the funniest thing you said is that the prius could only make 75 mpg even with diesel engine? A normal lupo diesel could make 94.4 mpg combined without all that crap to pull. So the power of batteries and electric motor is to compensate the weight these two things gain? It doesn't make sense. Toyota has no brain. <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.germancarfans.com/images/forums/bangin.gif" BORDER="0"> <br>So It appears that only people from America Dreamland would by such ridiculous invention from Toyota. Maybe, there mind is like toyota. They could drive tons of Prius to compensate the pollution and fuel wasting there off-roaders did to our world.<br><BR><BR>
<i>Modified by hokman at 8:05 PM 2/25/2005</i>
02-25-2005, 08:15 PM
But wait... no, the stupidest and self-image UNconscious human must exist not in America but in the ridiculous place called Canada. Have anyone heard of a thing called a Kia Rio? Yea, I didn't notice that it is an automobile until recently, I thought it's just something you pick up from a dollar store. Until... I see the car being tested by Top gear, and you know what? It's actually contesting with the hyundai accent(or accident) diesel as the most worthless and worst car in the world award. The Kia didn't won, but still it didn't manage to climb a easy slope that can be easily accomplish by a 90 year old man. The engine would just sputter to a stop and then roll back down the hill. But still, this Kia thing still managed to get millions of customers here in Vancouver. As I see one every single second on the street around every corner. Apart from the fact that the car is total rubbish, those retards here in Canada who bought kia also suffers from the 99% depreciation in the first second, and maintenience is much higher cost than a normal car. And one more thing, how much is the kia's price less than a focus or corolla? well only a few thousand. Those retards thought they saved a few thousand!! hahahahahahahahah<p>And contrary to your expectation, I'm not actually proud of being in canada, the nation consisting a high number of stupiest people existing on the face of this earth. <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://images.zeroforum.com/smile/emthdown.gif" BORDER="0">
Maybe you should cross the border then...the mexicans do it illegally all the time...then you can be proud to be an American...there are a lot of things I hate about America, but the things that make me proud to be one outweigh the dislikes...
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.