Output of Nearly 3 Hp/Ci Spells Death for Unsuspecting V-8s ... and
Hondas
Article as written in April 1999 issue of Hot Rod Magazine
Joe Morgan is our kind of guy. He likes to go fast but insists on low
cost and the utmost in streetability. After we watched his “76 Pinto run a
string of 10.75s at 118 mph, we assumed it was powered by a small-block Ford. We
caught up with Morgan, a high-school teacher from Corona, California, for the
straight skinny on his 400 hp four-popper-powered, 2,500-pound turbo bomb and
how anybody can duplicate it for less than seven grand.
The primary
ingredients in the tasty little recipe include a light body, a junkyard 2.3L
turbo motor, a C4 automatic transmission, a big bottle of nitrous oxide, and a
few inexpensive speed parts. Roll them all together, as Morgan has, and you’ll
end up with a 10-second screamer that gets more than 20 mpg, runs all day in
traffic, and passes California’s tough emissions schedule. Its one of those rare
situations where one plus one equals three. Morgan’s favorite pastime is
cleaning house at the import-car drag races.
By virtue of its
cast-in-Brazil engine block, the officials are obliged let him compete, and the
results are always the same: Morgan’s name appears in the winners’
column.
Engine Assembly
It begins with a trip to the
boneyard to locate a 1983-89 Ford, Mercury, or Merkur with a 2.3L turbo motor.
On a recent foray to the Pick-Your-Parts salvage emporium, we found four
complete motors for less than $300 each. Classic donors include the ‘83-’88
Thunderbird Turbo Coupe, ‘85-’89 Merkur XR4Ti, ‘84-’86 SVO Mustang, ‘83-’86
Capri RS Turbo, and ‘83-’86 Cougar XR7. Avoid motors produced prior to 1983;
they are equipped with the carburetor and are not as well suited to nitrous
oxide or stratospheric boost.
Thanks to iron construction, used turbo
motors are sturdy, and all their parts are usually acceptable for reuse when
rebuilt. How ever, high mileage cylinder heads should be checked for cracks
emanating outward from the exhaust valve seats, a condition prevalent on pre-’87
castings that have integral, induction-hardened valve seats. Later mid ‘87 to
‘89 heads, as well as over the counter service heads from Ford, use hardened
valve seat inserts, which are much less likely to foster cracks. Either way,
you’ll be able to spot the trouble before purchase if you remove the
head.
The turbo motor is unique in that it has a special boss cast into
the passenger side of the block that is tapped for an oil-return tube from the
turbocharger. Nonturbo 2.3 blocks lack this provision, although Morgan has seen
a few with undrilled bosses. In this 15-year relationship with those crazy
little bombs, Morgan says its rare to find a used turbo block with significant
ring wear, further indication that these cylinder cases may be made of better,
harder iron than nonturbo variants.
Naturally, there are some potential
stumbling blocks if you attempt to piece a motor together from several sources.
First, pre ‘83 blocks employed a two-piece rear main seal and a crankshaft with
an integral oil slinger. If this early crank is installed in a later block, the
oil slinger will need to be eliminated for proper clearance. Normally aspirated
motors built in 1989 and beyond were equipped with a dual-plug cylinder head,
had altered rod length, and reduced diameter for the main bearing journals.
Avoid these cores. Their internals are not readily interchangeable with their
turbocharged cousins. For best results, begin your foray into teenie-weenie
territory with a complete turbo engine.
