2.3 ford into my 914

Post by **2088 bob** » Sat Apr 05, 2003 4:13 pm

before we start hacking on that ford pos you might want to take a stroll over to esslinger's website and look at some of the hp #s they are making with their stuff at fairly reasonable prices and if that is not enough to blow back your hair how about in excess of 650hp from esslingers 2882cc alloy motor that they just dynoed and installed in the 4 seat sand rail for the gentleman that owns extreme performance the 2.3s s do have potential

regards 2088b0b

miller · Post by **miller** » Sun Apr 06, 2003 3:10 am

well said 2088 bob. the fact is the 2.3 is good for 400hp with a stock bottom end and about the only modification on the upper end is a good port job and a new cam. That aint bad. Lots of v6 and v8 engines can barely say that.

Mark the canuck · Post by **Mark the canuck** » Sun Apr 06, 2003 4:03 pm

Have you guys actually installed a Ford Pinto engine in a 914?

Pictures please.

miller · Post by **miller** » Sun Apr 06, 2003 6:42 pm

I havent put a 2.3 in a 914 but im currently putting one into a ghia. I know it would be a ton of work to put a 2.3 into a 914 but I think it would make a extreamly fast vw if done right.

need4speed · Post by **need4speed** » Fri Apr 11, 2003 3:24 pm

I put a 1600cc Porsche 912 engine in my 72 Ghia cabriolet.

It was a lot of fun.

-but-

It ran about $500 for parts (including exhaust system). Took me about 9 months - to track down parts, machinist, etc.

I got it up to 110, with the top down - (with the "freeway flyer" 4-speed VW transaxle) - and it still had legs left. And this was with bad rings (about 70-80 lbs compression). I didn't dare take it past that, because the Ghia body generates lift at those speeds, and I didn't want to go airborne.

The thing is, with engine conversions, there's always going to be trade-offs. And idiosyncracies. The trade off with the 912 engine was, affordability went out the window, because I discovered that I needed to rebuild the engine. That particular engine costs a mint to rebuild. I went back to the stock engine (rebuilt that for another $300 or so). And that one runs well, pulls strong, and gets 35 mpg on the highway.

But it's just not what I want in a car. I want a tad more oomph, and a tad less worrying about how the chrome trim looks, or whether my interior is historically accurate, etc.
Bottom line is - I bought a Ghia when what I really wanted was a Porsche.

If you don't like your 914, then why put a Ford engine into it? Buy a Ford instead?

Post by **Piledriver** » Sat Apr 12, 2003 10:55 am

IIRC, the 2.3 Ford has vertical clearance issues in a 914.

My personal "evil plan" involves a 2.1 wasser swap, which bolts right in, save for the plumbing.

No conversion kit/major parts needed, bellhousing and 228mm clutch are compatible, add a input shaft bush to the flywheel ala T4 upright conversion and you are there. (I've been using a 228 flywheel for >50K miles on the 1.7 T4)

The "front" crossbar will need to be modded to put it at the right height.

With CIS or LH-Jet from a Saab Turbo, a T3, and a decent air/water intercooler, add 1.4 rockers, 250-300 reliable HP are very possible, likely in fact..

[email protected] · Post by **[email protected]** » Sun Apr 13, 2003 6:30 pm

A water boer is too wide to fit in a 914. Rear trailing arm mounting points are the interfearance. The subaru is about 4 inches lower from the center of the crank than a Type-4.

Post by **Piledriver** » Sun Apr 13, 2003 8:31 pm

Damn.

Mark the canuck · Post by **Mark the canuck** » Mon Apr 14, 2003 6:41 pm

Piledriver wrote:IIRC, the 2.3 Ford has vertical clearance issues in a 914.

My personal "evil plan" involves a 2.1 wasser swap, which bolts right in, save for the plumbing.

This is totally what I'm getting at! If a conversion motor doesn't fit or fits poorly then I don't give a rat's butt how good a motor it is.

