Please do not repost, forward or otherwise publish messages
contained in these archives without consent from the respective
author(s). These archives may not, in whole or part, be stored on
any public retrieval system (FTP, web, gopher, newsgroup, etc.) by
individuals or companies, without consent of the respective authors.

Received: with LISTAR (v0.128a; list small-list); Sat, 04 Mar 2000 20:15:48 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 20:15:48 -0500 (EST)
From: Ford Truck Enthusiasts List Server ford-trucks.com>
To: small-list digest users ford-trucks.com>
Reply-to: small-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: small-list Digest V2000 #22
Precedence: bulk

==========================================================
Ford Truck Enthusiasts Small Chassis Truck Mailing List

Visit our web site: http://www.ford-trucks.com

To unsubscribe, send email to: listar ford-trucks.com with
the words "unsubscribe small-list" in the subject of the
message.
==========================================================

------------------------------------
small-list Digest Fri, 03 Mar 2000 Volume: 2000 Issue: 022

In This Issue:
Re: [Parts for Ranger/BII]
Re: [My turn.. 88 B II with intermittent injection on ful
2.3l forced induction
Re: 2.3l forced induction
Re: 2.3l forced induction
Re: 2.3l forced induction
Re: [Re: My turn.. 88 B II with intermittent injection on
Re: [Re: TURBO 2.3]

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 3 Mar 00 20:27:03 EST
From: Tim Turner netscape.net>
Subject: Re: [Parts for Ranger/BII]

"Bad Brian" hotmail.com> wrote:
> I need some parts bad and have much trouble finding them around here.
> Anyone have these in good shaper or know where i can get them?

> Tachometer must be in good shape. needle not faded bad or broken
> Auto Trans. Dipstick tube

What type of tach? I've got a Ranger cluster with a bad speedo that I use for
guage testing but obviously it's not a V-8 tach.. I *might* have a FMX trans
dipstick and tube running around but I'll have to look for it if you did use a
FMX.

Might want to post on the 'performance' list also if you havent already.

> http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www2.webshoppe.net/users/briana/

Nice paint job!

Tim

____________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://webmail.netscape.com.

------------------------------

Date: 3 Mar 00 20:36:44 EST
From: Tim Turner netscape.net>
Subject: Re: [My turn.. 88 B II with intermittent injection on ful

"Keith Christensen" kendra.com> wrote:
> This one's got me, an independent shop, and a Ford shop baffled.

I agree with Carl on the possibility of the MAP being bad, the intake air
temperature sensor could be flaking out as well, check all the grounds that
were removed during the engine /trans work closely as well.

Gotta run for tonight, but I'll explain in more detail tomorrow (Sat.)

Tim Turner
Custer Auto Repair
Wilmington NC


____________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://webmail.netscape.com.

------------------------------

From: "Will Brown" mindspring.com>
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 17:14:47 -0500
Subject: 2.3l forced induction

At one point I looked for a forced induction kit for my '94
Ranger/Mazda 2.3l - I found it odd that you can buy forced
induction kits seemingly out the wazoo for 5l and 7l engines, but
below that, pickings are scarce to non-existent... what's the logic
behind this? Seems like a 7l engine would be the last one needing
a HP boost - while the 2.3l seems like a good candidate. I'm new
to the truck scene here, and really don't spend much time
researching things, but this particular scenario seemed plain odd to
me. Comments appreciated.

\/\/


------------------------------

Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 17:34:12 -0500
From: Ken Payne ford-trucks.com>
Subject: Re: 2.3l forced induction

At 05:14 PM 3/4/00 -0500, you wrote:
>At one point I looked for a forced induction kit for my '94
>Ranger/Mazda 2.3l - I found it odd that you can buy forced
>induction kits seemingly out the wazoo for 5l and 7l engines, but
>below that, pickings are scarce to non-existent... what's the logic
>behind this?

Because people who want horse power start off with better
candidate engines. There's no replacement for displacement.

:-)
Ken




------------------------------

From: "Will Brown" mindspring.com>
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 18:07:17 -0500
Subject: Re: 2.3l forced induction

On 4 Mar 00, at 17:34, Ken Payne wrote:

> Because people who want horse power start off with better
> candidate engines. There's no replacement for displacement.

granted - but as many folks as you see passing through these
parts looking for more oompf from their 2.3l, you'd think at least
one kit would be available...

\/\/


------------------------------

Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 18:39:15 -0500
From: James Oxley thecore.com>
Subject: Re: 2.3l forced induction



Will Brown wrote:
>
> On 4 Mar 00, at 17:34, Ken Payne wrote:
>
> > Because people who want horse power start off with better
> > candidate engines. There's no replacement for displacement.
>
> granted - but as many folks as you see passing through these
> parts looking for more oompf from their 2.3l, you'd think at least
> one kit would be available...
>

Well, it was factory "turboed" in many applications. Can prob get the
parts pretty cheap from a late 80's turbo coupe.

