the 2.3 is a completely different engine, i dont think the rockers will swap. The head has 5 brgs for the cam not 3. It looks like a 2.0 on steroids and has a alloy r/cover std. If you can find 1 thats turbo'd it will give lots of sideways action from their 230bhp, get the gearbox from the car too (Mustang '85-'93?, and the Ford Murkur)a Sierra looking thing(XR4i), a total rebuild should be done as these motors usually smoke lots from early on..

Rightyo completely different engine, got it.

So now I'm looking at doing an engine conversion with one as I can get my hands on a fully rebuilt 2.3pinto with forged pistons for $1100. unsure on the year will have to confirm that. But its the non turbo version so i think stock the highest is 92hp out of it.

"One major change to hit the industry in 1972 was in the method used to measure horsepower. Using a net figure based on engine power received at the rear wheels rather than the gross number generated untethered on a test stand (incorrect, net hp is measured at the flywheel, but with the engine fully dressed with accessories), the 75 bhp (56 kW) rating of Pinto's 1.6 litres (98 cu in) engine dropped to 54 bhp (40 kW) for 1972, while the bigger 2.0 litres (120 cu in) four went from 100 horsepower (75 kW) in 1971 to 86 hp (64 kW) in '72.[7]" - Wiki

So thats 92hp that the wheels =)
What makes this all the more interesting is that Ford got the thunderbird Turbo Coupe to 142 kW (190 hp) and 325 N·m (240 ft·lbf) with injection and a turbo. That would be enough for me.

Thanks for the info marty i will look into that gearbox and see if i can find one on US ebay.

Have a looky at this Pinto'd motorbike!!!!
There is also pics of a 2.3 turbo unit from a Thunderbird.
http://www.bob2000.com/pinto2.htm

2.0 Pinto weighs about 145 kg
2.3 Pinto weighs about 190 kg
2.3 Pinto Turbo weighs about 205 kg

Something to think about

I found a site that says a bare 2L is 130kg and the 2.3turbo with turbo and flywheel is 170kg EDIT:204kg with everything attached

40kgs in it. If i added a flywheel and a turbo to the 2L it would be what around the 140-145 mark. So thats 25kgs in it. The extra power that the 2.3 will make over the 2L makes up for the weight. In a straight line.

In regards to handling if i can get the engine to sit further back so the same ammount of weight is over the front wheels it will still handle the same sorta yeah?

thanks for the help guys.

Oh and marty that bike is crazy! 1 gear 0-160mph holy poo poo!!!! thanks for the links =)

quote:

---

Originally posted by martymexico

the 2.3 is a completely different engine, i dont think the rockers will swap.

---

Marty, The 2.3 roller rockers are used when changing the 2.0 to a roller setup with the long stem valves. You are correct that they will not work with a standard cam/follower setup.

Shaun

Seems that in the US the Merkur XR4Ti used a T9 gearbox and it run with 175hp at the wheels and 12-14psi of boost.

And the mustang SVO turbo coupe used a T-5 the same box found in E series falcons. That would be convent as i have a E series falcon box in the back yard.

Just posting this so someone can let me know if im thinking wrong.

I just finished putting a 2.3L in a Mk1 escort about 2 years ago. I thought it was the same as the 2L and would fit straight in... But i was wrong!! But ended up getting it in there with a heap of mods.

I will try and put a pic up.


[img][/img]

Try again

Very nice - a mate has one of these engines complete if anyone wants?