Someone needs to swap in a 4 banger Duratec 2.3?

Hello again,

I've been doing a bit more research into this, I haven't had the time to touch this van until recently but had some time last night.

I found out that the 144ci, 170ci and 200ci are less powerful than previously thought.  Back in the day they had very hyped up horsepower and torque figures.  For example a 200ci may make 70hp and 124 torque at the dyno, a far cry from the 120hp they claim.  Another example of HP rating changes is with the 250ci, it was originally advertised as having 155hp, but when they changed the calculations for HP it dropped to a whopping 88hp.  Having any 4 banger built past the 80's is quite adequate to boost the performance of this vehicle.

I've found that the Lima 2.3 > 2.5l are ideal for this conversion.   They're quite narrow engines, very cheap, with a huge aftermarket for them.  They still build this engine as an industrial engine called the LRG425.  Another reason this engine is ideal is that this engine has problems reaching the proper operating temperature, this motor actually runs cool, perfect for a small doghouse.  The industrial engine is only slightly wider than 20in at (21in) due to the alternator which can be relocated (the ranger version has it located in front of the intake), it's also worth noting that the alternator is decently low so any mod to the doghouse maybe under the lid line (easier to fab).



I'm attaching pics of one going into an econoline pickup from a user called "motorjunkie", didn't find a completed one though.



He claims his Econoline gets 20mpg with this swap. Other people who've worked with these engines for falcons claim that the wiring was made very simple too.

This is my first post, so please overlook my ignorance.(You can overlook it later because I'm old & from Oklahoma.)  Has anyone considered the rpm range that these engines develop max power & torque?  The 170 in my Epup allegedly makes 105hp @ 4400rpm.  The Duratec 2.3 makes 151hp @5750.  I can see where that would work but what about the torque?  170 - 156 ft/lb @ 2400.  2.3 - 154 ft/lb @ 4250.  I'm not smart enough to predict what effects this will have but I can see a potential  "gotcha".  Possibly at clutch engagement on a manual shift???  Let me know as my 170 is "stuck".  I think I can hone & re-ring but wonder if a transplant would be better.  
Thanks,
Jim in central OK

Welcome to the club Jim. I'm old too, but enjoying the possibilities these folks are suggesting.

Hey Jim. Easiest thing to do is find a good 200, have it rebuilt and transplant that. Cheap and easy. And you get a nice upgrade, 7 mains, a little more displacement. '76-'80+ high mount starter 200's are ideal, but any 200(but 80-83 low mount blocks) will be a drop in replacement.

And yes, the 170 is a good motor, torquey and runs forever. Ford killed these motors with the head they used to save $, runs out of breath....

If I was to do a engine swap ultimately I would go with a Cummings 4bt but that motor might be too wide and with a turbo a nightmare to geterdun. Still a dream.

Well, it was a coincidence today that a buddy of mine came into work to have some work done on his roll back. His hobby, or part-time second job, is dirt track racing with these 2.3's. I got to pick his brain a little and was floored when he said it was common to get 250-275 HP out of an engine. These are carbureted engines he is using! He said that he has used both older 2.3's that were carbureted and newer fuel injected ones and converted them over. The main difference between the two engines were the size of the main journals, but they worked both the same. Another common use was using Honda rods or Mitsubishi rods that had the notches machined on the opposite sides of the rod and cap for the bearings. Other things he said that people have used were 1.9 (Escort) cranks and 2.5 cranks with corresponding rods. There is definitely a large aftermarket for these engines. A lot larger than the small inline six market. http://www.esslingeracing.com/ is a place to check out if you want to build one hardcore.

jrdunn96 wrote:This is my first post, so please overlook my ignorance.(You can overlook it later because I'm old & from Oklahoma.)  Has anyone considered the rpm range that these engines develop max power & torque?  The 170 in my Epup allegedly makes 105hp @ 4400rpm.  The Duratec 2.3 makes 151hp @5750.  I can see where that would work but what about the torque?  170 - 156 ft/lb @ 2400.  2.3 - 154 ft/lb @ 4250.  I'm not smart enough to predict what effects this will have but I can see a potential  "gotcha".  Possibly at clutch engagement on a manual shift???  Let me know as my 170 is "stuck".  I think I can hone & re-ring but wonder if a transplant would be better.  
Thanks,
Jim in central OK

The reality is that it doesn't make 105hp, never has never will.  My research into this indicated the true power is actually between 50-75 to the rear wheels (most dyno results were in the 50's though).  The 170 motor is rugged but just a heavy old lump by todays standards.  The 2.3s have more torque than the 170 but just barely.

