59 EDSEL 2.3 Turbo 5 Speed Conversion

[amcpacer]

You may enjoy my latest fuel economy project. I am converting my 59 Edsel Ranger to a modern fuel injected Ford Thunderbird 2.3 Turbo and 5 speed.

The engine I took out yesterday is a hideous massive carbureted V8 with a nasty 2 speed automatic. Everything was working great but as you can imagine a 2 speed / V8 = very bad fuel economy.

Today I tried to hang the 2.3 engine in place and found the oil pan is in the way of the lower frame cross piece and steering linkage. The issue is the 2.3 has the sump area located at the rear of the engine as opposed to the V8 which has the sump in the front allowing the engine to sit in place above the linkage.

Is there an alternate oil pan shape on a different ford 2.3 car / truck or will I need to mod the oil pan and pick up tube?

[gone-ot]

...we had two 1959 Edsels! A yellow 6-cylinder with 2-speed "Mile-O-matic" air-cooled (!) automatic 'Villager' Station Wagon (later converted to V8 and 3-speed auto) and a powder blue 6-cylinder 3-speed manual 'Ranger.'

..."long live" the horseshoe collar and Mercury Sucking-a-Lemon Ford!

[amcpacer]

HAHA! Long live that horseshoe collar!

I think I found out a good replacement oil pan. Apparently the Ford Pinto / Mercury Bobcat oil pan will interchange with my 1986 era block and has the sump in the front instead of the rear. I will need to start scouring wrecking yards for a nice Ford Pinto oil pan and oil pick-up tube. Anyone with a Pinto / Bobcat pan should get in contact with me since I neeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeed one.

Old Tele man, what kind of fuel economy did you get with your 1959 Edsels?

[Frank Lee]

Everything was working great but as you can imagine a 2 speed / V8 = very bad fuel economy...

My '59 Bel Air, 283 V8, 2sp Powerglide, gets 20mpg- unacceptable to me for a daily driver, but then I barely run a whole tank of gas through it some years.

Love the swap idea though! I've long observed that most of the time this sort of hobby car just has low-speed cruising duty, either at shows, parades, or out on the Sunday drive, so why does everyone stick a hot rodded V8 in? Actually at Back To The 50's (a huuuge show) I've long thought I'd like to have a drop-down electric 5th wheel, as "cruising the loop" is a stop-n-go process that happens at less than walking speed, for quite a long time period. Wouldn't even need much of a battery pack.

My other devious plan is to put the entire unit-body chassis pan from a 3800 fwd Park Avenue under the body of my "parts" '59, for use as more of a daily driver. I figure the donor P. Ave was good for around 30 mpg hwy so the '59 shouldn't come in too far under that...

Another swap that's been rattling around in my gourd is to put the diesel Escort w/5sp fwd unit into a '69 Chev pickup I have sitting here...

[amcpacer]

I plan to make this car my daily driver. The interior is perfect. The exterior has numerous minor rust areas that can be easily fixed. The electrical system is perfect with no sign of cracking on the insulation. I want to make this car very quiet and comfortable. I see no need for a big souped up V8 since it will not be drag racing. Around here people with 50s cars only seem to come out during cruises. I will be the exception.

I wonder what the fuel economy will be. The differential said 3.1:1 on the tag which should be great when combined with the overdrive 5th gear of the Borg Warner T-5 that is going in. edsel.com states that the car has a curb weight of 3775 lbs. That curb weight should be much less since I took out the super sized mega heavy V8 and Mile-O-Matic auto trans. The Ford 2.3 is a midget compared to what the car had in it. I have plans to cover the underside of the car with coruplast when it is finally up and running.

[Frank Lee]

You could plug your best guesses into the performance calculator here...

and/or you could come up with an estimate based on the fe of the donor vehicle.

What fe did Eddy give stock?

[Oval_Overload]

Given that the Thunderbird turbo fours made between 140 and 155 HP depending on the year, I imagine that you won't see much of a performance drop compared to the original setup, especially since it will be coupled to a 5 speed manual. You just won't be pulling stumps with it anymore

[Frank Lee]

Not only that, SAE changed how HP is measured over the years so the '59 rating of what- 190 hp?- does not compare too well to a 145 hp value with the new system. The old system was more optimistic so if the two were to be dyno'd side-by-side they would likely be a closer match than indicated by their "ratings".

[amcpacer]

I am hoping to bring the 2.3 to 1988+ horsepower numbers since I have an intercooler waiting to be installed. The intercooled 2.3 engines are rated at 190hp.

A Popular Mechanics article from the time of the Edsel lists a fuel economy of 12.1mpg steady 70mph and 8.5mpg "traffic route" which I assume is city mpg's.

Right now the car has some new Coker bias ply white wall skinny tires. When they wear out I will definitely go to some LRR radials.

[Frank Lee]

But what fe did YOU get with it?