I'm curious as to whether the '85-'87 SVO motor would work in the Sportsroof. I know it'll fit, but it's more a question of whether the Sportsroof is just too heavy for the motor. I remember the Sport Comp SVO's and think that the light motor with the turbo could turn an early car into a true canyon carver with the right suspension.
Scott W. '66 HCS 302 '68 Fury III 383
P.S. Regarding the new (old) mopar in the family (read the new sig). I did some research on the 383 and I've come to the conclusion that only Plymouth would name a motor "The Commando", Sheesh!! The big plus is I got the correct 4bbl manifold to turn it into a, get this, "SUPER COMMANDO!!!" LMAO! As stupid as the name is, this motor is pretty solid and the guy I bought it from put 440 heads on it a few years back. Nice!! Of course 10 MPG kinda sucks for a daily driver but I REALLY LIKE THE TORQUE!
This is purely my opinion here... take it as you will..
Obviously the SVO engine would fit your '70, but there's a good bit of customization - kind of like the EFI swap you were considering.
Whether or not your '70 is too heavy for the lil 2.3 that could, that depends on how the car and engine are prepped. I don't know what the weight is on those cars, but they're big IIRC. The 2.3 turbo is quite the runner though and can be strengthened up quite a bit.
I think it would be an interesting swap, but I definately wouldn't think it'd be easy.
What I'd do is educate yourself on weights. See what the '70 weighs (with a small block in it) compared to an '86 Mustang GT (chosen because of the lack of ground effects and still having a small block - very common and very close to the SVO) See if your car is that much heavier than the chassis it had to push around before. Next, do some research on the weight of the engines themselves. Sometimes the difference is minimal after everything is factored in, and you may find it easier to just stick with the small block, unless you're going for different, in which case it doesn't matter as much.
After you have that information, you can determine how much more you'll need to get out of the 2.3 to make it haul the '70 down the street comfortably.
I'm still gonna do it when I get the cash from my accident.
Well the stock hood would go away for a fiberglass or carbon fiber cowl hood, so that would dump a lot of weight right there. I'm not sure how much though, although I know the stock hood is a two man lift and the carbon fiber ones you can lift with one hand easily.
Wouldn't it be pretty much like a straight ahead EFI swap, except for the motor mounts? Was the SVO driveline hooked up that differently than the 5.0?
I think I have a poster that has all the mustangs from the beginning until '90 (I think). I think we all have seen that poster. The with the two big ones in the center and all the others in profile around the edge?? IIRC it shows curb weight for the SVO, a stock mid 80's GT and the Sportsroof. If the curb weight of the GT and the Sportsroof are close, then I don't see why the SVO motor wouldn't work, unless....... the curb weight difference between the GT and the Sportsroof is the same as the weight savings of the
4-banger. Then as you said. It would be a waste of time. I know the SVO motor outran and outhandled the heavier GT. Boy FMS had BMW in it's cross hairs when they built that beast.
It's more an exercise in "what if...?" I had considered this swap at one time and have just had it floating around in my head. I thought I'd throw it out there to see what others thought.
Another swap in the back of my head is a 300 cid I-6 dumped into a 67-70. This block is only 2 ci from the normal V-8's and is a helluva lot stronger. Only problem is the block is SOOO long that there would have to be some firewall work with the radiator moved forward. Huge PITA factor. But it would walk all over the 302 V8 once setup. It'd be a great drag motor anyways with a crapload of torque. I guess you could dump the radiator in that case. :)
Yes it will indeed fit. Is it really worth the trouble though? As a former SVO owner who still really likes the cars, I think a 5.0 swap or even a 351W swap would be more appropriate. The sportsroof is definitely heavier, and torque really helps a lot in big cars.
If this is something you really want to do though, and you have money burning a hole in your pocket it is possible to build 400 hp turbo 2.3s.
The drivetrain installs in the Fox car exactly like the V8. IIRC, they use the same exact motor mounts. The 4 cylinder T5 is different though and rated at less torque with numerically higher gearing in every gear. It helps the turbo 4 get right into its power band, but you sure shift often and soon. You can adapt a V8 T5 to the turbo 4 though. For the best info on Ford's turbo 2.3 go to
formatting link
It's a great board with wonderful members and tons of info.
If you do decide to perform this swap, you'll be welcomed there like a long lost brother.
It's more an exercise in "what if...?" I had considered this swap at one time and have just had it floating around in my head. I thought I'd throw it out there to see what others thought.
I don't think I'd ever actually attempt this swap, I was just curious as to how well a swap like this would work, or not work. :)
One of the Ford mags a while back did a feature on a '65 Falcon that had a Turbo bird motor in it. It was pretty cool and it was nice to see something different for a change. StuK
Congratulations on buying a tough car. It takes a little more to make a Super Commando than a 4 barrel, but even the base G-code 383 is a great engine. Be aware of the newsgroup alt.hi-po.mopars.
CommandoJet '69 Satellite 383 Super Commando 4-speed '70 Road Runner 440 Air Grabber 4-speed
Well, after I said that, I figured it couldn't be that easy to turn it into a super commando. There's gotta be some compression differences at least, as it required premium fuel at the time. I found the MOPAR group last night and have already posted there. So far they seem friendly enough.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.