Mazda3 Forums banner
Cancel
Create thread New Garage Forums

04 2.3l swap to 2.5l successful

4 reading
Jump to Latest
621 - 640 of 1,585 Posts
#621 ·
thlillyr said:
The fusion intake is not compatible due to the electronics difference. The ECU will not know how to read and control the electrical components on the Fusion TB and intake. IF you find a way of swapping those parts or find that we are wrong about that please share but as far as people have tried it will not work with the mazda electrics.
Click to expand...
In my experience - and I have a Mariner engine, not a Fusion - there is nothing to plug in aside from the throttle body that is absolutely necessary that would interfere. From what I understand, Mazda is the only IM that includes the VTCS on the intake manifold, so YMMV. And, I am working towards an adapter plate so that we can use the 2.5 intake with the larger, matched runners. The only pieces of electronics on my 2.5 intake manifold are a canister purge valve and the map sensor, of which the latter is identical, and clearly the purge valve isn't necessary, seeing as aftermarket 2.3 IM's run without all this stuff. Just because there's something on the manifold doesn't mean it has to be plugged in and operational, when our 2.3 has its own design for these things. If our ECU doesn't know about it, then it doesn't need it. All you have to be sure of is that it doesn't cause a vacuum leak or a restriction. I have deleted my own VTCS, the VICS could be nice, but isn't necessary, and both of these run on vacuum, which can be bypassed by hooking them up with a T connector to the brake booster or some other line to fool the ECU.

The throttle body is the only major hurdle, and if I keep the 2.3 and make it seal on the 2.5 intake manifold, then we're golden. At that point it is plug and play, and we can start working more on the "play" part of that, by port matching the TB to the intake, since the 2.5 uses a slightly larger TB (about 65mm, or 1/5" larger). Throttle bodies from 2.3 engines after 2005 will be more of a gap, since they used a 55mm TB, vs 04-05 60mm TB. Good excuse to mess with TB "porting and polishing".
 
#622 ·
Other engine possibilites

At the risk of hijacking this thread, I have a question that perhaps the rest of the forum can't answer, as it's kind of specific to this thread.
I'm not a car guy...yet...
Engines are measured primarily (only?) in terms of displacement, but how do we find out the size of an engine dimensionally, or the size of an engine bay? I mean, yeah, you can physically measure each, but it would be nice if there was a way to know if an engine can be squeezed into a car without measuring it. For example, I saw a Mazda 6 today with a V6. Is it possible to put that in a 3? Then other, smallish cars with a V6, like the Malibu Maxx. Providing I can get my 3 running with the 2.5, maybe I'd like to try it again as bobp (I think) did, but with an even bigger engine. Thoughts?
 
#625 ·
zoomtictac said:
In my experience - and I have a Mariner engine, not a Fusion - there is nothing to plug in aside from the throttle body that is absolutely necessary that would interfere. From what I understand, Mazda is the only IM that includes the VTCS on the intake manifold, so YMMV. And, I am working towards an adapter plate so that we can use the 2.5 intake with the larger, matched runners. The only pieces of electronics on my 2.5 intake manifold are a canister purge valve and the map sensor, of which the latter is identical, and clearly the purge valve isn't necessary, seeing as aftermarket 2.3 IM's run without all this stuff. Just because there's something on the manifold doesn't mean it has to be plugged in and operational, when our 2.3 has its own design for these things. If our ECU doesn't know about it, then it doesn't need it. All you have to be sure of is that it doesn't cause a vacuum leak or a restriction. I have deleted my own VTCS, the VICS could be nice, but isn't necessary, and both of these run on vacuum, which can be bypassed by hooking them up with a T connector to the brake booster or some other line to fool the ECU.

