1 2 3
FranktheTank
FranktheTank New Reader
2/27/13 11:09 a.m.

Then slap on a thunderbird turbo.

I always wanted to pull a diesel out of a bobcat skid steer loader. They have the same dimensions as the 2.3.

tuna55
tuna55 UberDork
2/27/13 11:46 a.m.
volvoclearinghouse wrote: My tow/ general abuse vehicle is a '92 Dodge with a 12V Cummins. Awesome engine. Worst truck ever. ;-)

but it has -SUPER- comfy seats if you can find them instead of plopping your ass down on the floor next to the seat.

Mike, it sounds like you're doing this for fun - the payback isn't that great. I know at least one story where a guy redid the powerplant in a slant six Duster to get better fuel economy and ended up with a small turbo. Smaller throttle angle, less reliance on good heads, cheaper and easier than an engine swap. I'd say do that. The little B18 can handle it, and cheap small turbos are everywhere in the junkyard. Just leave the boost on the low side and enjoy it. Stay off the right pedal and out of the boost when you don't need it and the fuel economy should improve significantly from the current setup.

kreb
kreb SuperDork
2/27/13 1:23 p.m.

Are there any interesting small diesels? I think about the guy who took a Kubota turbo-diesel out of a tractor and put it in his Locost. He got something like 60 MPG. Then he put on a slippery Lotus Elevenesque body and he's close to 100 MPG.

http://www.kineticvehicles.com/

volvoclearinghouse
volvoclearinghouse Reader
2/27/13 2:17 p.m.
tuna55 wrote:
volvoclearinghouse wrote: My tow/ general abuse vehicle is a '92 Dodge with a 12V Cummins. Awesome engine. Worst truck ever. ;-)

but it has -SUPER- comfy seats if you can find them instead of plopping your ass down on the floor next to the seat.

Mike, it sounds like you're doing this for fun - the payback isn't that great. I know at least one story where a guy redid the powerplant in a slant six Duster to get better fuel economy and ended up with a small turbo. Smaller throttle angle, less reliance on good heads, cheaper and easier than an engine swap. I'd say do that. The little B18 can handle it, and cheap small turbos are everywhere in the junkyard. Just leave the boost on the low side and enjoy it. Stay off the right pedal and out of the boost when you don't need it and the fuel economy should improve significantly from the current setup.

I've thought about doing a simple, draw-through turbo on the carb setup, throttled to 1/2 bar of boost max. Luckily, I have several 122's to experiment with, and see which setup gives the best R.O.I., most fun, easiest, etc. :-)

MichaelYount
MichaelYount Reader
3/19/13 9:35 a.m.

Midget w/2.0L Duratec on MS/T5/Volvo-Dana30 rearend narrowed.

http://www.midgetec.com/

atm92484
atm92484 None
3/19/13 1:26 p.m.

I got a Duratec powered Locost on the road about two years ago. I ended up using a NC 5 speed complete with NC clutch and flywheel.

The 2.0 was originally from a 2007 Focus. I originally transplanted the ECU, engine harness, PATs antenna/ignition key, and a few other odds and ends from the donor car. It worked pretty well but after doing a little driving it was evident that the ECU was either in some sort of "safe" mode or the tune was just not that sporty.

Instead of trying to sort the stock ECU, I ended up switching to a MS3X which allowed me to do ITBs, COP, and sequential fuel/spark. The biggest pain was sorting out how to get a return line on the returnless system.

The engine is a completely different animal now; where it had torque before, there is even more torque now and where it was flat before there is actually torque.

They are great little four cylinders for a light sporty car. If you are comfortable with electrical stuff and tuning, going with a standalone like a Megasquirt does great things to the engine. If not, be sure to get the ECU, PATs antenna, and key from the donor; the key and the ECU have to match or else the car will not crank or start.

volvoclearinghouse
volvoclearinghouse Reader
3/19/13 2:30 p.m.

Did the Ranger use the programmed key, too?

atm92484
atm92484 New Reader
3/19/13 2:52 p.m.

