First off, the four cylinder engine that used a 460 head was, to my knowledge, exclusively used as a boat engine. And it was not related to any four cylinder engine...it was essentially half of a 460, it was about 3.5L, and it was labeled as a Mercruiser if I recall correctly.
The 2.3L industrial engine was identical to the 2.3 n/a from what I've heard. The industrial engines even used the same exhaust manifold as the 2.3L turbo (the E6 manifold)
Also not sure if it was mentioned, but the 2.5L crank had smaller journals than the 2.3 crank.
Oh, and about Ford designing a new 2.3 when they already had the Lima engine...my guess is packaging reasons, on the FWD cars. I know that the 2.3 OHC fits in a tempo because I know of a couple people putting 2.3 turbos into them...and into escorts.
__________________ 1994 F250 XLT-Reg cab, 4x4, 5 speed, 7.3 IDI Turbo, manual hubs, ATS upgrade, 4" exhaust w/Hooker MaxFlow, custom intake, pyrometer & boost gauge, turned up fuel http://www.cardomain.com/ride/3055099 1987 Thunderbird Turbo Coupe-Lots of fun stuff to make it go fast & take corners http://www.cardomain.com/ride/306349
"The same is true for the cranks, rods, blocks. NA used cast pistons, and Turbo used forged with dish."
actually thats not true-not all the castings are the same- the turbo crank is 44 lbs, along with the n/a equivalent from the same years, but the old school 1973 pinto 2.3 crank was 34 lbs. the turbo blocks had higher nickel content as well as forged connecting rods.. the turbocoupe block was built to take the extra power vs the original pinto's 78hp, but the pinto will revv quicker because of the lighter rotating assembly. my ideal gas conservative vehicle would be a 1971 mercury capri with a 2.3 turbo block, n/a, with a pinto crank and domed forged custom pistons, running about 11.5-1 compression running dual fuel e-85/propane
I have torn down hundreds of these engines, turbo and N/A, never found any difference in the rods, other than a few did not have cylinder oiling holes. Even got the ford books and they do not show a different rod or crank, untill the 95 long rod 2.3's. Again go to fords books and you will find there was no such thing a a high nickel content. There is the SVO block, which had a higher deck height. You do not need or want dome pistons, you can achieve real static 11.5 easily with flat top pistons. Where do you find a 73 pinto 2.3 crank. The 2.3 was offered in 1974. The big engine in 73 was the german 2.0 and yes that crank weighs approx 34lbs. It is shorter and a different bearing sizes. Look in the bearing books and ford books.
Unfortunately, it's not quite that simple. You'd need the forged pistons that came in the turbo motors to keep them from melting under the added cylinder pressures, and there would be a few other things to do along with the swap, like change the computer, etc. But it's certainly do-able, and has been done...
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.
Would I be able to use a cam for a Pinto in my Ranger even though it has the dual spark plugs per cylinder? Thanks for the help. Oh yeah and what is the stock size of the exhaust tubing on 93 Rangers with the 2.3?
Would I be able to use a cam for a Pinto in my Ranger even though it has the dual spark plugs per cylinder?
What do you mean "a cam" for a Pinto? Are you talking about a stock cam?
If you want to use a stock cam, don't bother as it will be a waste of time. If it's a 2.0L cam, it won't fit.
Also, your Ranger has a roller cam from the factory, so you can't just replace it with a flat tappet cam without replacing the followers and breaking in the cam (course, you'd have to do that with a flat tappet cam anyway...). An aftermarket cam won't do much for you either, there's plenty of them out there but just throwing one in a stock engine is mostly worthless.
__________________ 1994 F250 XLT-Reg cab, 4x4, 5 speed, 7.3 IDI Turbo, manual hubs, ATS upgrade, 4" exhaust w/Hooker MaxFlow, custom intake, pyrometer & boost gauge, turned up fuel http://www.cardomain.com/ride/3055099 1987 Thunderbird Turbo Coupe-Lots of fun stuff to make it go fast & take corners http://www.cardomain.com/ride/306349
Ok I got you. I want to increase the power in my Ranger but I don't know what to do with it. I went on lmctruck.com and looked at an exhaust system, but I don't want my truck to sound like a civic. So what exhaust would be good for it? What is the I.D. of the exhaust pipes? I measured the very tip of the exhaust and it was 2 1/4 but it was expanded near the end.
Easier said than done, but that's the option I took
I think the ricer sound comes from small diameter pipe with a huge I.D. muffler right at the end of it. Replacing the stock muffler on a Ranger with something like a Flowmaster up in the stock location gives a nice rumble without sounding really ricey, but you're still dealing with a 4-banger here so a little bit of rice sound is inherent. A free-flowing exhaust helps too, but I don't think I'd go bigger than about 2-1/4" pipe, if it's too free-flowing you'll lose bottom end. I believe the stock size is about 1-7/8 or 2". You could buy a cat-back kit, or go to a muffler shop and have them custom build it for you. One of the advantages of a kit is that most of them feature mandrel-bent pipe, which is a little more free flowing than standard muffler shop bends. (Some, a very few, muffler shops have mandrel benders. Most use the typical crush bender which produces a more restrictive bend.)
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.
Throwing a 302 into it doesn't sound that bad to me, but I don't have the resources or the knowledge to do the swap. How many of you guys know about lmc truck?
LMC is a popular company, most folks I've heard talk about them say they've had good luck with them...though they tend to be a pricey on some things. I looked at their cat-back exhaust, the one that splits a single pipe into duals. It has resonators right on the ends of the pipes, I think that would give you a ricey sound.
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.
Thats what I was looking at too. I think I'm just going to buy a cherrybomb turbo muffler and go to an exhaust shop and tell them that I want my exhaust that size after the cat. How hard would it be to swap in a 4.0 into it?
Easier than than 5.0 as all the engineering was done by the factory. You'll need the engine and transmission and mounts (the 2.3 tranny won't work with a 4.0, neither 5-speed or auto) the computer and the engine wiring harness. Might be a few other things needed too, depending on your truck's configuration. It's easier to get a donor truck and use everything you need off of it...and then get rid of the carcass afterwards. There are always the little details that ypu overlook in a swap that send you running to the parts store or the wrecking yard...
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.
Join Our Site - Its free, quick and easy!