OX

------------------------------

Date: 4 Mar 00 19:05:01 EST
From: Tim Turner netscape.net>
Subject: Re: [Re: My turn.. 88 B II with intermittent injection on

"Bad Brian" hotmail.com> wrote:
> I had the same problem in my bronco II with the 2.9L engine. I found that
> if you crank the truck, turn the key to off then back to on before the
> engine dies it stops doing it.

That would sound like bad contacts in the ignition switch; going from off to
on would make a better contact on the slider than from the spring back
position from start. I know I was surprised at all the little electrical
gremlins that went away when I replaced mine...

Tim

____________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://webmail.netscape.com.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Mar 00 19:47:02 EST
From: Tim Turner netscape.net>
Subject: Re: [Re: TURBO 2.3]

"mikah vosekuil" hotmail.com> wrote:
> i really like the 2.3 i had in my other truck. i've owned other vehicles
> with this engine and never had a complaint on any of them.

Agreed. a tough little bugger. As I recall there's a racing boat class
devoted to it.

> fuel injected. i know a lot of people disagree, but i say carburetors
> belong on lawnmowers.

I'm sure the thousands of small aircraft running around with carbureted
engines might disagree! Of course the lawnmower carb is much less
sophisticated than an automotive one...

> yes carbureted vehicles perform but i just plain
> don't like them.

I've seen (young) technicians that knew FI diagnosis fairly well but didn't
know the basics when it came to drivability problems with a carb.. struck me
as odd the first time but I guess it means there'll be a place for older (?!)
tech's like me that grew up with 'em. I guess it boils down to whether you
prefer a mechanical device that does an adequate job of supplying the proper
A/F mixture and is easy to troubleshoot being one unit or electro-mechanical
devices that do a superb job (when right) that rely on multiple sensors and
can be a bitch to troubleshoot at times. In addition (stock) EFI sytems are
trying to maintain the ideal A/F ratio for the emission systems & converter to
work (14.8 or so) while the ideal A/F for power is slightly richer...
(12.5-13?)

Looking under the hood of a NASCAR vehicle I see a Holley Dominator rather
than a pro-jection unit.. if it's good enough for Jarret, Martin etc. a carb
is OK by me. With that said I'll still admit to prefering FI for it's better
job of fuel management but due to cost of repairs and 'tunability' the only
vehicle out of 4 we have in the stable only ONE has FI and of course it's
Kim's not mine. (One of many secrets to a good relationship.. make sure she
has the nicest/newest vehicle. )

>
>
> >From: Tim Curran gte.net>
> >Reply-To: small-list ford-trucks.com
> >To: small-list ford-trucks.com
> >Subject: [small-list] Re: TURBO 2.3
> >Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 23:05:33 +0000
> >
> >I've noticed that people tend to always want to lean toward higher
> >displacement engines to

No substitute for inches.. :-0

> >achieve more horse power then the vehicle they're dropping the engine in
> >can handle.

Isn't that what swaps are all about? Push the envelope.. 428 CJ Rangers are
out there. (Whoo...) Some people like pure straight line acceleration and
don't care about deceleration or cornering.

> >The 2.3
> >seems to be the dominator when it come to domestic 4 cylinder racing
No disagreement from me.

> >With all the odds and ends added in the total would probably be in the
> >neighborhood of
> >$2000.00.... for that cost you'll be pumping out around 130 HP, that's more

> >than enough for a
> >street Ranger, plus you'll have the advantage of the lighter 4 cylinder for

> >better cornering
> >and braking....

*IF* you had the 4 cyl. as OE and didn't upgrade the springs/brakes to V-6
specs. Regardless it's a truck and the F/R weight balance is crap anyway so
handling isn't the primary concern. We should also talk about reliabilty Vs.
power level as well.. a slightly modified 130 Hp 2.8 would be under less
stress than the highly modified 130 HP 2.3 and should (in theory) out last the
2.3

> >to integrate all
> >the computer and wire looms for the fuel injection..... I know I don't have

> >that much hair
> >left on my head.

I've got a full head of hair and 15 years of professional wrenching.. I
wouldnt do it without a full wiring harness from the donor vehicle. (And ONLY
as a project.. certainly not in a 'professional' catagory.)

> > > Personally, I dislike the 2.3 (turbo or not). Not trying to start a
> >love/hate
> > > thread,

So much for intentions!

> > just my feeling. Why not go for a 3.8 turbo?

Build what ya got is my feeling.. super/turbo, cam, etc. etc. It'd be a lot
easier without the smog nazis looking over our shoulder though. :-(

Tim


____________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://webmail.netscape.com.

------------------------------

End of small-list Digest V2000 #22
**********************************
----------------------------------------------------------
Ford Truck Enthusiasts Small Chassic Truck Mailing List....


To access the rest of this feature you must be a logged in Registered User Of Ford Truck Enthusiasts

Registration is free, easy and gives you access to more features.
If you are not registered, click here to register.
If you are already registered, you can login here.

If you are already logged in and are seeing this message, your web browser is blocking session cookies. Change your browser cookie settings to allow session cookies.




Advertising - Terms of Use - Privacy Policy - Jobs

This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. Ford is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.