I am not aware of any standard back then to come up with true horsepower numbers.  They'd commonly down rate and up rate power.  In any case HP ratings have been updated and what that means is that by today's standards 100hp back then really is 70hp now.  

The benefits of a modern 4 banger is not only Horsepower but fuel economy and reliability as well.  You can mate the 2.3 or other 4 cylinders to modern automatics for a much nicer cruise.

Das Boot wrote:Well, it was a coincidence today that a buddy of mine came into work to have some work done on his roll back.  His hobby, or part-time second job, is dirt track racing with these 2.3's.  I got to pick his brain a little and was floored when he said it was common to get 250-275 HP out of an engine.  These are carbureted engines he is using!  He said that he has used both older 2.3's that were carbureted and newer fuel injected ones and converted them over.  The main difference between the two engines were the size of the main journals, but they worked both the same.  Another common use was using Honda rods or Mitsubishi rods that had the notches machined on the opposite sides of the rod and cap for the bearings.  Other things he said that people have used were 1.9 (Escort) cranks and 2.5 cranks with corresponding rods.  There is definitely a large aftermarket for these engines.  A lot larger than the small inline six market.  http://www.esslingeracing.com/ is a place to check out if you want to build one hardcore.

The reason your friends are going to CARB over Injection is most likely simplicity or due to race restrictions. There's no other benefit than this. Id highly suggest moving away from carbs for the econoline due to the fuel boiling issue that already exists in these motors. Once you go into high horsepower ratings you'll increase engine temps and exacerbate the issue. Though it's a bit more effort, a fuel injected stock motor will probably be very nice and able to keep up with modern traffic easily.

Funny you guys should talk about this.

I am currently putting things together and swapping in a 2.5L Duratec out of a 2016 Ford Fusion into my Econoline.

I also picked up a Duratec to C4 bellhousing from quads4rods.
Here is a picture of it bolted up in my garage:

Just this week I put in an order for ITBs from these guys:Omex

And I bought some other swap parts from retroford

I am controlling everything with a Inifnity 506 ECU aem infinity.
The reason I picked that ECU is because it supports the VVT (variable valve timing) on the Duratec 2.5L motor.

I talked to Vic a bit and hope to get down to SoCal eventually and load the car up with parts.
But, if anyone is local and has a C4 with a short tailshaft please let me know.

Thanks guys,
Pipedreams

Sounds like a cool project. I hope you keep us updated.

Pipedreams wrote:Funny you guys should talk about this.

I am currently putting things together and swapping in a 2.5L Duratec out of a 2016 Ford Fusion into my Econoline.

I also picked up a Duratec to C4 bellhousing from quads4rods.
Here is a picture of it bolted up in my garage:

Just this week I put in an order for ITBs from these guys:Omex

And I bought some other swap parts from retroford

I am controlling everything with a Inifnity 506 ECU aem infinity.
The reason I picked that ECU is because it supports the VVT (variable valve timing) on the Duratec 2.5L motor.

I talked to Vic a bit and hope to get down to SoCal eventually and load the car up with parts.
But, if anyone is local and has a C4 with a short tailshaft please let me know.

Thanks guys,
Pipedreams

Wow your committed. How far along are you on the swap, are you going to make mods to the dog house or does it fit?

Hey FancyFlush,

I'm pretty much in the beginning stages.
I have the engine on a stand now in the garage
I'm currently waiting on the ITBs from Omex.
It is taking some time for them to manufacturer the parts and send them to me. (I don't know why, probably a small outfit).

As far as it fitting in the doghouse; I doubt it.
If you look at the width of the 2.5L with ITBs it is slightly smaller than a 302.
But, a 302's width is symmetrical to it's center-line. The Duratec with ITBs is not.
My guess is that I am going to mount it and the ITBs will be sticking out the side of the doghouse.
So, I will likely have to modify the doghouse to make it work.

If I had used a 2.3L Duratec out of a Ford Ranger I would likely not have this problem.
I could have used the stock Ford Ranger intake. That would have create a smaller package overall.
But, I wanted the 2.5L because of the additional torque, higher horsepower and better flowing intake ports on the head. Also, the 2.5L has Variable Valve Timing (VVT) which could be a pain if just using a megasquirt to control it, but I am using an ECU that directly supports it. This should give me a better torque curve than a 2.3L Duratec.

Also, I have never put ITBs on anything and I think they are cool!
The 170 inline 6 is currently in it, but it has a blown headgasket. So, the van hasn't moved in a little while.