Go Back   Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums > Performance, Engines & Troubleshooting > Other Ford Engines > 4 Cylinder Engines
Sign in using an external account
Register Forgot Password?





 
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 03-30-2011, 05:40 AM
blucollar4xford's Avatar
blucollar4xford blucollar4xford is offline
Elder User
Garage is empty, add now
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: New Lexington, Ohio
Posts: 688
blucollar4xford is starting off with a positive reputation.
New to 4 bangers...questions.

Well, here's the scoop; I mightve tripped into an old circletrack four cylinder (very possibly a 2.0L...it's out of a pinto) that's built to race. Still not sure of displacement. I'm 99% sure pintos were available with a 2.3L, also..? Anyway, in it's circletrack days it was in a 4x2 ranger and word is this engine is a screamer. The owner got old enough to quit, and sadly lost his son (RIP Frank) in a car accident a little over a year ago so he has no want or use for it now. It's under a tarp in his barn and it's not locked up, but that's all I know...

I'm curious, what do I need to put this engine into a Bronco II (looking to build a little "tough truck")? I know they almost never came with a 4 cyl, but they're very similar to a ranger, so why not? Also, what are the differences between a 2.0L/2.3L, physical & internal? Anyone?
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 03-30-2011, 07:56 PM
Ziegelsteinfaust's Avatar
Ziegelsteinfaust Ziegelsteinfaust is offline
Posting Guru
Garage is empty, add now
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Chino Hills
Posts: 1,116
Ziegelsteinfaust is starting off with a positive reputation.
Esslinger engineering.

My friends brother built a mild 2.3 for his 84ish ranger, and he worked there and got his parts from there. One hell of a truck for what is was.
__________________
Sitzungstiefpunkt und fahrend langsam

......................_____
.........________//__{\_____
,,,,,,,/__(O)___//___/__(O)_/
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 03-31-2011, 12:52 PM
TigerDan's Avatar
TigerDan TigerDan is offline
Super Moderator
1968 Ford F-250
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: The hills of No. Calif.
Posts: 11,673
TigerDan has a superb reputationTigerDan has a superb reputationTigerDan has a superb reputationTigerDan has a superb reputationTigerDan has a superb reputationTigerDan has a superb reputationTigerDan has a superb reputationTigerDan has a superb reputationTigerDan has a superb reputationTigerDan has a superb reputationTigerDan has a superb reputation
I used to race circle track in a '71 Capri with a 2.0. Great motor, lighter and more compact than a 2.3 and it was one of the fastest cars on the track. Set a couple track records with it.

They're a little tougher to come by these days, while they did build a lot of them, they were only in production from 1971 to 1973, when they were replaced by the 2.3 Lima engine.

Probably the easiest way to tell the difference between the two is to count the cam cover bolts...there are 10 on the 2.0 and 8 on the 2.3. Also, look at the oil filter and distributor locations. The 2.0 has the distributor right up at the very front of the engine with the oil filter just behind it, still up towards the front. The 2.3 has the distributor much further back, probably a good third of the length of the engine and the oil filter is more than halfway back. Here are a couple of pics for comparison:

2.0 / 2.3
Click the image to open in full size.Click the image to open in full size.

And just to confuse the issue...there was also a 2.0 version of the Lima design available in the mid-'80s, so it looks exactly like a 2.3 but has a smaller bore. It's doubtful that it would be one of these engines but it depends on the track rules. My track at one point had a rule that the car had to weigh 1lb. for every CC of engine displacement, so if you ran a smaller engine you could make your car lighter as well. So there was a certain advantage to running a smaller engine if you can get the ponies out of it, and since there's so much trick stuff available for the 2.3 it will all fit the 2.3-based 2.0, while there's not quite as much HP stuff out there anymore for the earlier 2.0 engine.

And there was also a 2.5 version of the Lima engine, which had a longer stroke than the 2.3...
__________________
"alot" is not a word...

Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 04-02-2011, 12:15 PM
blucollar4xford's Avatar
blucollar4xford blucollar4xford is offline
Elder User
Garage is empty, add now
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: New Lexington, Ohio
Posts: 688
blucollar4xford is starting off with a positive reputation.
Wow, that really interesting! That pretty well answered my question and then some. Also created a few more.

What did the 2.5 come in?
What are the differences between a 2.3 & the turbo'd version from the supercoupe/SVO?
what might I need to replace my current 88 efi 2.3L with any of these mills (fuel system parts/differences, engine mounts, electronics, etc?)
what kind of aftermarket does the 2.3L efi have, or would it be cheaper/easier to switch to carb'd?

