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?
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
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...
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!
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)
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.......
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!
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. FordŽ is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.