miata engine??

[acousticrawk]

maybe a dumb question, but i got the new grassroots today, and...well, i noticed alot of miata engine swaps have been done in cars. would it be worth while in a ranger? im sure itd fit, and DOHC with some good ponies... and still pretty good gas mileage for my prerunner....

just seeing if im crazy...haha, lemme know what y'all think.

[baddis]

isn't the miata fwd? doesn't matter anyway . i have thought about a hybrid dohc turbo into a ranger but don't have the time to do it

[acousticrawk]

miata's are RWD im pretty sure. im not much into tuners, but ive heard good stuff about that engine.

[TRUNK_MONKEY]

maybe a dumb question, but i got the new grassroots today, and...well, i noticed alot of miata engine swaps have been done in cars. would it be worth while in a ranger? im sure itd fit, and DOHC with some good ponies... and still pretty good gas mileage for my prerunner....

just seeing if im crazy...haha, lemme know what y'all think.
i'd go VW TDI diesel.50+ miles per gallon and turbo.:rockon:

[72 Fozda]

The Duratec used in current Rangers and the Mazda MZR used in Miatas are based on the same design. Among other differences, the 2.3 Duratec has a longer stroke.

Basically, it already is a truck version of the Miata engine.

[MrE_Powers]

The Duratec used in current Rangers and the Mazda MZR used in Miatas are based on the same design. Among other differences, the 2.3 Duratec has a longer stroke.

Basically, it already is a truck version of the Miata engine.probably has more torque then the miata engine. read some where that a miata guy installed a kia sportage (which is a mazda design sold overseas) that he installed for better performance.

i have a sportage and the damn thing cannot fight its way out of a wet paper bag
the fact is when the miata guys want performance they go to turbo engines or ......5.0s

[krugford]

If you happen to be going to South America anytime soon, you can pick up a mazda three rotor rotary. Spin that thing up, add about 20 lbs of boost, some wings, and you'll fly!

[baddis]

why not jut look for an older rx-7 with the rotary engine then?

[72 Fozda]

why not jut look for an older rx-7 with the rotary engine then?

RX-7 is a twin rotor engine. That engine (13B, I believe) was actually available as an option in the Mazda B Series pickup in the late 70s.

[krugford]

Yeah, as far as I know (which isn't much) the three rotor was never sold in the US.

[acousticrawk]

what would be a strong, decent HP and torqu 4cylinder to swap in, that is already on a RWD platform.

[baddis]

, and i want a 4cyl... cummins, cat, and PS are not even considerable. i want the 4cylinder for the weight, economy, and simplicity to work on. i def. liek the TDI idea though...very interesting...especially sense the conversions to VO are getting cheaper.

you don't want a cummins then they weigh aprox.750lbs where a 5.0/302 weighs somewhere around 460 lbs . you also would have to trim the engine crossmember for oil pan clearance.




need to be able to do about 115mph too w/o much effort. i still want something thatll haul across the desert you know?

better plan on re-gearing for the cummins also they only turn 3k rpms

[PARKINGLOT]

maybe a nissan SR20 in a ranger? or what about the good ol' 2.3T?

[acousticrawk]

yeah, the 2.3t is what im thinking. what exactly would i need to buy? and whats the difference between the dual spark plug head and the single? is the dual for the turbo engine? is the turbo engine pretty reliable? cause this is going to be a DD too, kinda, ill have a second vehicle.

i have a 93 ranger with a 2.3...so with that being said...if i buy a new short block (cause my engine in 250,000 miles weak) which one do i need, and also, what parts do i need to find at a junkyard, ebay, ect. or is it cheaper just to buy a turbo kit?

[acousticrawk]

ok, so i answered my own question, i have a DSP head. haha. i think im just going to run the NA engine, but a new one, w/ a good intake and exhaust, have the head decked to raise the compression, port polish ect. and just keep it stock from there. also, ill port match the intake and exhaust manifolds. would the bigger mustang MAF add any HP?

[PARKINGLOT]

if you wanted to go 2.3T, would need a motor from either a Merkur XR4TI, Thunderbird turbocoupe, or Mustang SVO....the merkur engine didn't come factory intercooled, but the t-bird did. You need block, cylinder head, exhaust manifold, turbo, intercooler, etc...

[acousticrawk]

yeah, im not up for all that. im just going to keep my NA 2.3. it has 250,000 miles on it, i fogure, if i can drop in a new engine with some good head work, and a good intake and exhaust, i can get another 250,000 miles and some more ponies out of it.

how much HP gain do you think i could get with a decked head to raise the compression, like the 95+, with the head ported, polished, port matched, ect, along with a 2 1/4 exhaust, no cat, (any suggested muffler, proally a flomaster though) and a good single size intake (proally will be home made)??

[PARKINGLOT]

one thing to look out for, the 93-97 2.3's had way better stock exhaust manifolds then the old 2.3's...any muffler will work. I had a cherrybomb on my old 87 2.3 and it sounded pretty good...

[acousticrawk]

yeah, my exhaust manifold looks like a tube header. im going to wrap them in header wrap after i finish up the engine. i think i might run a thrush glasspack. we'll see. and i thik there 2 1/2" i/o size....is that to big for the whole exhaust? i was thinking about 2 1/4 for the whole thing...

also the jet chip says they can make up to 30 more HP. plus all the intake and exhaust upgrades and having the head built well (port, polish, 3 angle valve job) and raising the compression, im guessing ill be making about 150 ponies minimum.. sound close?