I know that's kind of a lot to ask, but Ive got an 88 xlt ranger ($300, and it's 4x4!). So the BII idea is out. I'm still looking at the aforementioned pinto engine, but I'm trying to make an alternative plan just in case the 2.0L doesn't pan out. That, and I'm quickly becoming fascinated with these little mills!
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 04-02-2011, 09:29 PM
Rogue_Wulff's Avatar
Rogue_Wulff Rogue_Wulff is online now
Post Fiend
Garage is empty, add now
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Lost
Posts: 7,561
Rogue_Wulff is a name known to allRogue_Wulff is a name known to allRogue_Wulff is a name known to allRogue_Wulff is a name known to allRogue_Wulff is a name known to allRogue_Wulff is a name known to all
The 2.5L wasn't in production very long. It was used in rangers/B2500 trucks for 2-3 years, and found use in a few taurus/sable as well.
Later in the 2.3L's life, it was turned into a "roller cam" engine. Roller cam followers allowed for a bit more aggressive cam profile to be used. The roller cam versions were used in mustangs and ranger/B2300 trucks, not sure if they found a home under any other hoods.
The 2.3L has been used for racing purposes for years, and they are capable of making pretty crazy power for a 4 cyl engine.
I've got a 95 B2300 (ranger in disguse) with the roller cam 2.3L and 5 speed. I'm in the process of tracking down a pesky low-power problem, which I suspect to be cambelt improperly installed.
It's pretty crazy, but the 2.3L/5 speed was very frequently matched with a 3.45 rear gear ratio in the ranger/B2300. Higher gearing than nearly any other 4 cyl powered truck at the time. Most 4cyl engines can't cope with such tall gearing, especially with an OD transmission, and the rather tall tires used on the early 90's ranger. (225/70-14)
__________________
1980 F-150 300 I6, C6 & 9" rearend. Cummins 5.9L/ NV4500 5 speed swap in the works
1974 F100 Ranger XLT 390, C6 3.25 axle. Dad bought it new.
1983 Mazda RX7 1.1L Rotary.
1984 CRX 35 MPG go kart
1995 Mazda B2300 (undercover Ford)
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 04-03-2011, 01:04 PM
Rogue_Wulff's Avatar
Rogue_Wulff Rogue_Wulff is online now
Post Fiend
Garage is empty, add now
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Lost
Posts: 7,561
Rogue_Wulff is a name known to allRogue_Wulff is a name known to allRogue_Wulff is a name known to allRogue_Wulff is a name known to allRogue_Wulff is a name known to allRogue_Wulff is a name known to all
Low power problem resolved. Cam was advanced 6 teeth, and aux shaft 7 teeth. Looks like someone failed "Cambelt replacement 101", seeing as this is one of the easiest engines to replace a cambelt on.......
__________________
1980 F-150 300 I6, C6 & 9" rearend. Cummins 5.9L/ NV4500 5 speed swap in the works
1974 F100 Ranger XLT 390, C6 3.25 axle. Dad bought it new.
1983 Mazda RX7 1.1L Rotary.
1984 CRX 35 MPG go kart
1995 Mazda B2300 (undercover Ford)
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 04-03-2011, 01:14 PM
blucollar4xford's Avatar
blucollar4xford blucollar4xford is offline
Elder User
Garage is empty, add now
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: New Lexington, Ohio
Posts: 688
blucollar4xford is starting off with a positive reputation.
Looking to put 32x11.50's on this truck. I have 3.73's as per the owners manual/door sticker. I'll probably be sourcing a D35/8.8 in the future as I am looking to make more power and word is, the stock axles aren't up to the task. I have seen a few places online selling 4 banger ford parts, and there is sone REALLY cool stuff out there, but I am sort of wanting more torque. Oh well, hopefully the 2.0L deal pans out and I can swap it in. Not too crazy about going carbureted, though. Great info btw, cool stuff!
Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2011, 01:14 PM
Reply

Go Back   Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums > Performance, Engines & Troubleshooting > Other Ford Engines > 4 Cylinder Engines

Tags
20, 2300, 23l, 32x1150s, bangers, difference, differences, early, engine, ford, forum, late, model, pinto, truck

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.5.2 ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.
Advertising - Terms of Use - Privacy Statement - 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.



 
vbulletin Admin Backup