• Welcome to the new SAOCA website. Already a member? Simply click Log In/Sign Up up and to the right and use your same username and password from the old site. If you've forgotten your password, please send an email to membership@sunbeamalpine.org for assistance.

    If you're new here, click Log In/Sign Up and enter your information. We'll approve your account as quickly as possible, typically in about 24 hours. If it takes longer, you were probably caught in our spam/scam filter.

    Enjoy.

Ford 2.3 engine weight

C

Charles Johns

Donation Time
I am making motor mounts to install a 2.3 out of a 1985 Mustang and have heard horror stories about the little engine's weight. Because I need to install / remove it several times to get things right, I decided to weigh it with the carb, dizzy, plugs, alternator, starter, exhaust materials (tubing-flange) and check for myself. My very new scale says 314.8 pounds with NO OIL. I weighed myself to see how close it is to my doctors scale and it is accurate. Doc says I weigh 218 lbs. and my scale says 221 lbs. with my clothes on. Stripping down to my skivvies in my shop seems a little weird and ridiculous, so use your own judgement about accuracy. 314.8 plus oil/coolant should be around 320 pounds. My A4LD weighs 150 pounds with fluid. So 470 lbs. ready to go seems about right. I am guessing my total gain over the 1725 factory motor and 4-speed will be around 200 pounds but the 4th gear will be Overdrive and automatic. The 2.3 makes much more torque and at 1,500 rpm lower with a wider power band. Horse Power is similar coming in with about 8 to 10 HP more but also at much lower rpm. The 1725 made 92.5 HP but at 5,500 rpm, while the 2.3 after mods will make about 110 HP at 4,800 rpm (Auto Engineering Formulas). The extra HP starts around 4,000 and keeps gaining up to 4,800 where it flattens out up to 5,000 rpm. That is where I stopped using the Auto Engineering Formula. TORQUE is where the 2.3 really shines on the street, and that is how I chose my parts for the rebuild. The 1725 made only 103 lbs. per ft. TQ at 3,700 rpm if memory serves. The Ford makes 122 lbs. per ft. at 2,200 rpm factory advertised, and I am sure I have added 20 lbs. per ft. that should be fairly flat from 2,200 to 3,200 rpm. Though TQ is only a SWAG (Scientific Wild A_ _ Guess) using my knowledge of the cam, carb, and other specs. I am an ASE certified engine mechanic though, and 140 lbs. per ft. Torque seems close. Most charts I have seen weigh the motor minus power steering parts and some minus many other pieces. So the next time you hear the 2.3 weighs 400 pounds, they are only about 80 pounds off.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_2140.JPG
    IMG_2140.JPG
    581 KB · Views: 30
  • IMG_2143.JPG
    IMG_2143.JPG
    569.8 KB · Views: 30
  • IMG_2217.JPG
    IMG_2217.JPG
    348.4 KB · Views: 29
P

