SHM. To answer your question about how much work does it take to get 400hp... NOT MUCH. How long will it last... EASILY TWICE as long as your 400hp rotary (or more)

400 hp has been made using a stock short block, mild porting, big valves, a ported stock E6 exhaust manifold and a Holset turbo, spinning around 20 psi. If this combo is tuned properly, it will run for many many miles.

Digital. Putting a T5 behind our 2.3L, these things are not taking much abuse, so NO, I'm not confused. If you stick a standard T5 behind a V8, that is a different story. However, a World Class T5 will hold quite a bit of horsepower, and last plenty long. If you are blowing T5's, I would guess you are blowing the 2-3 syncro? Am I correct? Why, becuase I have broke these behind my stroker 351W in my Stang. Our 2.3L engines do not create the shock through the drivetrain that typically breaks tranny's and rear ends. Our power comes on, not at the launch, but about 500-1000 rpm later, after the drivetrain has a chance to get spinning.

Lastly, if we were into this to build a full on race car, I can assure you that you would not see any posts here abot it until it was done, and track proven. However, we are looking for a cheap alternative to the overpriced rotary engine. We are NOT building race cars here, we are building street cars to play around with.

Jesse

 

Back on subject. I have received all of the final pieces to my drivetrain. I will be picking up my flywheel tomorrow, and installing that and the new LUK Clutch I just got. I will be taking more pics for those to see that wish to.

Next tasks: adapting the Ford fuel rail to the stock RX7 fuel lines, relocating the battery, and having a driveshaft built.

Stay tuned for pics this weekend.

 

I suppose turbo 4 torque might live a T5 a little longer. I would say it's more of a "plenty strong for the application" instance.

I've never run T5s, just worked on friend's Mustangs (mostly blown 302/306s and a couple of nitrous 347s) that were eating them for dinner. They've all gone TKO or glide since then though.

Hopefully you won't have any issues and it'll all be a moot point.

 

Digi.. I understand your concern. My Stroked 351W, on NOS would eat 3rd gear out of the stoutest W/C T5. Thanks for the reminder how weak these trannys are when you are putting out some REAL torque numbers, and hitting them with a lot of that at launch.

L8r
Jesse

 

Jess, you can get the plans for an adaptor plate off turboford to use a 302 bellhousing to mount a T-56 up to a 2.3 if you ever break a T-5... its been done! Trannys bigger than the whole motor LOL.

Just letting ya know your options if you snap Mr T-5 is all. And if you care about weight you could get the G-force gears, bla bla bla.

Also, what kind of clutch are ya using? Pucked? And what weight flywheel? Thanks for keeping us so well posted on the swap

 

Flywheel is 100% stock. I'm having it turned true. Clutch is a stock replacement LUK. I have used their cluthces to move my stroked 351W. I used to launch it at 4500 on slicks, and it never gave in. We'll see how it works for me.

Jesse

 

UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE

I'm so agrivated right now. I went to bolt on the flywheel, and guess what, that hits the rear cross memeber. I had to pull out the rack, and i'm going to have to use washers to space down the front subframe 1/4 to 1/2 inch. Then get the whole car re-aligned. I hope this is not a huge ordeal, as I was hoping to get this thing together with minimal headaches.

This is not the case. I can not see how someone can build an adapter kit, and it is so wrong. I'm really upset right now. He should of built it 1/2 inch higher, and let us deal with hood clearance issues. However, I doubt he had a complete engine when he was building his mounting kit.

Just venting
Jesse

 

He probably mocked it up on a coupe. You are talking about the additional crossmember that the convertible has when you say rear crossmember, aren't you? Forgive me if I misunderstood but that's what it sounds like to me.

 

Yes, there are two cross memebers that are on the car. One runs right around the crank pulley, and the other runs right where the flywheel goes.

Can I "adjust" that crossmember?

 

That second crossmember, IIRC, is basically subframe reinforcement. I'd bet you can remove it outright to get to the flywheel, but Id also bet you should talk to a vert guy whod know before taking my advice.. cos I dunno verts.

 

I may just do that, and see if I can get the drivetrain in there, then NOTCH it, until it fits and re-install that crossmember.

