59 EDSEL 2.3 Turbo 5 Speed Conversion
 

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.:thumbup:

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.:eek:

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?

...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!

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?

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! :thumbup: 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...

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.

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?

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 ;)

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".

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.

But what fe did YOU get with it?

I did not check mpg's with the V8 since I have not had the car very long. Whatever it is would surely be beyond my budget so I started the turbo swap right away. The exhaust from the V8 would burn my eyes when going through a drive up.

I used to have a XR4Ti which used a stock 175hp version of turbo coupe . There a lot of parts you can use from stock SVO stuff to custom 3rd party . SVO put out like 210hp but hp is not really issue here I think TQ is .

On the oil pan if my memory right all the turbo engines used same pan, the mustang SVO, thunderbird and Merkur XR4Ti had sump in back .You can see where distributor is oil pump right under neath with pickup going to rear . Not sure on pinto pan ,it is same family but only 2.0L , might work .
How much clearance do you need and where .

Those 2.3 turbo 86-88 were suppose to be 14lb boost but were only like 12lb so raising boost to 15-17lb is easy and safe pickup of 25hp or so .

If I'm not mistaken, the old 'Birds of the 1980's and '90's weighed well over 3000 pounds, so taking into account the 200-300 pounds the Edsel will loose by ditching the V8, it might actually be faster with the four-pot.

They did weigh more than 3000lb, I think the mustang SVO was around 3200 and Tbird around 3400lb . My Xr4ti weighed around 2900 .
The thing is the rear ends where higher geared 3.55 (stick)-3.73 (auto) . With the stick it might not hurt to much expect off the line with 3.10 rear .

I expect it to be a little bit slower than a T-Bird due to the rear end having such little gear reduction. Most important thing is fuel economy so I will stick with the rear end even if it is slow off the line. The T-birds and Mustangs look like they are very aerodynamic. I could not find any air drag numbers for the Edsel. It is probably more drag than a T-bird. I will miss the vibration free 400 to 450 rpm idle that the V8 was set at.

This Tuesday I hope to get out to some wrecking yards and get an oil pan and pick-up tube. I need about 4 inches of clearance for the lower frame member and steering linkage rod. Right now the oil pan has the sump right over where the linkage is. A front sump would work great.

Which year tbird did the motor come out of? It looks like an 87-88 engine, with that particular valve cover and intake manifold. If so you should already have the big VAM, brown top injectors, and LA2 or LA3 ecu. The IHI turbo is good for 18 psi and the T3 is good for 20-22. A front mount intercooler should look quite interesting behind that big ol 50's grill.

Your gearing should be alright for a cruiser. The 4cyl T-5 has a 3.97 first gear which is really good at getting the ball rolling. One thing the 2.3 is NOT good at is lugging around though. Youll have to keep the RPMs above 2000.

It is a 1986 engine. I was able to find an old ford courier with a 2.3 and take it's front sump pan and pickup tube. I will post some pictures when I can get to a computer.

I would not recommend going over 17lb especially in heavy vehicle .
My 1985 XR4Ti was not stock but I never went over 18lb (kept max at 17-18lb) . I had borla exhaust, T3 with GN intake housing/impeller , intercooler up front , 86 SVO MAF/ECU .
When I went to install big valve head few pistons were down at TDC.
Ended up 3 rods were bent , these motors rods are weak so be careful . Also the ECU always felt like it maxed out around 4500 rpm@high boost , some say it was limiting TQ, not sure on that I think bad knock sensor programing is part of it as unpluging knock sensor helped here but i never leave it like that (maybe they fixed that in later yrs ) .

Good luck with your project. I've done somewhat similar to old muscle cars I've had. Their heavy sure, but turbo charging provides good acceptable torque. Providing you have a good compressor housing impeller combination and turbine side you can compensate for the weight with out a bunch of boost. Non-the-less, have fun and end up with a cool project.:thumbup:

Would it be possible to just turn the oil pan around, so the sump is sitting in the front and it will fit? Or is the bolt pattern not symmetrical? I can't say I know much about rebuilding engines, but that popped into my head to try.

no you can't do that for number of reason.