As far as I know, yes.

I know of another builder that used a Ranger as his donor and he did not get the key. I don't recall exactly what he had to do but he had to get another key programmed.

I did not realize this when I got my engine, harness, and ECU as I did not ask for the key. It wasn't the end of the world though since it was an auto ECU I was going to try to make work. I eventually bought a manual ECU; I made sure to get the key. Unfortunately the junkyard didn't understand that the key was worthless without the ECU and I also got to buy a steering column....

It got me running sooner but it would have been cheaper to learn Megasquirts during the original install.

Knurled
Knurled UltraDork
5/12/13 5:30 p.m.
fanfoy wrote: The british say that the Zetec bolts to any "pinto" transmission, because the block is based on the old pinto four. But anyone that tries on this side of the pond, seems to have problems.

Makes sense... The "Pinto" engine was only sold in the Pinto for two or three years. It's the 2-liter engine. The 2.3l "Lima" engine was what Pintos had starting in '74 or so. The 2.3 is like a big-block Pinto, everything is much bigger.

To complicate things, they made a 2-liter Lima in the 80s.

petegossett
petegossett UberDork
5/12/13 6:14 p.m.

The Zetec, 2.3L(including turbo) and CVH all share bellhousing bolt patterns, with the possible exception of an offset bolt or two. This is also true with the Ford/Lotus Twin Cam, which I believe is the same as the Lima block.

I know for a fact that the CVH oil pan bolts onto a Zetec - but there are oil pump clearance issues, as well the dipstick. I don't think the CVH oil pump will work with the Zetec block, from looking at pictures of each on eBay(which I don't exactly trust) it appears the inlet/outlet are in different locations on each one.

Knurled
Knurled UltraDork
5/12/13 6:48 p.m.

The Zetec can be thought of as an updated CVH. The heads can swap back and forth with minor work.

Every 2.3 that I've seen has two sets of upper bellhousing bolts, but the transmissions for the 2.3 use the upper set, while the trans for the Pinto pattern use the lower set, so it's kind of a one way swappability.

Somewhere in there the dowel pins changed diameters, too...

But the Ford/Lotus engine was long before the Lima engine, or even the Pinto engine, were built. It's based off of the Kent engine. (So was the BDA) The DOHC engine from the Cosworth Sierra/Escorts (YBB?) was Pinto-based.

iceracer
iceracer UberDork
5/13/13 9:36 a.m.

Not really.

the Zetec has a lower cylinder block, CVH doesn't.

The camshaft drive is different.

The water pump on the Zetec is driven by the accessory belt, the CVH by the timing belt.

The oil pan on the CVH is entirely different. the zetec has a flat gasket surface, the CVH does not.

RossD
RossD UberDork
5/13/13 9:53 a.m.

I've bolted a bellhousing from 2.0 liter pinto 4 speed to a Zetec. I have a 2000 Zetec from a focus so the starter is in the wrong spot, but you can just use the bellhousing's location for that. I never did any work to get a Zetec flywheel to see how that works with the bell. The Zetec came with an automatic flywheel/flexplate. I think one of the early Contour/Mystiques had the lower mounted starter if you don't like the one bolt missing.

I've bolted a 2.3 Lima's flywheel from a RAD4 to the Zetec but it was too deep for the pinto's bellhousing.

My '77 Capri had the 2.3 Lima and a goofy Ford of Germany Type F 4 speed and it used the lower bolt holes on the Lima's bellhousing pattern.

I don't see any big issues with getting a Zetec rear wheel drive if you got the right bellhousing and transmission.

asetech
asetech New Reader
5/13/13 10:31 a.m.
volvoclearinghouse wrote: I'm kinda liking the specs on the 2.3 truck Duratec. Since this will be a commuter car, power and torque peaks lower in the RPM band might be easier to live with, and I can run a lower numerical rear end. The pushrod B18 in the Volvo now is a lovable little engine, but pretty tractoresque, so I'm sure I won't notice or care about the Ranger Duratec's lack of balance shafts. Plus the simplicity of swapping out an entire drivetrain from a donor vehicle is pretty high. If it works, and I'm feeling adventurous, I could always try the 2.0/ 2.3/ 2.5 car engine swap later.

