hudson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Someone thought a 2.3l ford was heavier than a V8?
>
> Andrew McNally
> Hamilton ON
> 26

Yeah V8 Ford guys are always yapping that a 2300 OHC pos thing is "nearly as heavy, maybe 10-20 lbs different".
Yeah once the iron heads and Iron intake and IRON everything else is pitched for some "really cheap aluminum heads and intake...."

Not that heavier than Ford by approx 90 lbs VOLVO lump, OI!!!!
That's a heavy one, just about got a him-ia lifting the block for John L's Hornet class thing into the stand on Sunday.

---

John Vanlandingham
Sleezattle, WA, USA

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

www.rallyrace.net/jvab
CALL +1 206 431-9696
Remember! Pacific Standard Time
is 3 hours behind Eastern Standard Time.

That's why a 2.3L Duratec, nice and light motor, makes so much sense now. And with the pretty stuff Marcy Motorsport (http://www.marcymotorsport.com/) has available for that motor! If I recall, it's like 150 lbs lighter than the 2.3 Lima block or somewhere near there.

Cutting blocks in half! That's awesome. I go only to their For Sale, and that's only about once a month. That reminds me of this younger guy here in Denver who has an Impreza with the Legacy 2.2L turbo block that intentionally overrevved it on the track to around 11,500 RPM by downshifting to 2nd (dog box) jsut to see if his motor could handle it. He had like two spare motors so wasn't too worried about it. Yet people still insist upon the inferior WRX blocks, which is fine by us because then we can continue getting complete set ups for 2.2T swaps for $750.

---

Grant Hughes

Skye- that list is on so many websites.

I look at it this way, I've lifted several 2.3 blocks and I move the heads around my work bench every so often, but I can't move either a pair of 5.0 heads and I certainly can't lift a 5.0 block. And I move 300 lbs. espresso machines (move not lift mind you) and 90 lbs grinders at work, so I have something to compare to.

---

Scott Manley
Spokane, WA
86' XR4Ti
37

Yeah it's probably bullshit.

---

www.rallyrace.net

Scott Manley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Skye- that list is on so many websites.
>
> I look at it this way, I've lifted several 2.3
> blocks and I move the heads around my work bench
> every so often, but I can't move either a pair of
> 5.0 heads and I certainly can't lift a 5.0 block.
> And I move 300 lbs. espresso machines (move not
> lift mind you) and 90 lbs grinders at work, so I
> have something to compare to.

Dave Williams compiled the list.

The current list is at http://www.bacomatic.org/~dw/txt/engfyi.htm .

It's found its way onto many sites, often without proper attribution and without the notes at the bottom.

For instance... that [2] attribution next to the 450lb weight for thr turbo engine:

(2) Complete Handbook of Automotive Power Trains, Jan Norbye, 1981

So that is the reported weight, lifted from a book, of a 2.3 Turbo made before 1981. So, we are talking one of the engines used in very early Fox body Mustangs. Carbureted. It's entirely possible that the carb engine's manifolding is obscenely heavy, or the early Turbo blocks are much heavier than later ones, or maybe Merkurs used different blocks since they WERE shipping engines from the US over to Germany so they could bolt them into cars and ship them back here.

Note that the non turbo 2.3 as listed from the same source is 411... *and* that a non turbo 2.3 listed from source 18 (Ford SVO V-6 Racing Engine Builder's Guide, 1992) is *307* pounds... no mention made of manifolding present or not, accessories or not, BUT STILL... Ford did do a lot of weight reduction in some of their engines after 1981.

There's another attribution for a 2.3 Turbo, incidentally... 380 pounds, including turbo (and presumably manifolding) and flywheel, from source 162: "Brian Knowles 29 August 1997 (his scale)". Lending credence to the weight-reduction-program theory.

There's data, and then there's where the data is coming from. Kinda like saying 5.0s must weigh 500 pounds because some 1968 motor did, even though they shaved a ton of weight out of them in '82 and it's cheaper to buy all-up aluminum heads you can lift with one finger and thumb than it is to even rebuild stockers with new valves, shedding even more weight... *duck and cover*

---

Pete Remner
Cleveland, Ohio

1984 RX-7 (rallycross thing)
1978
Silence is golden, but duct tape is silver.