SVO Turbo: the closest match?

[yldouright]

I know this has probably been hashed out before but I thought I would revisit it. The FAQ indicates a "T3-48" and the two vintage maps I've located are below:

T3-45 turbo map and
T3-50 turbo map

are the closest matches I could find. Which of the two IS the one on the 85.5-86 SVO? If neither, where is the actual map?

[GAboySVO]

I'm not certain if the T3-50 is the exact map for the stock '86 SVO, but it is pretty close. I think if you search for the bolt on horsepower thread by SVOBUD, you will find that power starts maxing out at about 21-22psi which is indicated by the map.

[yldouright]

@GAboySVO
Thanks, it's guys like you that make coming to this site worthwhile. By the way, I got my SVO up and running. Things I love about it?
The absolutely most charming exhaust note ever at all rpm.
The way it tacks lower when you pass 100mph.
The great visibility.
Things that don't thrill me?
The engine.
The lack of noise isolation.
The unpredictable rear end behavior.
I've been talking to a guy on the Mustang forum that did an LS swap. I considered this and it changes too much about what is charming about this car so decided against it however, I think I have an idea that might tickle some of you. What if there were a 7200rpm 3 cylinder all aluminum engine that has a compatible bell housing bolt pattern you could run with either E85 or diesel that makes 310whp from a 4000rpm wide and flat 237ft/lb torque curve? Would you use it? What if I told you that it weighs ~100, saving you ~300lbs off the front and making the weight balance 49/51 front/rear? I mapped out the boost profile on the T3-45 below:



For those of you wondering, I have a complete Crown Vic Watts rear in my garage that looks like it WILL fit the SVO but I haven't had the stomach to do the swap at this point. I've done the measurements at least a half dozen times and I'll be damned if it doesn't look like it could work a plumb with just a bit of spot welding.

[svono50]

Glad some of us can chime in on your questions, you certainly like to look at the technical ends of things...which is a good thing. While I have a similar slant on things being a Engineer by degree and internal wiring (started taking apart and reassembling toys @ 3yrs old I am told), I avoid a lot of them when working on my SVO because I know how far down the rabbit hole I will end up going

The 2.3L does date back to the early 70's and was intended for the Pinto and Mustang II, so refinement wasn't the order of the day. It certainly is a 'buzzy' thing, but that is kind of its charm too. Having a more modern powerplant would certainly be pretty cool, hadn't considered any of the <2.0L variant 3-cyl engines though...interesting idea for sure. Who's 3-cyl are you considering? I know the Mini/BMW 1.5L can be boosted up to respectable levels, but the 2.0L variant can be twisted up to 350 lb-ft with only a tune and would be something in our cars. Having torque peak from ~1300-5000 rpm would be spectacular out on the track or auto-x. Even so, when you open you hood for the folks that you passed out on the track the look on their faces is pretty priceless.

Any kind of lateral link on the rear end would be an improvement, don't care where it comes from, it will help tremendously. Both Mike (panhard) and I (watts) can attest to that. It is so nice to hit some sort of 'upset' mid-turn and NOT have the back end start to 'jump' or 'skitter' and make you lay off the loud pedal. Being able to lay down solid power coming out of a turn is another benefit. If you get to mounting that Vic watts, would love to see some pics...so don't forget to get a project thread if you ever do!!

[yldouright]

@svono50
Like you and others who have a high "T" in their MBTI, I am by nature very drawn to what makes sense. I started looking at smaller engines to avoid the rear end upgrade. The T5WC doesn't want to see 300ft/lbs of torque and the 7.5" differential prefers even less so revs are the solution for power. The engine I'm considering is Nissan's 3 found in the Note and Micra. I suspect the Zeod was based on it. I've read about tests done on it where it spun smoothly at 8800rpm even though the Zeod only pushed it to 7500rpm. As impressive as the T3-45 map is above, the larger T3's look even better. I see potential for 408whp with 2bar of boost! The SVO FAQ says the turbo has 0.48 trim and I can't find one like that anywhere. Charlie Brown at Evergreen turbo seems to think the stock SVO in the 85.5-86 is really a T3-60 so it is a bit frustrating not having the right information when trying to build a proper boost map.

[svono50]

If my memory serves me right, the T3-60 was used in the Grand Nationals and is bigger than our stock unit. It has been a long, long time since I hung around with GN folks though.