I'll keep everyone posted.

 

That cross member is not present on non verts, but if you plan on having 3-400whp you probably want all the reinforcement you can get. Can you remove it and add a strut brace triangulated to the firewall to reinforce that area?

 

I am going to remove it out completely to do the installation. Then either build one that works or just grind off the 1-3 inche chunk that will allow my engine to fit in there.

 

Not sure about the setup of this engine but I assume it is a EFI engine? If your any good at welding and what not you should pick up a set of hibusa ITBs on EBAY and weld together your own intake and then mate the 2 together, you should get some good increase is turbo response times on the low end and some even better pick up towards the upper end of the power line.

 

sounds like you figured out the crossmember, just remove it and fab up your own or have something welded on after the install is completed. for a car as custom as yours, you can easily weld or bolt up more cross bracing to keep your vert from creaking and groaning under loads.

keep up the good work man!

 

Its EFI dude. Also, these engines dont rev high stock, and even modded dont because they dont NEED to. They can get 400 whp done with a big powerband well within a 6500 rpm redline. Stock it only pulls to like 5500 rpms... lol It also gets going nice and early in the powerband. Buut we're not staying stock, are we?

I know what youre thinking... but it works with the lower rpms. You can basically spin them as high as youre willing to sacrafice low end, within reason, but frankly theres no reason to do it.

 

What was done to this engine to make that power? Like what turbo/engine management system, etc?

 

In that case it was a HY35w turbo, a cam (I forget which), and a home porting job on the iron head, gutted and rotated intake and an exhaust header, IIRC. Also, I think his standalone was a Holley system, but its really no big deal... MS can do that, a properly MAF converted stock ECM can do that, etc. Oh, and cant forget injectors, fuel pump, etc.

If you want to replicate that just get a HX35 or HY35 turbo, one of the ubuquitious 220* (at .05 lift) turbo cams for the 2.3, ported iron head or an esslinger aluminum head (prolly the better choice in the long run) and a new intake and exhaust w/ a standlone, and of course a fuel pump and injectors.

Uhh... and thats basically it. Not very expensive. If you want to rev higher than 6800 rpms or make more power than that get some sportsman rods, and then your rpm limit is basically your valvetrain, but if you worked on that IIRC the stock crank can take 7800 rpms. But, the thing is, theres no NEED To rev high to make lots of power with a turbo, only going NA really. Higher boost ratios from holsets and higher efficiency from pistons goes a long way.

And, the other thing, the N/A blocks of that era had the same crank and rods as the turbo, and even the same boss in the bock for the oil line to the turbo, just not drilled. And Im sure you know how many cars in the 90s had the ford 2.3, right? A LOT. Youd just need to drill that boss out and get some oem or aftermarket turbo pistons.

 

What is IIRC?

 

IIRC = If I recall correctly.

 

Yeah, agreed.... I started posting on this thread because I didn't fully read it, i thought Nihilanthic finally got his car running.

Oh yeah, its funny how you downplay the mods he has done to it. Like the "it's not a big deal to have a standalone, a stock computer can do that." Um, why be an cheap idiot and take your chances with a piggy back or remapped ecu? It's retarded not to own a standalone when wanting 400+ hp at the wheels on a small, especially boosted, engine like that.

But whatever, do it however you like, its your car

 

Youre not taking chances on reflashing an EEC. Its actually a very good ECM, and it gets the job done. Its been done, before, repeatedly. The only downside is you might not make quite as much power as if you used a standalone, because the EEC on a 2.3 doesnt have very aggressive spark mapping. But, it will give you rock steady air/fuel ratios and richen out as load (torque) goes up... and basically be just like any other MAF computer.

And, well, DUH, a full blown standalone is better than a partially cracked ECM for tuning, but coming accross like youre taking a risk with reliability with it is utter nonsense. The downsides are not quite as much power and not quite as fast of a responce time as a well done speed-density system.

I see we're already resorting to the ad-hominem attacks again, even Jimlab whose been going on for 3+ years and the same old rotard had to chime in. College goes before the car, sorry.

 

l

 

.

 

'