Quote:
Originally Posted by amcpacer
The oil pan is not symmetrical as it gets wider at the back. The great thing is this Ford Courier oil pan fits.
I am suprized the boost need be kept low on the 2.3 engine. I must admit this is my first time working on a Ford 2.3. I am quite experienced with turbo 80's Chryslers. My daily driver is an 85 Chrysler Laser with a custom reprogrammable ECM, water injection, intercooled, 3inch mandrel exhaust, and runs 19psi of boost. This Ford engine looks similar except strange electronics like a vane air meter.
Is the stock Ford computer optimized for fuel economy or should I convert to megasquirt or Chrysler SMEC?
|
the Fords are better than those old Chyslers IMO but they were lighter cars .
There are many ECU on ford depending on model/yr . Some have octane switch for timing, some have programed with larger MAF sensor but stock they run around 12lb even though it says 14 in specs . there all in heavy vehicles so gas mpg will vary on how you drive.
Even with light throttle the turbo is helping even though your not in boost .
I worked on many of these Fords , you can run higher boost especially if its stock, but you need to be careful not to abuse it to much . The bigger the turbo the less boost for same HP , same goes with larger intercoolers .
In general I felt it wasn't worth going above 18lb and things like needing water injection is just asking for trouble if water you let water tank run dry . I tried it on my XR4TI and it didn't really help but that could be cause my intake charge temps were down already for boost i ran .
There wasn't a lot you could do ECU wise in the mid 80's at the time other than different stock ECU's unless you wanted to go stand alone with something like haltech unit .