The reciprocating assembly in
Morgan’s cherry bomb is remarkably stock -- a tribute to the beefy design of the
turbo 2.3. The crankshaft is cast of high-nodular iron an features fully
radiused journals. Morgan has never known on to fail. The stock turbo forged
connecting rods are actually larger in all critical areas than those of a 350
Chevy pink rod. The drawback with stock rods is that pressed pins are mandatory
because there isn’t enough meat at the small end to enlarge the bores for
full-floating piston pins. And herein lies a tale. After years of developing
this obscure combination, Morgan has seen well-meaning but misinformed machine
shops overheat the small ends of the stock rods during piston, pin, and rod
assembly. If there is any sign of discoloration, the rod has been weakened and
should be discarded. To avoid this, Morgan uses 5.202-inch Crower Sportman rods
because they are machined to accept full-floating pins that he can install in
the privacy of his own garage. Of course, he only needs four of them: At $350,
they are cheap insurance.
You might assume that intense cylinder pressure
generated by a 17 psi boost and a 150 hp shot of nitrous oxide would require
exotic pistons and rings. Think again. Forged Ford 8.0:1 replacement pistons are
quite sufficient. Though Morgan back cuts the upper ring lands for enhanced
sealing, the $150 pistons are otherwise stock. If you can’t find them, TRW
L2500F forgings are a direct replacement. Stock Ford turbo rings are also
acceptable. Unfortunately, they have been discontinued; $100 Total Seal moly
rings are and excellent substitute. Morgan relies on Ford tri-metal rod and main
bearings, which he changes once a year whether they show signs of wear or not.
Again, that’s $75 worth of cheap insurance.
Morgan’s 10-second stormer
incorporates the cam and roller rockers from an ‘87 Ford Ranger pickup. Morgan
explains that all production 2.3L motors share the same valve lift of 0.400
inches for both intake and exhaust, and that Ford manipulates the duration and
lobe centers to tailor cams to specific applications. Though he experimented
with a number of wild aftermarket grinds, Morgan has settled on the Ranger cam
for its docile street manners, and he lets the nitrous take it from
there.
A custom-built turbocharger (Performance Techniques, San
Bernardino, California) features a T4 compressor housing and Turbonetics T3
exhaust housing. At $500, the turbo alone accounts for roughly one fifth of the
cost of the engine, but is ability to pump huge quantities of air are worth the
investment. This particular unit has an area/radius ration of 0.82 -- depending
on the year; the stock 2.3 turbo is rated at .048 or .063. Without nitrous
oxide, which Morgan introduces on launch, this outsized turbo would cause severe
turbo lag under full throttle. Just the same, thanks to it low mass, the Pinto
is quite responsive on the street and a solid high-12-second piece on the
motor.
The best injectors are the brown-top units common to factory
‘85-’89 turbo motors. Rated at 35 lb/hr, their low-impedance design allows the
computer driver to operate them at 100-percent capacity (maximum duty cycle)
with no deterioration in spray pattern or delivery quality. The same cannot be
said for most other production injectors. A stock 19 lb/hr 5.0L Mustang
injector, for instance, is a high impedance unit that heats up and begins to
lose accuracy over 70-percent duty cycle. It is essential to use a computer from
a 2.3 turbo application -- if the system includes an intercooler, then a
computer from an intercooled application is mandatory for maximum intercooler
benefits. You can pirate the brain from any ‘87-’88 T-bird Turbo Coupe or
‘84-’86 Mustang SVO. Morgan’s Pinto is equipped with a used ‘86 Mustang SVO
computer augmented by a Superchips “PE” chip to raise the rev limiter to 7,000
rpm.
A lightly modified 5.0L Mustang NOS nitrous kit ($600) transforms
this Pinto from pony to stallion at the touch of a button -- it knocks nearly 2
1/2 seconds off the quarter-mile time. This system is a dry application, meaning
that the NOS fan-spray nozzle introduces nitrous at the throttle body while a
simultaneous boost in fuel pressure (from 50 to 100 psi) provides added gas (via
the injectors) in order to maintain a compatible air/fuel ratio that will
prevent lean out. Fuel is supplied by two Ford F-series truck electric pumps
that Morgan has mounted in series and flows through 3/8-inch factory-type
plastic lines. A stock Ford TFI distributor, MSD-6 controller, Motorcraft wires
and plugs, and a Garret intercooler kit -- which was designed for a Toyota truck
-- round things out.
