Modded Mustang Forums banner

1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,131 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I was wondering why you chose to do a 2.7 L instead of the 2.85. The cranks cost the same dont they? Just a curiosity :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,276 Posts
When you build a 2.3 motor with a stroke length longer than the 2.7L crank provides for, your rod angle, piston pin heights and pan rail clearance, all become issues.

The wider pin offset necessitates material removal from the oil pan rail for clearance. Removing material from this area can weaken the block slightly and I run 30 PSI boost pressure in my Merkur(I have one of those as well).

At 30 PSI, I needed to keep the compression low and the only way to keep the compression ratio down for this was to use the short rods with the 2.7L crank. I all ready had several sets of Crower rods which were 5.2” in length and I originally planned on building supercharged motors for both of my Fords, so compression height was an issue.

Then we come to the rod stroke ratio, which becomes less than ideal when you are using a 2.85” crank with a short rod. These big stroke cranks were really designed for the tall deck SVO cylinder blocks, where you could run a 6” rod length and get away with it. In any case, look at the power I’m making with this. It is more than enough. I am expecting that number to double when I add a supercharger to my current set up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
2.7L and only 246/250? whats the rest of the setup,boost levels, etc..??...

Im 400whp still at 2.3l and 20psi and should hit around 560whp+ at 27-28psi+ on water/meth.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,276 Posts
My Mustang engine is normally aspirated, not blown. 560 HP at the wheels is definitely feasible, but obviously at this power level the thermal and mechanical loads are going to give the motor a very, very short life, don't you think?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,131 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
If you dont mind me asking, could you tell me what part combos you used for your 2.7L?? I have a 4X4 4 cyl ranger that im looking for good power out of. I really want to do something like this. How much did you put into your 2.7 build also. what kind of mileage do you get in the mustang?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,276 Posts
246 [email protected] RPM
250 lb [email protected] RPM

Esslinger SVO Head, fully ported.
Esslinger 2.7L crank.
Copper head gasket.
Custom cam grind .525" lift Int .545" lift Ex 284/294 duration
Speedflow header
3"-2.5" exhaust, MagnaFlow converters.
Re-worked intake manifold & throttle body.
CP pistons/W titainium wrist pins, 12.6:1 C/R
TRW rings
Clevite bearings
Esslinger widage tray
Crower rods with ARP bolts
ARP head and block stud kit.
Custom block girdle.
Custom water injection system.
Stock air box/W K&N filter.
Stock oil pump.
Stock dist/ W Esslinger Bronze distributor gear.
MSD 6AL with timing control. POS! Burned up twice so far.
Shiftmasters EEC tuner
A4LD 4.0L transmission with a 2.3 bell housing bolted to it + Transgo Shift Kit, double clutch 4 liter torque converter, large servos for 2nd and overdrive, oversize pressure boost valve.

When I stay off the gas, it will average 20 MPG

Car has run [email protected] with an open differential


I have roughly $7,500 into the whole project, including the purchase price of the car.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,131 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
You have a cat converter listed (i also see youre from Cali) i am from a non emissions state, without the cat is there a potential for gain in the HP. Did you change the ECU at all (tune wise). I just have so many questions. Unfortunately i dont think any time soon i will be able to afford the 2.7. But i want to do one, lol.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,131 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
are the girdle and water inj nessesary?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,276 Posts
Girdle and water inj nessesary?

The block girdle is not needed at this power/RPM level, but I did not start out building an N/A motor, so I was expecting the bottom end to have to hold up under extreme pressure.

Water injection is required for this application, since I am running 35 degrees of timing and 12.6:1, with an LSA which would not normally be used in this way, so I am struggling against some high dynamic pressures in the engine.

Without the cat is there a potential for gain in the HP?

I saw a 3-4 HP difference without the cats
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,131 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Ok, well i have no idea how water injection needs to be done xD. Thanks for sharing all this. I hope to put it to use later on. If i were to run less timing, i know it will make less power, but could a high compression 2.7 be run without the water injection?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,276 Posts
Could a high compression 2.7 be run without the water injection?

The answer is yes; all this depends on where the intake valve closing event occurs and what you consider “high compression”

The later the intake valve closes in the compression stroke, the shorter the effective stroke length becomes. Of course not much compression occurs when the valves are still open.

So this is dynamic compression were talking about here. There are more than a few factors that affect dynamic compression, such as; air intake air temp, spark lead, valve overlap and so on.

So this begs the obvious question; what provides the best balance between power/ efficiency and detonation. If you have done any reading these days, you have probably noticed that cars are getting more and more powerful and a lot of that is due to the fact that engine designers have started to hone in on better ways to combat detonation.

Variable cam timing is a good way to delay the intake valve closing events on an engine and it seems to be the popular choice for a lot of car makers these days. I have been experimenting with a system for this for the past 2 years and there are a few possibilities for building a more universal system for older cars, but I think what is holding the aftermarket back, is most likely their refusal to pay the patent licensing fees.

Using smaller combustion chambers, minimizing deck clearances and crevice volumes are effective ways to improve detonation resistance as well. You can do this by milling the head and using a copper or cometic head gasket. I have never came across anyone on any 2.3 forum, who didn’t think the Felpro 1035 was the best gasket in the entire world (I don't think so)for the 2.3 engine, but when I ask them what the compressed thickness is on that gasket, they can never tell me, nor can they tell me why it might be important! The copper and cometic gaskets are as thin as .027” but if you do not ask for the thinner gaskets, you won’t get them.

Weather you are going with an N/A or turbo motor, the piston choice you make will be important. CP pistons seem to be in tune with what is needed for a high performance 2.3 engine and when you look at how close the top ring is to the piston top, you can tell that someone was thinking here.