Some guys play with a conversion and their car turns into a total garage queen, meanwhile I'm out there driving mine.

Post by **Piledriver** » Mon Apr 14, 2003 8:02 pm

No, I'm driving mine now.

I haven't spent a dime yet on a conversion, only brain cycles...

Just planning...

I have a free dead wasser that I was planning on using to dry fit in the dead pile just to see what issues would come up in such a swap.

I didn't realize the wasser was that much wider, I will still be checking it out to see if it is an absolute show stopper or just a PITA. I THOUGHT I had seen it done, perhaps it was a pushrod suby motor... But those would drag on a 914 w/o the sump mod.($$$)

The appeal of a conversion to a wasser is simple--- If one is so inclined, a 112 HP version can be built-- absolutely stock. Add 1.4 rockers, clean up the ports, 125-130 HP are likely, given a decent exhasut and Webers/CIS conversion or "chipping" the digi-jet.

In that configuration, should last 300K++ miles in a 914, probably more. >250k pushing around a Vanagon is not unusual.(Mine doesn't burn a drop of oil with the new heads)

I'm sorry, but they only way one is going to get a T4 to those figures w/o several rebuilds would be as cargo in a vanagon.;-)

It would almost be better to narrow a wasser vs a subaru, cost wise.

Stock93 · Post by **Stock93** » Mon Apr 14, 2003 10:12 pm

You could even do an oxyboxer conversion if its going into a 914 that way you dont have to mess with the radiator etc. This would be provided it will fit. Of course if your going to bother to do that you might as well just built the type IV.

John

Post by **Piledriver** » Tue Apr 15, 2003 9:52 am

I think the wassers longevity comes from the water cooling of an otherwise very reliable 60+ year old air cooled design.

I have a turbo in mind--- I feel water cooling would be better.
(Assuming it fits)

An oxy would likely be the same size, just easier to change the deck on.

Post by **Piledriver** » Wed Apr 16, 2003 7:35 pm

Steve@pelicanparts said:
"A water boxer is too wide to fit in a 914. Rear trailing arm mounting points are the interference...."

Please, where did you get that information? I can't see it. perhaps I am missing something?

I finally got around to measuring the wasser vs a t4...
A wasser is ~1 inch wider, total, valve cover to valve cover. (probably T1 size, exactly)
(Given the accuracy of a measuring tape in the dark, make it 1 1/2, total)

(Jake, don't you have one together?)

+20mm on each side (max) still comes nowhere near the suspension consoles.
(Update-- that's about correct accounting for the T1 valve covers being deeper, it measures out to ~45mm total, again with a tape measure ans square, just in the day, and with valve covers on both. Leaves ~1+ in on each siide.)

Due to the fact there is ~2.5" clearance between the suspension consoles and the valve covers on each side on my 74 with a T4, other than easily checking the valve clearance, I cannot see whay a wasser would NOT fit in a 914. Valve adjustments are a PITA already, and having to drop the motor a few inches to adjust the valves would probably be a blessing in disguise... everyone wants a Porsche 6, but I doubt a line of volunteers to adjust the valves would form in our lifetimes...

Hydraulic lifters that work would be more of a blessing... They seem to on wassers for some reason. usually.

Steve, what am I missing?

I will be attempting a dry install this weekend (rod "ventilated" free wasser on my spare tranny) in the rusty poor old pile. I guess only then will I be sure.

Post by **Piledriver** » Thu Apr 17, 2003 6:52 pm

Update --- (Bump)

+20mm on each side (max) still comes nowhere near the suspension consoles.
(Update-- that's about correct accounting for the T1 valve covers being deeper, it measures out to ~42mm total, again with a tape measure ans square, just in the day, and with valve covers on both. Leaves ~1+ in on each siide.)

Stock93 · Post by **Stock93** » Thu Apr 17, 2003 9:24 pm

Does it have enough room for the exhaust to come out of the head. If I remember correctly waterboxer engines have the exhaust ports in the side of the heads like type 1s.

John