Drivetrain and Suspension
Morgan attributes much
of his Pinto’s ability to its automatic transmission. With a manual gearbox, he
says, consistency and reliability would be elusive at best. So a Pinto C4
transmission, prepared by Pro Trans (Lancaster, California) with heavy-duty
internals and a manual valvebody, backs the 2.3. Choosing a torque converter
wasn’t difficult thanks to the prodigious low-end power unleashed by the nitrous
oxide. As such, a remanufactured stock Pinto converter connects the torque. The
stall speed is 3,000 rpm, and the nitrous and turbo boost ensure bog-free,
wheels-up launches every time. The cost of the prepped C4 and converter was
$825.
One of the keys to this potential little package is a somewhat rare
bellhousing -- a stock Ford item found only in ‘74-’75 Pintos and Mustang IIs
with the 2.3/C4 powertrain. Later cars used a C3 transmission, which
incorporates a totally different design. If this special bellhousing isn’t
available, one from an automatic-equipped ‘71-’74 2.0L Pinto is a direct
replacement but requires custom, stepped-diameter dowel pins to locate it
properly. It is imperative to index the housing correctly between crankshaft and
torque converter; otherwise, the vibration inherent in the four cylinder will
ultimately destroy the flexplate.
Believe it or not, many Pintos were
produced with 8-inch rear axles. Morgan’s ‘76 is one of them. This same axle is
indigenous to V-6 and V-8 Mustang IIs. The Detroit Locker differential, equipped
with 4.11:1 Richmond gears, features internal parts identical to those used in a
9-inch application. Stock 28-spline axleshafts are durable enough to withstand
the Pinto’s brutal 1.37-second short times, but pressure from tech inspectors
may force a switch to aftermarket replacements. The drivers-side axle is
original, and the passenger-side axle was replaced once as a precaution. Morgan
knows when that shaft begins to twist because the brake on that side of the car
develops an intermittent squeak.
The rear suspension consists of stock
leaf springs, which Morgan has modified by clamping the front segments, so they
act like traction bars; the rear segments are free to allow body rise and weight
transfer. Up front, the stock suspension, steering rack, and disc brakes work
with Koni SPA-1 shocks that foster ample front-end rise off the
line.
Body
Though Morgan likes the Pinto, he feels that
a Fox-platform Mustang (‘79-’93) would be an equally good home for the squeezed
turbo 2.3 we’ve outlined here. When stripped of fluff, a Mustang sedan can come
within 100 pounds of the Pinto’s curb weight, even though the ‘Stang is a larger
car in every respect. Thinner metal and more plastic account for this unlikely
scenario. Pre-74 Pintos, which were equipped with the 1.6 or 2.0 engine, have a
straight-across radiator-core support that requires an electric fan when fitting
a 2.3L motor. When the 2.3 became available in ‘74, Ford reconfigured the
radiator-core support with a kick out to provide adequate clearance. For this
type of duty, consider the coupe or wagon, as the Runabout hatchbacks lack the
former’s torsional rigidity. Wagons offer an interesting paradox. They weigh
more than the coupes, but the increased overhang helps traction. Further, ‘77
and up Pintos have aluminum bumpers, which save 20 pounds over the steel
counterparts.
Morgan wishes to extend a special thanks to the Raceway
Ford (Riverside, California) body shop for helping out with the ‘95 Mustang Opal
Frost paintwork and to his girlfriend Michelle Demora for her tireless support
at home and at the dragstrip. Even though hotrodding is dominated by big, burly
V-8s, cars like Morgan’s Pinto can’t be taken lightly. Best of all is the way he
terrorizes Hondas at the import drags with this curious combination of
traditional and progressive technology. But do the “rice rocket” magazines ever
give him ink? Never, Fortunately, we’ve just solved that problem.
Get your own Free Home
Page