Spark advance is going to matter here as well. 34-36 total advance is what you want to shoot for on a single plug motor and about 22 on a dual plug, if both plugs fire at the same time. Having a decent spark delivery system and a way to control it is key here as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,131 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Could a high compression 2.7 be run without the water injection?

The answer is yes; all this depends on where the intake valve closing event occurs and what you consider “high compression”

The later the intake valve closes in the compression stroke, the shorter the effective stroke length becomes. Of course not much compression occurs when the valves are still open.

So this is dynamic compression were talking about here. There are more than a few factors that affect dynamic compression, such as; air intake air temp, spark lead, valve overlap and so on.

So this begs the obvious question; what provides the best balance between power/ efficiency and detonation. If you have done any reading these days, you have probably noticed that cars are getting more and more powerful and a lot of that is due to the fact that engine designers have started to hone in on better ways to combat detonation.

Variable cam timing is a good way to delay the intake valve closing events on an engine and it seems to be the popular choice for a lot of car makers these days. I have been experimenting with a system for this for the past 2 years and there are a few possibilities for building a more universal system for older cars, but I think what is holding the aftermarket back, is most likely their refusal to pay the patent licensing fees.

Using smaller combustion chambers, minimizing deck clearances and crevice volumes are effective ways to improve detonation resistance as well. You can do this by milling the head and using a copper or cometic head gasket. I have never came across anyone on any 2.3 forum, who didn’t think the Felpro 1035 was the best gasket in the entire world for the 2.3 engine, but when I ask them what the compressed thickness is on that gasket, they can never tell me, nor can they tell me why it might be important! The copper and cometic gaskets are as thin as .027” but if you do not ask for the thinner gaskets, you won’t get them.

Weather you are going with an N/A or turbo motor, the piston choice you make will be important. CP pistons seem to be in tune with what is needed for a high performance 2.3 engine and when you look at how close the top ring is to the piston top, you can tell that someone was thinking here.

Spark advance is going to matter here as well. 34-36 total advance is what you want to shoot for on a single plug motor and about 22 on a dual plug, if both plugs fire at the same time. Having a decent spark delivery system and a way to control it is key here as well.
I have had minimal problems with the Felpro gasket, but i can shed a small amount of light on the compressed thickness. I measured one after removing it. It measured .055". I figure that means (by guessing) it is somewhere between .045" and .055" compressed height. You seem to be good with numbers too. Could you possibly tell me how much i lowered the combustion chamber cc's by taking .150" off the head? And maybe the potential static compression ratio. (i could do it with water and measuring tools but i never have)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,276 Posts
If you use a .028” copper or the Cometic head gasket, assuming you took the stock 91 head and took off .150” off of it you should wind up with 10.8:1 you will be closer to 10.3:1 with the Felpro gasket.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,131 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Thats pretty high, what about on a ranger that has stock 9.5 to 1 with the dual plug with .150" off it? or do you not know
 

·
King Trashmouth
Joined
·
21,891 Posts
OHC230; said:
Water injection is required for this application, since I am running 35 degrees of timing and 12.6:1, with an LSA which would not normally be used in this way, so I am struggling against some high dynamic pressures in the engine.
:shitbrick

That is one ridiculous CR, and timing. You sure don't want to leave any power on the table huh?


Sidenote regarding LSA:
On a positive displacement supercharged motor, which would be more advantageous, running a 109/118 LCs (effectively a 114/114 +4), or a straight up 114/114? It seems like the advanced timing case would be beneficial, but I'm unsure of the further implications. I figured you'd be the one to know this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,276 Posts
Sorry Mike, I guess my last post was confusing. You can figure 48-52cc of chamber volume left after the .150” of material removal, yielding approximately 10.3:1 CR when the dust settles using the Felpro gasket. This is nice to know, but the effective compression ratio is what you're really after here. What cam are you using and what are you looking for in terms of performance?

Snake, yeah I’ve been down the other roads to performance and this one leads to more power, with a little more hassle. Guy’s with far more knowledge than I have made less power with similar components and I know this is a risky game to play, in terms of life expectancy and it would never fly in a racing rule book, but that’s the beauty of a non-class engine, you can do what you want to, more or less.

I am going to bounce your cam question off Elgin cams to see what he comes up with. I had a short discussion with some of my colleagues the other day about this and the consensus by 2/3 is that the 109/118 could work, but that isn’t the only factor at work here and empirical data is the only solution we could all agree upon. Test/tune, test/tune………
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,131 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
What do you use for an ecu?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,276 Posts
There are BIN files supporting your ECU and PK1, LA2, LA3 for the Moates tuner, so you could use any of those if you wanted to.
 

·
King Trashmouth
Joined
·
21,891 Posts
I am going to bounce your cam question off Elgin cams to see what he comes up with. I had a short discussion with some of my colleagues the other day about this and the consensus by 2/3 is that the 109/118 could work, but that isn’t the only factor at work here and empirical data is the only solution we could all agree upon. Test/tune, test/tune………
Well I'm going to have to make some calls and see what I can find about this, because there is no way in hell I'm going to tear down the mess that is the terminator accessory drive any more than i have to, let alone do it with the engine in the car to adjust cam timing. I might even end up running a more middle of the road 111/116.

Basically it's going to be some variation of 114/114, whether it be +0, +2, or +4. Maybe some of the termi guys will have some info, because I'm not in much of a position to test/tune, or use any computer based models.

Thanks for the help though.

/threadjack
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,131 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
There are BIN files supporting your ECU and PK1, LA2, LA3 for the Moates tuner, so you could use any of those if you wanted to.
is that basically the only way to run a stock ecu, with a tuner?
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top