The front has has aluminum front cover which has different bolt pattern on pan front than back by rear seal. Also the pan is not same on both sides, the oil pump side sticks out for oil pump and pump/distributor drive shaft .

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 .

Edsel 2.3 Turbo
 

Finally the front sump pan with oil pickup is mounted on the engine. For engine mounts I used some 70's era Dodge pickup mounts for 360 V8 engines. They are simple, thin, and have a stud sticking out of both sides. Best thing of all is they are $5 new from Autozone! It was necessary to weld some steel to the frame to accomodate the new engine mounts. For the rear transmission mount I plan to use two more Dodge truck mounts.:thumbup:

The difficult part is coming up where I must add a clutch pedal to the car and a working gas pedal. I wish I had a Mustang or Thunderbird parts car sitting around to get parts from. :cool:

Another issue is when I took the V8 Edsel engine out the suspension went all of the way up. When I put the Ford 2.3 in the car did not sink down a bit even with me standing on the front bumper support. That V8 is extremely heavy! Should I clamp the springs or cut them? :confused::confused::confused: I know the ideal thing is get custom springs made but I am searching for a cheap solution since I am on a very minimal budget, paycheck to paycheck.:turtle:

yes, the ford uses cable clutch with self adjuster in pedal .

It might be possible to get whole pedal assembly out of a Tbird or Mustang (the whole 2 pedal -brake/clutch). I forget if the brackets are bolted or spot welded to floorboard .

Amazing project so far!! Thanks for posting all of the pictures.

I had a 78 Mercury Capri with a 2.3 Ford 4 banger. It was a german made body with a Ford engine. Of course I modded the engine a bit by adding a Holley 4 BBL, headers and proted the heads. Great little engine, I bet fuel injection and a turbo like your using would made a huge difference.

AMC,
If you are trying to keep in your budget, just leave the front springs alone and see how it does. You can always add a tractor weight to the front. :) If you cut springs down you are going to increase the spring rate. Thanks for the detailed photos of your changes.

I remember about 18 years ago I was coming down Pikes Peak and saw an Edsel coming up. It was on a 4wd truck chassis.

^Yes, cutting springs makes them even stiffer.

I think if you spent some quality time in a junkyard, armed with coil spring measurements of diameter, length, and wire gauge of your existing springs then aiming for the same dia. but perhaps lower length and for sure smaller gauge, you could find suitable replacements that way for cheap.

My old Ranger used the Bobcat/Pinto 2.3L in MPFI form all the way through 1997, and then a stroked 2.5L version of the same through 2001. That means a drop-in replacement is available if you want more power down the road. They went distributorless via the unreliable TFI module in 1989, and then moved that functionality into the computer in 1994/1995.

Info about your "Lima" engine: The Ford Ranger 4-Cylinder Lima Motors - The Ranger Station

Edsel 2.3 Turbo
 

Today I went to the wrecking yard and found a clutch pedal from an 80s Mitsubishi pickup and a gas pedal. I wanted to find Mustang or Thunderbird parts but nobody had such parts in town and the Mitsubishi parts look like they will fit with some custom cutting and welding. ;)

When I bought the engine it came with a wiring harness but for some reason the only three things that can plug in on the harness are the Vane Air Meter, O2 Sens, and Distributor. None of the other plugs match what is on the engine. The connectors are different size or sometimes female to female ends. At this point I have downloaded wiring diagrams that show the pinouts of the computer and am about to cut into the harness and route the wires to the proper sensors without using the multitude of different connector sizes. This will be very time consuming and it would be so much easier if I just had the proper harness for this engine. :o Megasquirt would be so cool down the road but the Ford computer programming may be just fine for efficiency if I can have the patience necessary to make the electronics work.