I have what you need sitting in my driveway. 02 ranger, 2.3 4cyl, 2wd, 5spd. Complete.

petegossett
petegossett UberDork
5/13/13 11:21 a.m.
iceracer wrote: The oil pan on the CVH is entirely different. the zetec has a flat gasket surface, the CVH does not.

Once you modify the CVH oil pan for the Zetec oil pump & dipstick, it bolts up fine. The gasket for either engine works.

volvoclearinghouse
volvoclearinghouse HalfDork
5/13/13 2:10 p.m.

In reply to asetech:

Unfortunately that's many multiple hundreds of miles away.

Got some cool ideas and information from this thread, and hopefully others wising to tread down this path will find this useful. But I've decided on a different path myself- less adventurous, perhaps, I'm D-I-Y fuel injecting the stock B18.

iceracer
iceracer UberDork
5/14/13 8:47 a.m.
petegossett wrote:
iceracer wrote: The oil pan on the CVH is entirely different. the zetec has a flat gasket surface, the CVH does not.

Once you modify the CVH oil pan for the Zetec oil pump & dipstick, it bolts up fine. The gasket for either engine works.

Sorry, I still say you are wrong. If you leave the lower block of the Zetec off' then maybe the CVH pan would fit. Since oil pumps are crank driven at the front I don't see that as a big deal. But the lower part is against the lower block. Oh, the Zetec does not have a pan gasket, silicone sealer only. the lower block does have a gasket.

petegossett
petegossett UberDork
5/14/13 9:44 a.m.

In reply to iceracer:

I don't have an "after" pic, but here it is before clearancing for the oil pump. All bolt holes and surfaces line up perfectly. Yes, I had to remove the baffled upper oil pan, but I'm adding a baffle to the CVH pan, and the CVH pickup fits perfectly. I finally found someone locally who can tig the pan, so this is a much lower-cost option than ordering a ~$500 RWD-oriented Zetec pan.

Photobucket Pictures, Images and Photos

iceracer
iceracer UberDork
5/14/13 6:03 p.m.

So the pan is taking place of the lower block.

Knurled
Knurled UltraDork
5/14/13 8:02 p.m.

More like the Zetec got a two piece structural oil pan.

Nice intersection of trying to improve NVH while retaining as much of the old tooling as possible.

Didn't Ford use the CVH longitudinally in some Sierras, or am I getting crosslinked chains again?

petegossett
petegossett UberDork
5/14/13 9:06 p.m.
iceracer wrote: So the pan is taking place of the lower block.

I've heard it referred to both as the "lower block" and as the "upper oil pan". Take your pick.

Both Raceline and ARE offer cast "wet-sump" kits for the Zetec that do without it, and have successful motorsports experience(if you're willing to pay ~$500 for either of their offerings). So while I'm sure there is some benefit added by having the stock 2-piece pan, for a RWD installation, I'd feel much better about going to a traditional sump intended for a north-south installation...or even better: dry-sump, but I'm not sure where I'd fit the external pump in my car.

iceracer
iceracer UberDork
5/15/13 9:50 a.m.

Well, Ford calls it "Lower Cylinder Block".

All of this points out that the basic block was changed very little.

Knurled
Knurled UltraDork
5/15/13 12:43 p.m.
iceracer wrote: Well, Ford calls it "Lower Cylinder Block".

Ford also calls the thing with four wires that threads into an 18x1.5 hole behind the catalyst a "Catalyst Monitor" and if you call a dealership asking for a "rear oxygen sensor" they'll sneer at you and claim to not know what it is...

1 2 3
Our Preferred Partners
EP9j1uLZw1M3JX7CRmyB6O43dH3gqroYiSFiRMO6wUT08VvF8E6xL9vsIH3KaN2R