2.3L performance. - Page 3 - Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums

Notices

2.3L performance.

  #31  
Old 02-08-2007, 03:03 PM
Old Rob
Old Rob is offline
Junior User
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 68
Old Rob is starting off with a positive reputation.
For 2.3 performance parts you might try www.powerbyace.com
 
  #32  
Old 05-19-2007, 06:23 PM
Pinhead-227
Pinhead-227 is offline
Senior User
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Overland Park, KS
Posts: 149
Pinhead-227 is starting off with a positive reputation.
Have you ever heard of Singh Grooves?

 
  #33  
Old 05-19-2007, 11:23 PM
fordnut71
fordnut71 is offline
Senior User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: toronto
Posts: 222
fordnut71 is starting off with a positive reputation.
iv never seen or heard of them but im sure people here would like to know the reason behind them. im 1 of them wanting to know y, so please do tell
 
  #34  
Old 05-19-2007, 11:58 PM
pud
pud is offline
Posting Guru
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Quesnel, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,955
pud is starting off with a positive reputation.
no kidding, WTF do those do?
 
  #35  
Old 05-20-2007, 02:21 AM
Pinhead-227
Pinhead-227 is offline
Senior User
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Overland Park, KS
Posts: 149
Pinhead-227 is starting off with a positive reputation.
www.somender-singh.com
http://fueleconomytips.com/2005/11/24/groovy-heads/
http://460ford.com/viewtopic.php?t=9947&highlight=
http://mpgresearch.com/viewforum.php?f=48
http://mpgresearch.com/viewtopic.php?t=160

I have been busy with much of the same. Most of my work is with race cars and an occasional street driven hot rod. Here's an example of my involvement.

A good friend, Glenn was having problems with his super pro 66 Mustang. Some of you may recognize the car from Ford races in the Houston, New Orleans or Gulf Port areas. He runs a small flat tappet cam shaft in a high compression 351 Windsor. The car was running mid to low 10s but he was having problems with trace detonation at launch with a transbrake.

I cut grooves in his AFR heads and he opened the squish clearance. Normally I would expect the reduced squish to create detonation. The result was low RPM power that was too much for the car to handle. I was there for the first night out after the modification. The car ended up in the trailer because he couldn't control the wheel standing.

He has now softened the combination to allow launch with out excessive wheel standing. Needless to say he's convinced.

Here's some picture from his project and other recent activities.






The grooves help excite the mixture in the chamber, create turbulence, and direct turbulence where it can be used the most, near the spark plug. The more turbulence in the chamber before the plug fires, the faster the air/fuel will burn, and the less heat/fuel is wasted out of the exhaust. On carbuerated engines with no other modifications, you can lean out your jets by 20% without doing any other major tuning. The Grooves' biggest advantage, however, is detonation resistance. Engines that have light pinging or are on the verge of pinging will benefit the most from the mod. Engines that don't ping would benefit from the groove and higher compression. Since the groove extends detonation tolerance, higher compression can be run without having to fill up with higher octane fuel. 10.5:1 on 87 octane fuel is pretty much the norm for an engine with Singh Grooves without worrying about detonatin/ping.
 
  #36  
Old 05-30-2007, 10:56 PM
Pinhead-227
Pinhead-227 is offline
Senior User
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Overland Park, KS
Posts: 149
Pinhead-227 is starting off with a positive reputation.
Bringing this discussion back to life, I talked to the mechanic that did the modifications to the 2.5L cylinder head. The 2.5L/Auto tranny Ranger was getting ~23mpg consistently over a 3 month period. After the head work, the power went up to 3.0L V6 levels and gas mileage went up to 29mpg. It also idles VERY smooth and tends to run a bit cooler.

http://powrehaus.com/2006/09/21/ford...ad-w6-grooves/
 

Last edited by Pinhead-227; 05-30-2007 at 10:58 PM. Reason: Added Link
  #37  
Old 05-31-2007, 07:08 PM
fordnut71
fordnut71 is offline
Senior User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: toronto
Posts: 222
fordnut71 is starting off with a positive reputation.
i would like to know how they would do on a emmision testing seeing i have to do them here.
might be ok for mpg but might send the emmisions out of range
 
  #38  
Old 06-01-2007, 12:23 AM
Pinhead-227
Pinhead-227 is offline
Senior User
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Overland Park, KS
Posts: 149
Pinhead-227 is starting off with a positive reputation.
Numerous tests have shown emissions to drop through the floor. Can you fail for putting out too little emissions? HC, CO, and NOx go down, CO2 and H2O go up. Not a single car tested that have had these modifications done have done worse than stock; all of them have improved.
 
  #39  
Old 06-03-2007, 06:07 PM
99F150
99F150 is offline
Posting Guru
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Sioux Falls SD
Posts: 1,279
99F150 is starting off with a positive reputation.
Interesting concept, but I do not see how it is improving MPG by any thing that significant.

I have a 2.5 in my 99 Supercab with a 5speed, is any info available using E85 as a fuel? I have a Custom Diablo chip burned to run E85 and am thinking of shaving the head and putting big pistons in to raise the compresion ratio to around 12 or 13:1 to burn the Ethanol more efficently.
Dan
 
  #40  
Old 07-01-2007, 01:02 AM
pud
pud is offline
Posting Guru
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Quesnel, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,955
pud is starting off with a positive reputation.
theoretically it would increase mileage from the ability to run a higher compression ratio, which would increase your volumetric efficiency...theoretically. Also claims to be able to lean out the air:fuel ratio which would do it.
The increased compression ratio would increase cylinder pressure, which would then make your fuel mixture more explosive and release more energy out of the same amount of fuel. Therefore the added energy moves your vehicle further/easier.
 
  #41  
Old 07-02-2007, 07:47 AM
fordnut71
fordnut71 is offline
Senior User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: toronto
Posts: 222
fordnut71 is starting off with a positive reputation.
well i think its a mighty big claim
im not saying it dont work but if it do u think the car companys would have already have been doing this. im sure the cost of cutting the groves in the head would be a cost factor
for me im kinda on the fence on this 1. i think id like to see some dyno numbers before i beleave it
 
  #42  
Old 07-02-2007, 12:20 PM
pud
pud is offline
Posting Guru
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Quesnel, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,955
pud is starting off with a positive reputation.
Originally Posted by fordnut71
well i think its a mighty big claim
im not saying it dont work but if it do u think the car companys would have already have been doing this. im sure the cost of cutting the groves in the head would be a cost factor
for me im kinda on the fence on this 1. i think id like to see some dyno numbers before i beleave it
ditto, Im still very intruiged. Even if it only reduces detonation so I can run 10.5:1 on 87 ill be laughing. Also if thats the case then I should be able to run like 14:1 on propane.
 
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
truckman87
Ranger & B-Series
8
10-03-2016 10:38 PM
Woodtroll
Ranger & B-Series
3
12-26-2014 06:43 PM
YakRancher62
1987 - 1996 F150 & Larger F-Series Trucks
5
07-08-2013 11:34 AM
chickinabigtruck
1987 - 1996 F150 & Larger F-Series Trucks
7
08-21-2011 01:31 PM
joey little
Ranger & B-Series
7
03-08-2006 04:16 PM


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: 2.3L performance.


Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

© 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.