RossD
RossD MegaDork
12/23/20 7:19 p.m.

The FB ad says its a 3.0 liter Ford. 

Any ideas what engine series this is?

pres589 (djronnebaum)
pres589 (djronnebaum) PowerDork
12/23/20 7:50 p.m.

I think that's a 2.3 HSC out of a Tempo or similar hi-perf vehicle.  Google image search and just thinking about the options brought me there.

Slippery (Forum Supporter)
Slippery (Forum Supporter) UltraDork
12/23/20 7:56 p.m.
pres589 (djronnebaum) said:

I think that's a 2.3 HSC out of a Tempo or similar hi-perf vehicle.  Google image search and just thinking about the options brought me there.

Never heard Ford Tempo and hi-perf vehicle in the same sentence before!

RossD
RossD MegaDork
12/23/20 8:02 p.m.

Thats it. The 2.3 HSC thats just a 200 inline 6 with two cylinders missing.

LarryNH (Forum Supporter)
LarryNH (Forum Supporter) Reader
12/23/20 8:04 p.m.

In reply to Slippery (Forum Supporter) : an oxymoron 

 

pres589 (djronnebaum)
pres589 (djronnebaum) PowerDork
12/23/20 8:09 p.m.

I about wrote something else a bit rude and decided to be funny instead.  From everything I've read of these engines they were total bean counter products and, yes, built around 200 inline-six tooling and general design.  I don't understand why they didn't just use the Lima OHC four cylinder engine family and not built this thing at all.  Probably a sub-$50 savings per unit built and that was enough to make it worth doing in the eyes of Ford.

GCrites80s
GCrites80s HalfDork
12/23/20 8:24 p.m.

With all the talk of domestic engine commonality historically, you can pretty much throw that out when it comes to the addition of 4-cylinders in the early '80s. There were way too many different ones at both GM and Ford. Then all they did was complain that they couldn't beat the Japanese when it comes to small cars. They didn't learn that until they started Lima-ing and Quad-4ing everything, for better or worse.

Pete. (l33t FS)
Pete. (l33t FS) MegaDork
12/23/20 8:36 p.m.
pres589 (djronnebaum) said:

I about wrote something else a bit rude and decided to be funny instead.  From everything I've read of these engines they were total bean counter products and, yes, built around 200 inline-six tooling and general design.  I don't understand why they didn't just use the Lima OHC four cylinder engine family and not built this thing at all.  Probably a sub-$50 savings per unit built and that was enough to make it worth doing in the eyes of Ford.

Probably too tall, too long, for front drive use.

 

The Tempo and Escort had remarkably cramped engine bays and the 2.3 was an amazingly large engine.

 

Now... why didn't they use the CVH in the Tempo?  I mean, it was RIGHT THERE.  And made about the same power.  And the chassis were really similar.

Mr_Asa
Mr_Asa SuperDork
12/23/20 9:07 p.m.
RossD said:

Thats it. The 2.3 HSC thats just a 200 inline 6 with two cylinders missing.

To the point that you can even use the pistons (and possibly the rods) in the 200

GCrites80s
GCrites80s HalfDork
12/23/20 9:37 p.m.
Pete. (l33t FS) said:
pres589 (djronnebaum) said:

I about wrote something else a bit rude and decided to be funny instead.  From everything I've read of these engines they were total bean counter products and, yes, built around 200 inline-six tooling and general design.  I don't understand why they didn't just use the Lima OHC four cylinder engine family and not built this thing at all.  Probably a sub-$50 savings per unit built and that was enough to make it worth doing in the eyes of Ford.

Probably too tall, too long, for front drive use.

 

The Tempo and Escort had remarkably cramped engine bays and the 2.3 was an amazingly large engine.

 

Now... why didn't they use the CVH in the Tempo?  I mean, it was RIGHT THERE.  And made about the same power.  And the chassis were really similar.

I imagine that part of the Mazda partnership was to get access to Mazda's shorter engines to keep from having to continue to build all these different 4-cylinders.

pres589 (djronnebaum)
pres589 (djronnebaum) PowerDork
12/23/20 10:06 p.m.

In reply to GCrites80s :

The only Mazda engine that went into the Tempo was the diesel flavor of the Mazda R motor and that was a really rare installation (for every obvious reason).  Agreed on the CVH probably making more sense than the 2.3 Lima due to the Lima's overall height.  I think manufacturers are smarter about this now; fewer basic engine "platforms" and just tweak as needed for the specific vehicle application. 

Chesterfield
Chesterfield Reader
12/24/20 12:57 a.m.

This engine was built in 2.3l and 2.5l displacements, and they were used in tempo/topaz and taurus/sable platforms. Ford had some issues in the early 80s with engine supply. All fox bodies were originally going to use the 3.8 v6, but they did not have the supply so they used 200 straight six. They needed more 4 cylinders, but did not want to spend a lot on development so the hsc is made. At least, that is what I remember hearing, but that was almost 40 yrs ago so my my memory might be fuzzy.

jimbbski
jimbbski SuperDork
12/24/20 11:03 a.m.

The comment on the small engine bay is interesting as the late Tempo/Topaz got the 3.0L Vulcan V6 with a 5 sp or auto. I remember that the V6 manual was not a slow vehicle. The 2.3L with an auto was a total dog from a stop as I had one for a rental once. Once you got it going it wasn't bad but off the line I could run faster the first 50 ft.  

Pete. (l33t FS)
Pete. (l33t FS) MegaDork
12/24/20 11:28 a.m.

In reply to jimbbski :

The engine bay was so narrow for the V6 that there was a Tempo-specific accessory drive and water pump.

Our Preferred Partners
F18gs8etJSrpOAH5vDFq7S5wIBBQ38dzFmUCmq85Fj6lKSbJ3SZFXEusVfqorMm3