[BDAB]

man you are shooting way low, a neon R/T makes 150 hp from the box with no mods. my SRT-4 was 230 hp. you want tire smoking power then run an aggressive cam, advance the cam timing, use a custom tri-y header, a chip, bigger (larger diameter) throttle body, high flow cat..... port match your header and 2.25" at the collector should do it. make sure your header is tunible because you want about 7psi back pressure for exhaust scavenging (scavenging increases torque on the low side). It will cost less than all that machine work you are talking about and yield more power.

[acousticrawk]

can i get some links to places to look at a cam, and a tuneable header? how do i check the back pressure of in the header?

yeah i called, the head work alone is 450, i think ill port match the heads myself. haha, yeah, definately do it myself. going to do everything minus the machining of the head, just the stock 3 angle valve job on the head rebuild, port match the inlets/outlets, and id like a more aggressive cam, no doubt,.

[BDAB]

bulding 4cyls is not my thing, but you can build your own header. the same place you get your cam will have a timing gear that is marked for 9 degrees advance. the more you port the exhaust side of your head, the more restriction you will need in the header. you need to talk to some speed shops (alot of them have forums) to find out a good cam grind. forget the tunible header. you need to talk to no_V8_why_drive, he used to have a link for the theory and instructions on building a tri-y header and he does a pretty good job of being able to figure out a good tube size.

[PARKINGLOT]

just the stock 3 angle valve job on the head rebuild, port match the inlets/outlets, and id like a more aggressive cam, no doubt,.

x 2...sounds like a good plan. that'll wake the motor up pretty good...

[acousticrawk]

sweet. that sounds good. i asked a tuner shop today (felt kinda gay in there...alot of F&F stuff and chotch's) and they said that the header that the 93's and newer have is already a great header. they said that just matching the heads and header will help tons because that header is already made to help the weakness of the engine and that buing a new header would really only free up MAYBE a couple ponies and just not collect rust (mine has almost no rus on it anywhere).

thanks guys...

im going to have the engine rebuilt, head decked to raise compression ration to 9.4-5 to 1, match the intake and exhaust ports, better cam, some kind of free flowing intake set up, and a jet chip...

only question now...how big should i run the exhaust off the header? i dont need a cat here...so..... any suggestions? i was thinking 2.25" all the way out with a glasspack and a turndown about a foot before the rear axle (angled down and out)... if thats a bad idea, please let me know.

[PARKINGLOT]

2 1/4 sounds good for a 2.3...2 1/2 may be a tad big....

[baddis]

i am running 2 1/2 on a 2.5 turbo dodge with no cat and a stock muffler. i also know of several that are running 3 inch but it was a little tight for my taste

[anupaum]

What is it with you guys and getting rid of the catalytic convertor? It's not the big restriction you think it is, and it's against federal law to remove them.

The REST of us need to breathe, too!

If you've taken the cat off, do the right thing and put it back on. Make sure your engine stays in good tune. If you modify it for more power, do it in a way that makes it burn clean. The mentality of "getting rid of the smog junk" should have gone out of fashion in 1976 . . .

A good port and polish job helps, as the head is the most restrictive component of the 2.3. You don't need the Merkur engine for a turbo--though it makes things easier--as several of us have run forced induction on our dual plug engines without much difficulty. You can even keep your stock pistons as long as you don't go over 5 psi boost.

But claiming 150 horses on a normally aspirated 2.3 will certainly raise my eyebrows and arouse my skepticism, but I can speak from experience in stating that a 20% increase in power really wakes this little engine up!

robert

[acousticrawk]

ok, IF i run a cat. itll proally be hi-flow.... but proally wont run one cause im nto that much of a hippie... and other things ive done for this country should cover the small amoutn of smag ill make... haha. 20% increase is good, im looking foward to opening it up and running a new engine with some decent power. its not TERRIBLY slow now, just slow.. haha, so any improvements are going to be great. ill keep everyone updated as to whats im doing to it and ill take lots of pics. also, anyone have any suggestions on a muffler/exhaust set up?

[anupaum]

ok, IF i run a cat. itll proally be hi-flow.... but proally wont run one cause im nto that much of a hippie...

The stock catalytic convertor IS high flow. Calling me a hippie, or implying that because I like to breathe clean air I'm some kind of nut job from Haight-Ashbury in 1968 is not only rude, it's insulting to your own intelligence, too.

Put the cat back on!


and other things ive done for this country should cover the small amoutn of smag ill make... haha.

Did you actually write something funny, here? Does "doing something for your country" mitigate the need for you to be a responsible truck owner? What you've written is illogical and nonsensical.


20% increase is good, im looking foward to opening it up and running a new engine with some decent power.

It won't take much. The 2.3 Ford is a well engineered design, and it's got decent torque for a four banger. Just think of it as an air pump. Whatever you do to get more air into the engine (along with the fuel to burn it) will gain you the power you're seeking.


its not TERRIBLY slow now, just slow.. haha, so any improvements are going to be great.

I described my truck's pre-blower acceleration as "glacial," so I know what you're writing about!


ill keep everyone updated as to whats im doing to it and ill take lots of pics. also, anyone have any suggestions on a muffler/exhaust set up?

Keep us appraised. As for the exhaust set up, lots of the guys who post around here have gone to the Flowmaster 40 series. That particular muffler would be a bit loud for my taste, but some people LIKE to be noticed!

Ask this question in the exhaust forum and you're likely to hear more than you need to know.

[acousticrawk]

yeah