The throttle body is the only major hurdle, and if I keep the 2.3 and make it seal on the 2.5 intake manifold, then we're golden. At that point it is plug and play, and we can start working more on the "play" part of that, by port matching the TB to the intake, since the 2.5 uses a slightly larger TB (about 65mm, or 1/5" larger). Throttle bodies from 2.3 engines after 2005 will be more of a gap, since they used a 55mm TB, vs 04-05 60mm TB. Good excuse to mess with TB "porting and polishing".
Click to expand...
I'm thinking about trying to make some kind of adapter also, but I won't be able to do it until I get everything I need and pull the 2.3 to compare and deliberate about it.

With that said, I am looking for an engine and I have found a 2011 Ford Escape engine that says it is a VIN 7 (8th digit) and I just wanted to make sure that it is the same engine as what is in the Fusion VIN A (8th digit)?
 
#628 ·
zoomtictac said:
Okay, wow. The oil pressure switch, or any switch for that matter, should not be tightened more than a few ftlbs. That's slightly more than hand-tight. And as far as the intake manifold, that should have no bearing on an oil leak...?! Where is it "shooting oil" from??
Click to expand...
No the oil leak had nothing to do with the vacuum leak, but when I ran the engine to see if the vacuum leak was still there, the leaky oil filter mount was spitting oil, so I immediately shut it off. I ended up swapping the filter mount from the 2.3 back on, but I still haven't solved the vacuum leak (hopefully tomorrow). And here's evidence of my brain fart:

Image
 
#632 · (Edited)
thumper3850 said:
aright ill get to drawing the part here tommoro or so. Is the throttle body the only reason you cant run the 2.5 manifold or is there other parts that need to be added or delted?
Click to expand...
I cant think of anything other than maybe plugging some unused holes on the 2.5 mani. I'm not really sure how much there is to gain though. Even aftermarket intake manifolds are a pretty low Dollar:Horsepower upgrade in most cases. I think the lowly 2.3 manifold is doing pretty well, even better that it has the flexibility of long runners for low-mid rpm turbulence and shortened intake runners for high rpm intake velocity. Our smaller TB is always going to be a choke point.

I would be all for a 2.5 manifold from a 2nd gen 3 that had VICS though. The benefit of the dual stage manifold is worth it IMO. I need to research more on it, maybe try to hit up some junkyards.

Here's a link to Nuse's thread about the Cosworth intake, dyno before and after on the 2.3.
http://www.mazda3forums.com/90-auto...tocross-track-dyno-results/397258-finally-accurate-cosworth-intake-dyno-na.html
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#634 ·
Nuse has that TB, too. He had some trouble with the knife edge, but has admitted it may have been a fluke in some form or another.

I figure just like the aftermarket manifolds, switching to a 2.5 mani without vics may just shift the power band up. What I would be hoping for (since the manifold is designed for this engine) is to gain nothing on the low end and gain a bit more up top with potentially more flow. But, like antics said, it doesn't mean a thing if the throttle body is choking cfm. If I got this adapter going, and it doesn't seem I am thus far with dead ends in the manifold department, I would also be optimizing my TB, just as Cordova does, to try to take that bottleneck out of the equation just a bit.
 
#638 · (Edited)
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#639 ·
Knuckle/Ball Joint Boot

In getting the control arm separated from the knuckle, the little boots are toast. I'm guessing I need to replace them?
Also, while picking up parts from the dealer, the parts guy, and a tech he consulted, said I didn't need to replace the axle nuts. Bad advice?
 
#640 · (Edited)
The boot aren't replaceable, you will need to replace the whole ball joint. If you don't then dirt and water will get into the joint and ruin it anyway and then you will have to replace it.
I'm a mechanic and I almost never replace axle nuts. As long as they torque down correctly and you can stake them they are fine.
 
621 - 640 of 1,585 Posts
About this Discussion
1.6K Replies
114 Participants
Last post:
Numskull
Mazda3 Forums
posts
4.3M
members
255K
Since
2000
A forum community dedicated to Mazda 3 and all Mazda vehicle owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about MazdaSpeed performance, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, maintenance, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Mazda3 Discussions Mazda 3 Classifieds Wheels / Tires 2004-2009 Exterior Modifications 2004-2009 Electronics Discussion