Enable me.....or don't

The Falcon project keeps running into setbacks. I really wanted to build the car as a great cruiser with a 200ci 6 with turbo, EFI and a T-5 trans. Bucket loads of torque, an inline six soundtrack and a cool vintage motor with modern everything surrounding it vibe. Of the three six cylinder heads I have all three are cracked and determined unusable. I can't find another head and at this point I refuse to buy any that haven't been magnafluxed before I lay down the cash.

In my CL searches I found an 88 turbocoupe motor complete. It has been for sale for a few months now asking $300OBO. I greatly dislike buying a motor I cannot hear run and how do I know its head isn't cracked as well. I understand it is common on these too.

I do have a 2.3 T-5 with bellhousing sitting in the shop. I also have a Megasquirt earmarked for the Falcon and a spare EDIS4 setup laying around.

I had an XR4Ti 15 years ago that I loved and I remember feeling fast. Technically it probably weighed more than the Falcon does but after having my heart set on a 3.3 liter plus boost I worry that the 4 will feel soft on the low end. I also don't remember the Merkur sounding very good.

I talked to a local guy with a 2.3T in a 59 Edsel Ranger and he says it out performs the 292 Y block in every way.

Talk me into or out of going to look at it.

Oh yeah. For some reason I am strangely resistant to putting a V8 in this car. At that point it would become just another belly button Falcon.

Do it.

Don't do it. As cool as I think it is to put the 2.3t in there, it isn't nearly as cool as the original turbo 6 concept. I have a funny feeling that once you're done you'll still wish you found a way to build the car with a six. It may take more time and/or cost more, but if that's really what you want you should stick to the plan.

Please post pics of said Edsel

Neither of my Merkurs felt fast unless I was passing someone (once they're rolling, they'll really get up and go). Gearing would probably help that a bit.

I can't believe you can't find a good 300-6 head. I like the 2.3T, but you're right...the 6 is cooler.

The 4 cylinder might make for a better daily driver package (less weight on the nose?) for you, though...

I think fitting a 2.3T between the strut towers is a challenge on these cars...but you undoubtedly already have that figured out if you were thinking straight six with a turbo.

Clem

My falcon concept I was bench building a year ago was an NA newer Ford 4 cylinder. I forget...duratech? Basically ranger/miata donor parts was what I had in mind.

I've owned over 50 2.3T's. 3 didn't have cracked heads. RUN away!

(Chances are I owned this one, too.)

ClemSparks wrote: I can't believe you can't find a good 300-6 head. I like the 2.3T, but you're right...the 6 is cooler.

Not 300. A 200-250 "small six" is what I need. The 240-300 is a big block six and shares nothing in common other than cylinder count and manufacturer.

ClemSparks wrote: Neither of my Merkurs felt fast unless I was passing someone (once they're rolling, they'll really get up and go). Gearing would probably help that a bit. I can't believe you can't find a good 300-6 head. I like the 2.3T, but you're right...the 6 is cooler. The 4 cylinder might make for a better daily driver package (less weight on the nose?) for you, though... I think fitting a 2.3T between the strut towers is a challenge on these cars...but you undoubtedly already have that figured out if you were thinking straight six with a turbo. Clem

Didn't he say 200 6?

Junkyard_Dog wrote: Please post pics of said Edsel

Oohh! Hotpiped!

These must be older pics because it had an intercooler and BOV when I met him. Super strange hearing a loud BOV coming from a wide white shod Edsel

How about a video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZvuXnwLNTY

Ditchdigger wrote:

ClemSparks wrote: I can't believe you can't find a good 300-6 head. I like the 2.3T, but you're right...the 6 is cooler.

Not 300. A 200-250 "small six" is what I need. The 240-300 is a big block six and shares nothing in common other than cylinder count and manufacturer.

My bad. That makes more sense.

What head are you looking for? The 200 with the integrated log or one of the 250 with separate manifold?

You can get really fancy and go AL

http://classicinlines.com/alumoverview.asp

I can look while I'm in the yard for my 2 projects.

I'd stick with your original plan. There is no guarantee that 2.3T is any good and you would be back to square 1 but $300 poorer. Ford made a bazillion 200 inline 6 motors so finding a good head is only a matter of time.

Plus 2.3Ts sound like a sick tractor... I like the noise, but its not really "cool"

Matter of taste I think. IMO it sounds like youre driving a turbo that has a motor attached.

and in case it matters, the 2.3t i owned in a mustang got fantastic mileage. so good i wouldnt have believed it if i hadnt calculated myself. repeatedly.

doesnt matter if the heads cracked. Use it anyway.

Just because the head is cracked does it pass a pressure check?

Randall is an awesome guy! I am going to have to make the trip to Oregon to hang with him again sometime.

Daily driven 59 edsel. How can you not love that!

In reply to Ditchdigger:

I agree with Ranger50. Do it. Moar Turbo. And head is aluminium....

In reply to noddaz:

An alloy headed 2.3 turbo? Not from any factory car. That sucker is cast iron. I remember my first head gasket job on one. I thought it was stuck to the block. Nope just a lot heavier than I would have anticipated.

A Turbo Zetec or Duratec. Ok, I'll shut up now.

I drove one in a late 79 Mustang. Sounded like crap, ran like crap. I always thought I'd like one of those SVO Mustangs with the turbo, but that 79 cured that itch.

I say stick with the plan, small turbo six!

But wasn't the '79 a carb, and the SVOs EFI?

Cost is higher but have you considered the ford Aussie I6 turbo cross flow 4.0

They may have built a million of those 6 cylinders, but how many are left? Try some Southwest junk yards or cylinder head suppliers.

I do like the turbo 6 idea. Did they ever use that engine in boats?

maj75 wrote: I drove one in a late 79 Mustang. Sounded like crap, ran like crap. I always thought I'd like one of those SVO Mustangs with the turbo, but that 79 cured that itch. I say stick with the plan, small turbo six!

there are more differences than similarities between the one you sampled and the engine he's considering.