The suspension on the car was extremely soft when I was driving it with the V8. I would think slightly firmer suspension of cut springs may be desirable. It would not be able to be driven right now since the suspension is maxed out full height like a gangster with hydraulics. I was thinking that perhaps an air bag style spring is available and would make for getting the ride height an easy task.:cool:

At least the hard part of hanging the engine and trans is out of the way.:thumbup: Now I have to put up with jokes from friends about "Fix or repair daily, Failed on race day, Driver return on foot, etc...... :(:(:(
At least I will be the one driving the cool efficient classic car!:thumbup:

lets see there is a round plug that should cover the injectors ,water gauge sensor in extension fitting on lower IM outlet) . the other sensors like ECT, TPS, ISC and knock went into main harness same with a EGR controller and boost solenoid . there also a rad fan switch sensor in lower intake manifold .

On the suspension could it be it just needs to be rolled a bit as with no motor the tires pull in at ground or maybe the shocks froze up when they got extended .

Edsel 2.3 Turbo
 

I am still making progress on the car but slowed down for a while to allow the awesome paint and body shop crew repair all of the rust holes and apply new paint.

I have been working on getting the wiring harness hooked up. I peeled the friction tape off of the harness and found a bunch of cracked wires that needed to be trimmed out and new wire soldered in. I am missing the manifold pressure senor so I had to order a new one on rock auto. I had a difficult time plugging in any of the sensors and injectors to the wiring due to my engine being a late model style. The person who sold me the engine gave me a early 1984 computer and harness. I swapped the engine injector harness and sensors to the early 1984 style since a late model harness and computer was nowhere to be found on ebay and wrecking yards.

This engine is the late model 87/88 turbo 2.3 so it has a sepentine belt setup. I decided to install early dual V belt pullies to make it easier to delete the power steering and A/C compressor.

It turns out the edsel speedometer cable / bracket / gear plugs right in the T-5 transmission without any modification. The only thing so far that did not require modification. :)

I am still trying to come up with a way to add a clutch pedal and cable assembly. :confused:

I am so excited that a test fire of the engine is getting much closer now. :cool:

Ahhh, the first fire-up! Then... the first test drive! Good times! :thumbup:

Ford turbo motors don't use map sensor , maybe you mean the barometric sensor (normally mounted on firewall under cowl .

Check the fuel injector harness that one the wires go bad cause of heat .It contains 4 injector plugs, ECT sensor and i think water sender sensor .

Thank you, yes I meant the barometric sensor. I got the new sensor in the mail yesterday. I did not find any provisions for for alternator control so I will install a 70s Chrysler voltage regulator. I got a regulator and wire pigtail from Autozone. This is so much fun!

I have the early EECIV computer with the Vane Air Meter. Would it increase fuel economy to convert to the newer 88 era computer?

alternator have regulator built into them , so yes i guess any self regulating alternator would work .

The newer T'birds are probably best as long as you can make sure MAF matches the ECU .there all very similar IMO.
I think only thing is MAF size, turbo size (newer ones use smaller turbo ) and ignition/A/F programing .

amcpacer -

What a beautiful site of old meets new :

http://ecomodder.com/forum/attachmen...2&d=1289875595

It's like a heart-transplant. Wish I had your skillzz.

CarloSW2

What model was the regulator &pigtail (autozone part number) I need one for something else (or at least which car and year)

Thanx
Ryan.

It is a regulator and pigtail for a 1975 W100 Powerwagon with a 360 V8.

Now this is one fun project!

I'm sorry the car wasn't put on a certified scale with driver and full fuel before the motor was pulled. If the car was shown with a published (shipping) weight 3,775-lbs then I would expect that, with a few options, the car would have shown 4,225-lbs in stock configuration on the scale, with a weight bias of around 56/44 FF/RR. The actual axle weights would have been helpful for calculations.

It isn't just springs, but getting the front end back into alignment as well as rear braking bias. There's some work cut out here . . . .

Looking forward to more.

.