Four-bangers?

[turbo2256b]

Most I have looked into over the years use too much compression with a turbo set up and too low a gears. High compression with a turbo actually reduces the effectiveness of the boost as it cant pack as much into the cylinder. The setup I mentioned should produce around 500 to 600 lbs of torq and keeping the RPM around 5200 is good for longevity of the engine without using a lot of aftermarket internals.

[sick88tbird]

The above listed setup would be hard pressed to exceed 420ft-lbs at any given rpm point. However, pumping losses would be low and it would probably get nice highway mileage.

[turbo2256b]

The above listed setup would be hard pressed to exceed 420ft-lbs at any given rpm point. However, pumping losses would be low and it would probably get nice highway mileage.

All ready done it around late 90s

[sly]

ah... the days when we still had real gas.

[sick88tbird]

All ready done it around late 90s

Still have the time slips and dyno sheets?

[knucklehead0202]

Actually, turbos with more compression spool quicker and require less boost to make good power. Only 4-banger that'd really make sense is the new Eco-boost 4 out of the mustang. It's front-engine RWD and makes a very respectable amount of power. That said, gotta agree with Oldschool in a roundabout way, 4-bangers pretty much all sound like shit. No matter how much power they make, they're just trashy sounding. There are exceptions, but very few. Only one I can think of offhand is the SRT4, which is really sad because the car is a POS. I compare it to putting a Ferrari motor in a chevy citation. Just sad. Anyhow, the diesel swaps make sense in a way, but so terribly boring. If I want a tow vehicle, i'll get a truck. I bought my bigass sedan with a 5.0 because it's still one of the easiest engines to mod with the largest aftermarket following. You could say "5.0" to some friggin' tribesmen in Africa and they'd start nodding and draw you a picture of a Fox mustang in the sand with a spear. Since I have 2 young children I wasn't allowed to get a mustang so I got the next best thing; a panther with a 5.0. Only swaps I'd consider would be a 351 or a coyote, the latter being a gigantic, expensive ballache that I'm unlikely to undertake.

[mitymerc]

The pancake Subies can sound pretty awsome.

[Primalzer]

My vote would be a 4BT as well, but you are definitely going to run into height issues...it's one TALL motor...

Nobody has really mentioned the 2.3 Duratec out of the later Rangers....already setup for RWD, can come mated to a 5-speed, or range of automatics. Granted it only made 145 HP And 150 LB-FT of torque, but the HP figure isn't THAT far off the early boxes.

[Kodachrome Wolf]

Nobody has really mentioned the 2.3 Duratec out of the later Rangers....already setup for RWD, can come mated to a 5-speed, or range of automatics. Granted it only made 145 HP And 150 LB-FT of torque, but the HP figure isn't THAT far off the early boxes.

Trouble with that is the Panther is heavy as it is, or at least compared to a Ranger (they're not too far off, but it still does matter). The 302 doesn't make a lot of power, but made the necessary torque to move that weight. IIRC, the torque range on the 302s was somewhere around the 270 FT-LB range.

The 2.3 would be worn out being revved up a lot to get the car moving, especially with passengers and cargo.

[gadget73]

280 ft-lb with dual exhaust. Yeah, half that torque would really suck balls for performance. Not like the stock motor is a fireball but at least it will move out of it's own way.

For what it's worth, a stock HO only makes 300 ft-lb, and it does so at a higher rpm. Probably why they didn't put that motor in to begin with. It needs more gear to have any chance of not sucking. The difference is the other end, some 45 more hp at higher rpm than the stock motor makes.

[turbo2256b]

Actually, turbos with more compression spool quicker and require less boost to make good power.

I worked for Schwitzer as a turbo design engineer for over 8 years. Turbos for army tanks, Indy cars, experimental set ups for some Ford engines for Ford, DIESEL TRUCKS, STATIONARY gen sets. One of my design ideas was a major reason Gurneys cars won indy 2 years in a row. I designed the variable geometry turbine housings. Designed their state of the art stationary test cells. I have set up or helped set up turbos on many rides from 4 lbs of boost to 40 lbs.
I have been in big meetings while working at Ford with Garret wanting us to go back to turbos. Garrets salesmen freaked out and were asking just who I was how I knew so much. Even diesel over the road trucks lowered compression a bit to run turbos.
Think about 6 guys here ran turbos wit h9 to 10.5 boost all of them did severe damage to their engines.

[Primalzer]

Trouble with that is the Panther is heavy as it is, or at least compared to a Ranger (they're not too far off, but it still does matter). The 302 doesn't make a lot of power, but made the necessary torque to move that weight. IIRC, the torque range on the 302s was somewhere around the 270 FT-LB range.

The 2.3 would be worn out being revved up a lot to get the car moving, especially with passengers and cargo.

Torque isn't everything...there's a reason modern diesels, with their 600-700 lb ft of torque aren't winning many drag races...if you are throwing a 4-cylinder in your box, you're probably not going to be doing any towing...

The nice thing about the 2.3 is they have cam options...the Ranger's came with an HD crank, plus the cams out of the Focus should work, so that opens up the aftermarket performance section. Plus these apparently respond well to turbo's and not as much the NA route. With a nice turbo, you should solve that low-end torque issue, while still returning some decent mileage numbers. There's at least one guys running 10.6X's at nearly 3500 lbs race weight out of his 2.3 Duratec turbo. I would assume you'd have more than enough room underhood for a DOHC 4-banger and turbo, especially considering 351's and 302's live there normally.

[sxcpotatoes]

I've been looking into Turbo Coupe motors/trannies for my '62 Jeep, 190 hp @ 2200 lbs (who knows if it's on S10 frame or how much it weighs) would equal 380 hp in a '90's Grand Marquis.

[turbo2256b]

Still have the time slips and dyno sheets?

No the tbird was owned by a Ford engineer I worked with a Ford Advance Engine Design. It was dynoed at a company Ford did business with.

Anothe engineer I WORKED WITH THERE turboed a lotus like the one in the James bond movie it was running 40 lbs in the little 2 L Kent Ford engine what a beast.

20 lbs of boost in a 302 and your in the 1200 to 1600 HP range.

[sick88tbird]

20 lbs of boost in a 302 and your in the 1200 to 1600 HP range.

It would take some serious hardware to do so...or just lowering compression to 4:1 perhaps...all joking aside, a 351w with AFR 205 CNC'd heads, custom turbo cam and TFS-R intake made 974hp with twin T76 turbos and race gas at 19.8 lbs, as tested by MM&FF.

Some of your guesstimates seem a little fantastical. Is the rest of the world missing out on your unicorn piss injection system? If low compression turbo engines were the best, that's what we'd all be using currently. Instead we're finding ways of raising compression with boost, including OEM's. Your rationale is based off the 80's and early 90's knowledge of automotive turbocharger technology, when they were still considered to be voo-doo and black magic.

The world's most intelligent people thought the world was flat once upon a time...just saying.