PROCRAFT

Donation Time
Charles Johns said:
I am making motor mounts to install a 2.3 out of a 1985 Mustang and have heard horror stories about the little engine's weight. Because I need to install / remove it several times to get things right, I decided to weigh it with the carb, dizzy, plugs, alternator, starter, exhaust materials (tubing-flange) and check for myself. My very new scale says 314.8 pounds with NO OIL. I weighed myself to see how close it is to my doctors scale and it is accurate. Doc says I weigh 218 lbs. and my scale says 221 lbs. with my clothes on. Stripping down to my skivvies in my shop seems a little weird and ridiculous, so use your own judgement about accuracy. 314.8 plus oil/coolant should be around 320 pounds. My A4LD weighs 150 pounds with fluid. So 470 lbs. ready to go seems about right. I am guessing my total gain over the 1725 factory motor and 4-speed will be around 200 pounds but the 4th gear will be Overdrive and automatic. The 2.3 makes much more torque and at 1,500 rpm lower with a wider power band. Horse Power is similar coming in with about 8 to 10 HP more but also at much lower rpm. The 1725 made 92.5 HP but at 5,500 rpm, while the 2.3 after mods will make about 110 HP at 4,800 rpm (Auto Engineering Formulas). The extra HP starts around 4,000 and keeps gaining up to 4,800 where it flattens out up to 5,000 rpm. That is where I stopped using the Auto Engineering Formula. TORQUE is where the 2.3 really shines on the street, and that is how I chose my parts for the rebuild. The 1725 made only 103 lbs. per ft. TQ at 3,700 rpm if memory serves. The Ford makes 122 lbs. per ft. at 2,200 rpm factory advertised, and I am sure I have added 20 lbs. per ft. that should be fairly flat from 2,200 to 3,200 rpm. Though TQ is only a SWAG (Scientific Wild A_ _ Guess) using my knowledge of the cam, carb, and other specs. I am an ASE certified engine mechanic though, and 140 lbs. per ft. Torque seems close. Most charts I have seen weigh the motor minus power steering parts and some minus many other pieces. So the next time you hear the 2.3 weighs 400 pounds, they are only about 80 pounds off.
Click to expand...
Now you know why I chose a V8!
 
C

Charles Johns

Donation Time
PROCRAFT, I love V8's but am trying to see what I can do with half the cylinders. Turbo-charging is the best/easiest way but I am also building with ZERO computers and old-school ideas. Okay, not totally old-school, because back then, "Nothing beats cubic horse power" was the mantra. DanR, no doubt an aluminum 4 or 5 speed would save weight but one must also add the clutch, flywheel that is heavier than a flex-plate, linkage, extra pedal, and the pain of shifting in traffic...I drive my cars. No doubt it is a tradeoff to gain Overdrive and no shifting. My goal is 110 HP with a carb, ease of driving with an automatic, and mid 30's mpg in highway comfort. I have driven big HP hot rods with the comfort of a horse-drawn buckboard and I want the comfort of a modern car with the power necessary to pass slow traffic. The hard top will probably be used 90% of the time.
 
DanR

DanR

Diamond Level Sponsor
John, I wasn't attempting to temp you into going with the T5. Just weights from the Table.....

I too am utilizing an A4LD behind a V6. Think it will be a very pleasant and surprisingly quick to the unsuspecting?
 
B

Bill Blue

Platinum Level Sponsor
DanR said:
John, I wasn't attempting to temp you into going with the T5. Just weights from the Table.....

I too am utilizing an A4LD behind a V6. Think it will be a very pleasant and surprisingly quick to the unsuspecting?
Click to expand...
I don't know, I have pretty high expectations. I think it will interesting to see what happens after the torque of the 4.0 gets multiplied by the torque convertor. But I guess I should be classed as among the "suspecting".

I don't get very excited about transmission weight. Yes, excessive weight is not good, but if you are going to throw an extra 75 pounds into a performance car, I don't think you can find a better location for it. My M5R1 weighs in at 90 pounds. Does not include flywheel or clutch assembly. It places the center of balance of the engine/transmission to the #4 cylinder, which is only 5 - 6 inches in fornt of the firewall.

Bill
 
C

Charles Johns

Donation Time
Mr. Blue, I agree about where the weight is. The tranny weight did not bother me much but I did consider it. Motor, transmission, extra insulation, maybe AC, and a nice stereo, I think 2500 pounds with 110 HP and 140 lbs. per ft. Torque should make for a good driver...but not a racer. I have the motor set down about 1.5" in front so the crossmember was notched, and it is as far back as I can get it. Battery may go in trunk on passenger side with the spare, fire extinguisher, and 16 gallon tank. I'll probably make up a small tool box with on-the-road emergency tools. For now, still trying to balance left-right-front-back motor and transmission. Still need to sell the 65 Mustang for $$$ to finish project, but have plenty to keep me busy that requires no funds...just labor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top