Project Mav 2.3 is underway

[Sansoni]

I tell ya if Ford had a crate motor and manual transmission combo for the 2.3 in rwd, I think alot of people would be doing motor swaps with em in hotrods and such. They are powerful efficient little motors. Imagine dropping a 350hp crate motor in a old Ranger, Fox, or Panther platform. Or even a old Maverick or Pinto. And get +20mpg. It will be cool to see what you get out of it!

Ford was putting the 2.3 stock engine back as far as 1978, maybe before? I bought my first new small truck, a 1977 maybe it was a 78 Ford Courier came with a 2.3 -Ford 4 cylinder 5 speed manual with bench seat regular cab with a Mazda body made for Ford with Ford on the fromt hood. Great truck, as family grew had to get rid of it.
Tom in VA

Sponsored

 

[Maverickman74]

Ford was putting the 2.3 stock engine back as far as 1978, maybe before? I bought my first new small truck, a 1977 maybe it was a 78 Ford Courier came with a 2.3 -Ford 4 cylinder 5 speed manual with bench seat regular cab with a Mazda body made for Ford with Ford on the fromt hood. Great truck, as family grew had to get rid of it.
Tom in VA

Different 2.3 altogether but yep its been around a while, also was based off a 2 liter. My brother and my my dad cousin raced em in the local ministock class. My brothers was 2.3 ran in rwd in a fwd hatchback chevy cavalier, dads cousin ran my sister and other brothers old pinto, and then later a square bodied ranger in the ministock truck class. I think they ran 4 speeds.

 

[cthulhu_rising]

I need to stay off eBay for now because Focus RS transmissions keep popping up and that’s not in the cards right now.

Go for a sequential with an actual LSD

Mountune used to carry a sequential for the Focus RS, wanna say it was made by Quaife but I'm not certain. I thought about going with it for a while but the RS was my daily then and that would be horrible for daily driving around here.

 

[Dueces]

I wouldn't expect to make any more power with the 2.3L compared to the 2.0. You will gain low end torque, and bring the powerband down in the rpm which benefits the direct injection, but in general, the hp limit will be very similar. Which turbo are you putting on it? The 57mm stage 4? Or something special?

 

[colinl]

I wouldn't expect to make any more power with the 2.3L compared to the 2.0. You will gain low end torque, and bring the powerband down in the rpm which benefits the direct injection, but in general, the hp limit will be very similar. Which turbo are you putting on it? The 57mm stage 4? Or something special?

I'm very curious about what he's planned for engine management. I wouldn't expect the Maverick ECU to work well if at all with the Corsair 2.3, and then if you have a Corsair ECU I don't know how that would connect to all the other modules in the truck. Motec?

Waiting for the next update!

 

[Azmig88]

I'm very curious about what he's planned for engine management. I wouldn't expect the Maverick ECU to work well if at all with the Corsair 2.3, and then if you have a Corsair ECU I don't know how that would connect to all the other modules in the truck. Motec?

Waiting for the next update!

I’m confident he’ll let us know.
Stay tuned

 

[Dueces]

I'm very curious about what he's planned for engine management. I wouldn't expect the Maverick ECU to work well if at all with the Corsair 2.3, and then if you have a Corsair ECU I don't know how that would connect to all the other modules in the truck. Motec?

Waiting for the next update!

The factory computer is probably the exact same between the two vehicles. You could probably run a 3.0TT with our ECU's. You just have to have control of all the parameters.

The difference between the 2.0T and the 2.3T is "most likely" just simple tuning.

 

[Maverickman74]

The factory computer is probably the exact same between the two vehicles. You could probably run a 3.0TT with our ECU's. You just have to have control of all the parameters.

The difference between the 2.0T and the 2.3T is "most likely" just simple tuning.

So you say you are doing a 3.0 swap?

 

[Dueces]

So you say you are doing a 3.0 swap?

Lol, Lord knows I want to! Maybe when it's paid off, lol. The 2.0 can do some serious damage with just some rods and pistons, as soon as we get some support for the trans that is.

 

[Maverickman74]

Lol, Lord knows I want to! Maybe when it's paid off, lol. The 2.0 can do some serious damage with just some rods and pistons, as soon as we get some support for the trans that is.

I kinda want the Roadkill guys to get 2 rear ended easily totaled ecoboosts. Stick ones c pillar to the back of anothers b pillar then just turn on of the motors around. Do the 2.3 turbo swap and intercooler upgrades on both. Twin engined 4.0 Awd Maverick Not-a-truck. Maybe crack 700hp? Double the transmission strength the easy way!

 

[Azmig88]

You want a truck that goes both ways?

 

[FischAutoTechGarten]

I kinda want the Roadkill guys to get 2 rear ended easily totaled ecoboosts. Stick ones c pillar to the back of anothers b pillar then just turn on of the motors around. Do the 2.3 turbo swap and intercooler upgrades on both. Twin engined 4.0 Awd Maverick Not-a-truck. Maybe crack 700hp? Double the transmission strength the easy way!

Just say 'No!' to drunk posting:

 

[colinl]

You want a truck that goes both ways?

Sick burnouts until you tear the truck in half (again)!

 

[Fast Mavericks]

I wouldn't expect to make any more power with the 2.3L compared to the 2.0. You will gain low end torque, and bring the powerband down in the rpm which benefits the direct injection, but in general, the hp limit will be very similar. Which turbo are you putting on it? The 57mm stage 4? Or something special?
[/QUOTE
its getting something special.

 

[Azmig88]

Well… That answers that!

Sponsored