If you are considering a newer motor, why not the 1.0L or 1.5L Ecoboost and keep it in the Ford family? Those motors are just a tick over 200lbs, which is well under our 2.3L Lima lumps. Also, the latest generations of turbos are way, way beyond what our 80's tech units have. Have you looked at a current 2.3L Ecoboost turbo? The compressor housing looks smaller than our turbine housing and it puts out 300+hp!?!

[86-TC/SVO]

If my memory serves me right, the T3-60 was used in the Grand Nationals and is bigger than our stock unit. It has been a long, long time since I hung around with GN folks though.

You are correct. I have on my Sunroof 86 SVO an old school rebuilt T3 w/60 wheel on from a GN. It was called a super 60 when I bought the turbo.

[yldouright]

@svono50
I did look at the 2.3L but the engine is too tall and there are other fit issues. I didn't look at the smaller Ecoboosts but I suspect similar issues since they are in the same family. I don't they'll have the potential of the Nissan 3 for this application.

@86-TC/SVO
Which of the maps in my links above are a closer match to the original?

[86-TC/SVO]

I'm not sure of the maps. I can only say from what I picked up through the years of being into the 80's Turbo Fords. The 48's were in the automatics (Turbo Coupe's, Turbo Cougar's, and I think the XR4Ti's I never had one). Since the automatics were not up to par compared to the standard shift. They were smaller but, spooled quicker to try to compensate for being less power. The 63's were in the standard shift vehicles (85-86 Turbo Coupe's, Turbo Cougar's, SVO's). Since being bigger they spooled slower but gave more boost.

[yldouright]

@86-TC/SVO
If what you say is accurate, you guys are going to blown away by what the boost map on a garden variety T3-60 looks like for that tiny engine. No gate, a steep, ever climbing torque to 5500 and then flat at 283ft-lbs to a redline of 7500. Welcome to a no excuses 7.5lbs/HP ride on diesel! I'm going to christen this project as the tiny terror. Does anyone reading have a junkyard connection to the Carribean? These engines are not going to be plentiful in the US and we'll need to ship them in. The good news is that 16 can be crated in economically under the ton marker. Anyone interested in playing along?

[Ken Potter]

Anyone interested in playing along?

Nope.

[High Roller]

I believe most of all SVO owners have made improvements and modifications to our cars to make them more "personal" but I don't understand why some wants to change one to the point that all that is left of the original car is the SVO body. Everyone knows the production run was only three years with 9844 built. Why not start with a GT or LX of which hundreds of thousands were built from 1979 thru 1993? Just my opinion.

[yldouright]

@High Roller
I don't think the SVO character is defined by its engine, in fact, I think the engine is a severe underachievement there. Take the Lima block and set it aside, keep the turbo, the IC, take my earlier suggestions on intake routing and stick that little three in the engine bay and you will have the car the SVO was always meant to be. Everything about the car with the Nissan power plant will be at a comfortable optimum. The 225/50 W rated tires will be just right with the weight changes and the exhaust note won't suffer either. I think putting in the bigger and heavier rear like many of you have done, changes its character more than the engine swap I am suggesting.

@Ken (Pusillanimous) Potter
Nice to see you post in my threads again, such as it was

[High Roller]

You should re-read my reply. The character of the SVO has more to do with it's rarity than it's drivetrain, or body parts or suspension although those things make it stand out in a crowd. The modifications you have suggested in past posts basically leave little of the original car but the body. Therefore, I repeat: why take a rare car and dump a ton of time and money into it to make a restomod, when the same results can be had from a much more common example of basically the same platform? As before, my opinion.

[yldouright]

@High Roller
I understood your post the first time. The GT and LX don't have the panache of the SVO and frankly, don't deserve such an extraordinary heartbeat. I think history has shown that the stock SVO will not achieve the status many had hoped for in their lifetime. I believe the engine deficiencies and to a lesser extent, the sloppy rear, contributed to that condemnation. Was the idea excellent? Absolutely, but its execution was middling and that has been its anchor. I'm not suggesting you throw the Lima block into the trash but not running SVOs the way I am offering is leaving too much fun on the table.



Look at the map above and see the potential of this "Tiny Terror". Then consider you get this power with >300lbs of weight reduction! You're looking at 7.5lbs/HP with driver. That's Corvette territory for a fraction of the running costs, especially if you decide to run it as a diesel. I like this option better than any of the new Mustangs and that alone will float the price of these classics up to where they belong without even mentioning the elevation in street cred they'd get.