AFM Web

Go Back   Ford Mustang Forums > Mustang Forums > 2.3 and SVO Mustang > 2.3L Tech
Welcome to AllFordMustangs.com. We look forward to you registering on our forum and making your first post.
Introductions| Mustang Lounge | 2.3L Talk | 2.3L Tech | Mustang Tech | Tech | Racing | Regional

Reply
 
Old 10-20-2009   #1 (permalink)
B0B N Weave is offline Apprentice

2.3L Member


Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 100 Threads: 8
 B0B N Weave's Country Flag  View B0B N Weave's 4 photos
Cincinnati   Ohio
Default Why does the 85.5 SVO make 40hp more than the 84-85 models?

I keep seeing that the 85.5 made 205hp. A 40hp increase is alot.
What did they do to increase the power? Is it easy to just do what they did to the 85.5 to my 84 and get the same results?
__________________
1984 SVO Mustang Xbox Live GT= B0B N Weave
2001 Honda CBR 600F4i
Every problem has a twin named solution.
B0B N Weave is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2009   #2 (permalink)
TOM RENZO is offline Made Member


Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 834 Threads: 36
 TOM RENZO's Country Flag
Danbury   Connecticut
Default

It doesn't It makes 30 more HP. The early engine ran 30 lb injectors and a restrictive intake and only 14 lb of boost. The engine made 175HP and 210 ft/lb of torque. The late engine has 35 lb injectors (brown tops) and the boost was upped to 16 psi. The A/R ratio was speed up from .63-.48 This speed up spool time. The intake was also redesigned to flow better. The most powerful svo was 205HP at 248 ft/lbs of torque. That would be the difference of exactly 30 HP and 38 ft/lb of torque between the years. Hope this helps clear up the mistery. TOM RENZO
TOM RENZO is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2009   #3 (permalink)
B0B N Weave is offline Apprentice

2.3L Member


Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 100 Threads: 8
 B0B N Weave's Country Flag  View B0B N Weave's 4 photos
Cincinnati   Ohio
Default

Thanks Tom. That pretty much covers it
__________________
1984 SVO Mustang Xbox Live GT= B0B N Weave
2001 Honda CBR 600F4i
Every problem has a twin named solution.
B0B N Weave is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2009   #4 (permalink)
NavySVO is offline Made Member


Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,103 Threads: 11
 NavySVO's Country Flag  View NavySVO's 2 photos  View NavySVO's 2 classified ads
Virginia Beach   Virginia
Default

Tom was close enough so I will not nit-pick.

The most important thing left out is the EEC change for those 2 models. It has a more agressive tune with regards to the fuel and timing mapping.

84 had TE and ZB1 EECs
85 had PJ EEC
85.5 and 86 had PE EEC
__________________
Kurt 85 SVO
NavySVO is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2009   #5 (permalink)
B0B N Weave is offline Apprentice

2.3L Member


Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 100 Threads: 8
 B0B N Weave's Country Flag  View B0B N Weave's 4 photos
Cincinnati   Ohio
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NavySVO View Post
Tom was close enough so I will not nit-pick.

The most important thing left out is the EEC change for those 2 models. It has a more agressive tune with regards to the fuel and timing mapping.

84 had TE and ZB1 EECs
85 had PJ EEC
85.5 and 86 had PE EEC
So is it possible to just swap out EECs. My SVO right now will bring the boost gauge up to 18 psi and hold it. I wish used cars could speak.
__________________
1984 SVO Mustang Xbox Live GT= B0B N Weave
2001 Honda CBR 600F4i
Every problem has a twin named solution.
B0B N Weave is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2009   #6 (permalink)
TOM RENZO is offline Made Member


Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 834 Threads: 36
 TOM RENZO's Country Flag
Danbury   Connecticut
Default

Yes the tune is more agressive and the newer computer is tuned around those BROWN TOP. I also think the timing is more agressive and comes in earlier. Been a long time since i plotted those ECM'S Thanks Kurt i was going to add that but its the age thing. Thanks for posting that. TOM.
TOM RENZO is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2009   #7 (permalink)
mg man 75 is offline Made Member

2.3L Member


Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 530 Threads: 5
 mg man 75's Country Flag  View mg man 75's 18 photos
Elkhorn   Kentucky
Default

Thanks all. Learn something everyday Maurice
__________________
1989 Mustang 2.3 turbo, 86 turbocoupe motor, 88 computer,vam upgrade, adjustable boost control, intercooler, c-4 trans, 7.5 345 turbocoupe rearend, motorsport driveshaft, Black interior.
mg man 75 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2009   #8 (permalink)
NavySVO is offline Made Member


Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,103 Threads: 11
 NavySVO's Country Flag  View NavySVO's 2 photos  View NavySVO's 2 classified ads
Virginia Beach   Virginia
Default

Ok, just to elaborate a bit;

You can plug the PE right into any SVO harness without repinning.

Yes, it is programmed for 35# injectors.

The intake really is only different in the torque catagory. I have seen people with an inline intake make the same HP numbers as a square intake, but actually make higher numbers in torque due to the way the intake's runners are designed. Food for thought.

The turbo to select (.48 or .60 turbine A/R) will only determine how you want the car to run with regards to power vs RPM. The lower the A/R, the quicker the spool with power in the power RPM ranges. If you are going to be running the car in higher RPM bands, then a larger A/R is desired. The lower A/R turbine will actually impede higher RPM ranges due to cylinder backpressure.
Most AutoX peeps like the lower A/R, and road racers and drag racers like larger A/R turbos.
__________________
Kurt 85 SVO
NavySVO is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools


sponsors

Mustang Photos
Add to Favorites    Link to us    Contact    Directory    Site Rules    Archive    Terms of Use    Privacy    Top Sites    RSS    Meet Our Sponsors    Advertise   
AllFordMustangs is not affiliated with or endorsed by Ford Motor Company. ©Copyright 2002-2010 All Auto Enthusiasts Network

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112