Author |
Topic: Turbo 2.3 (Read 291 times) |
|
Pikey
Junior Member
I'm a YaBB newbie!
Posts: 67
|
Anyone ever turbo'd a 2.3l Scorpio?
I'm struggling with torque in my 1.8l Nissan 200SX drift car, and anything over 2l capacity from the Nissan stable is 6 cylinders and quite pricey - so Im just browsing other engine ideas.
Would need to produce 350bhp and a sack full of torque and be at least semi-reliable at that power 
|
|
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
TiberiuS
Senior Member
Ex. 1996 2.3 Ultima - RIP P789 KHJ
 
Posts: 2257
|
 |
Re: Turbo 2.3
« Reply #1 on: Apr 18th, 2008, 9:00pm » |
 Quote  Modify
|
hehe...
Yes, I went down that route before I went for the Jag. Loved my Scorp, I'm no boy racer and value my clean license...but I admit I like a bit of speed when it's safe, I'm only human. The urge for some more torque/faster acceleration ate away at me badly.
Can't speak for the other guys here and I'm no expert, don't get me wrong. But the 2.3 is based on the old 2.0, an engine which wasn't designed for large amounts of power. TBH I think you're pushing that envelope even with a stock 2.3 with 150bhp/200nm, just look how many get cracked heads and gaskets in comparison with the 24v's which by their nature tend to get thrashed to death and mainly get broken up when the ancillaries/autoboxes break rather than cracked blocks/pistons inside the engine..
I wouldn't trust a normally aspirated 2.3 with 50bhp of power mods as my daily driver, let alone using one with forced induction for something like drifting which needs sustained high revs and lots of torque. Lovely engine, nice relaxed power and torque, better than a 4 pot has a right to be (ok, not a race car but...). However not the sort of engine to squeeze large amounts of power from and tax with forced induction and lots of revs.
By the time you've invested in forged pistons and things, surely you could just buy a better suited engine? 
Again, just my opinion which the other guys might not agree with. Good luck anyhow 
Regards, Bruce.
|
|
IP Logged |
Bruce - '07 Jaguar XKR coupe, '95 Jaguar XJ Sport 4.0, '82 Ford Capri 2.0 Ghia, '15 Honda Civic (sloooooww..)
|
|
|
pinto
Full Member
TD04 on a galaxy manifold ? whooooooosh !
Posts: 474
|
|
Re: Turbo 2.3
« Reply #2 on: Apr 18th, 2008, 9:25pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Id agree with the above - but only some of the points
The head is deffinately a weak point - but the DOHC bottom end is bulletproof - take one apart and you'll see reinforced bearing pillars and castings, with thicknesses a 200 pinto cossie block could only dream of. Personally, with the right engineering, i'd say the I4 botttom end could take 1000BHP !
The 2.3 can also produce an easy 180 bhp with a skimmed high CR head, the right cams, decent steel gaskets and a set of ARP head studs to hold the head down correctly. To give you an idea, the Escort RS2000 boys use the bottom end as the basis of their RS2300 conversions, and accheive 230+ Bhp all day - turbo'd you'd see the 300+ you require.
For easy power tho - cossie 24V - no question - there are companies offering twin turbo / twin supercharger conversions for these to make 500+ BHP
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Scorpio_Mike
Senior Member
Jeep Grand Cherokee 3.0 V6 & 2.8 Sierra XR4i 4x4
Posts: 2354
|
|
Re: Turbo 2.3
« Reply #3 on: Apr 18th, 2008, 10:18pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Don't dismiss the 2.8i or 2.9i 12v Cologne V6...add a turbo ( twin ? ) setup and you should easily get 250bhp. Bottom end is pretty bombproof too !
|
|
IP Logged |
Star sign is Scorpio !
Sierra XR4i's are great...especially when fitted with 4WD
|
|
|
pappa
Full Member
VM Diesel 2.5Tdi 90kW
Posts: 259
|
|
Re: Turbo 2.3
« Reply #4 on: Apr 30th, 2008, 10:34am » |
Quote Modify
|
Just a little bit on a side track here, but I think one of the reasons for the problems with the 2.3 head is that the bottom of the lump is iron cast and the head is aluminum/light metal alloy. They tend to heat up differently and one way to make it last longer is to let it idle for a while after it's been driven. This will even the temps. Same applies to any engine with the same construct. It's not only the Scorps 2.3 problem, but it happens in other cars as well.
Edit: I have actually been thinking about putting a small Turbo into my 2.3 lump. After the MOT of course and make it so that it is easy to remove for the MOT again. It just won't pass the MOT in Finland, even though the brakes & suspension in my car is from a Cossie.
|
|
IP Logged |
My cars are the best and the pigs and cows fly.
|
|
|
98scenic
Junior Member
Only my second Ford !
Posts: 53
|
|
Re: Turbo 2.3
« Reply #5 on: Apr 30th, 2008, 11:32am » |
Quote Modify
|
Just out of interest whats the maximum lb/ft rating on the auto gearboxes
Back in the days when I had a modded Saab 9000, quite a few used to tweak the engines and then break the auto transmissions with anything over about 240lb/ft
|
|
IP Logged |
Fix Or Repair Daily, surely a myth
|
|
|
TiberiuS
Senior Member
Ex. 1996 2.3 Ultima - RIP P789 KHJ
Posts: 2257
|
|
Re: Turbo 2.3
« Reply #6 on: Apr 30th, 2008, 12:16pm » |
Quote Modify
|
DOHC boxes are weaker than the 24v one although they will physically work if you swap them. I know people have had issues using 2.3 boxes in 24 valvers so probably less than 280nm is a good first guess, I wouldn't chance it unless I had an MT-75 manual box
ZF and GM publish the max specs for their boxes (sometimes the torque rating is even in the model number), nothing for Ford ones though.
|
|
IP Logged |
Bruce - '07 Jaguar XKR coupe, '95 Jaguar XJ Sport 4.0, '82 Ford Capri 2.0 Ghia, '15 Honda Civic (sloooooww..)
|
|
|
|
Home
Help
Search
Members
Login
Reply
Send Topic
Print