Cammed 2.3
Posting Guru
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 9
From: Franklin, IN
Postmaster
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,432
Likes: 7
Replacing a glass pack with a chambered muffler isn't much of an improvement. No cam mods to a NA motor are gonna help performance a meaningful amount, but it will hurt overall usability. It's a lose-lose situation, spending money to make your truck run worse. It will pull a little better up top, but that's not very useful.
Thread Starter
|
Senior User
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
So what cam would provide the most torque from 2,000 to 4,000 rpm's in a N/A 2.3 Ranger, stock cam or aftermarket cam? I changed the gauge cluster to one with a tach to just see what the engine is actually doing. Looks to pull at around 2600 and I'll shift at about 3600. 5 gear doing 65 it turns 2500. Just save my money on the cam and buy a adjustable cam gear or what. What do you experts think, all opinions welcomed.
FTE Legend
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 31,930
Likes: 1,499
From: Ottawa, Ontario
From this website... 2.3L Camshaft Selection - HotRodHigh.ca
It appears the stock cam in this motor is as I suspected, not enough lift or duration to let the motor breath effectively.
Intake Duration: 187/248 deg at 0.050"/seat to seat.
Intake lift: 0.390" or 0.402"
Exahust Duration: 189/250 degrees at 0.050"/seat to seat.
Exhaust Lift: 0.390" or 0.402"
The problem it appears is that all available aftermarket cams seem to jump all the way up to 270/280 seat to seat duration which pushes the powerband way too high for street use. What you want is a cam with something like 255-260 deg seat to seat duration(195-205 @ 0.050") and 0.450- 0.480" lift or whatever the valve springs can handle without binding, but you may need to get that custom made.
FWIW the stock cam in the '87-91 5.0 truck motor has similar specs and it produces a similarly weak 0-3500rpm powerband. Simply swapping in a cam with about 260 seat-seat duration and 0.450" lift produces dramatic power gains across the board and tons more topend horsepower.
It appears the stock cam in this motor is as I suspected, not enough lift or duration to let the motor breath effectively.
Intake Duration: 187/248 deg at 0.050"/seat to seat.
Intake lift: 0.390" or 0.402"
Exahust Duration: 189/250 degrees at 0.050"/seat to seat.
Exhaust Lift: 0.390" or 0.402"
The problem it appears is that all available aftermarket cams seem to jump all the way up to 270/280 seat to seat duration which pushes the powerband way too high for street use. What you want is a cam with something like 255-260 deg seat to seat duration(195-205 @ 0.050") and 0.450- 0.480" lift or whatever the valve springs can handle without binding, but you may need to get that custom made.
FWIW the stock cam in the '87-91 5.0 truck motor has similar specs and it produces a similarly weak 0-3500rpm powerband. Simply swapping in a cam with about 260 seat-seat duration and 0.450" lift produces dramatic power gains across the board and tons more topend horsepower.
Thread Starter
|
Senior User
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
I think I might go with the Crane Cam RFOR-214/420-12, 214@.050" for intake and exhaust, .420" lift and 112 LCA. I think that will be the best cam for my truck, should pull like a freight train with the 4.56 gears. Let me ask this though, you think its possible to squeeze 130 hp out of this engine without turboing?
FTE Legend
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 31,930
Likes: 1,499
From: Ottawa, Ontario
There's absolutely no reason a 2.3L shouldn't make 150hp, I got a all stock non turbo Subaru 2.5l that makes 160hp.
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
Top 10 Fords at 2026 Carlisle Ford Nationals
Joe Kucinski
3 Best / 3 Worst Parts of Modern Ford Ownership
Brett Foote
10 Amazing Upgrades That Solve Common Ford Truck Owner Headaches
Pouria Savadkouei
Every 2026 Ford Engine Explained
Brett Foote
10 Ugly Ford Trucks That We Still Kinda Love
Joe Kucinski
10 Things Every Truck Owner NEEDS (2026 Edition)
Michael S. Palmer
Rezvani's Latest Post-Apocalyptic Monster Is a Ford F-150 Raptor Underneath
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Most Expensive Ford Trucks Ever Sold on Bring a Trailer
Joe Kucinski
2027 Ford Super Duty Buyer's Guide (Every Model, Engine, & Package)
Brett Foote
Post Fiend
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 23,849
Likes: 20
From: McKenzie River
I think I might go with the Crane Cam RFOR-214/420-12, 214@.050" for intake and exhaust, .420" lift and 112 LCA. I think that will be the best cam for my truck, should pull like a freight train with the 4.56 gears. Let me ask this though, you think its possible to squeeze 130 hp out of this engine without turboing?
It should be NO problem to get that and more out of a 2.3
Postmaster
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,432
Likes: 7
I think those are bad comparisons. It is much easier to produce power without powerband compromises with DOHC configurations than with a SOHC configuration.
Can you reach 150hp NA, absolutely, but you will have to sacrifice one part of the powerband (low rpm) to do it.
There are DOHC heads that you can use. The cost of a swap becomes a serious issue. Another consideration is that many small displacement high output engines are built to produce power by being able to not only rev higher, but to flow at higher RPMs.
Hitting 130 hp should not be a problem, that's only a 20 - 30 peak increase over stock. Still, to get it you may have to give up some torque, and you are probably going to need to tune, since I doubt the stock tuning can adapt enough.
For the record the high compression version of the 2.0l used in the Pinto only produced 99hp, you have to make sure you aren't confusing kw ratings and hp ratings when comparing engines.
Can you reach 150hp NA, absolutely, but you will have to sacrifice one part of the powerband (low rpm) to do it.
There are DOHC heads that you can use. The cost of a swap becomes a serious issue. Another consideration is that many small displacement high output engines are built to produce power by being able to not only rev higher, but to flow at higher RPMs.
Hitting 130 hp should not be a problem, that's only a 20 - 30 peak increase over stock. Still, to get it you may have to give up some torque, and you are probably going to need to tune, since I doubt the stock tuning can adapt enough.
For the record the high compression version of the 2.0l used in the Pinto only produced 99hp, you have to make sure you aren't confusing kw ratings and hp ratings when comparing engines.
Logistics Pro
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,907
Likes: 39
From: suburban atlanta
Great gas mileage, and the power of a V8! Isn't that what everyone wants?
If it could be done, it would be. Any increase in low end torque comes at the expense of high end power, in general.
Why not get hold of an eco-boost and plumb that into place? Has anyone done that? "Power on demand" from the engineers first pencil on paper. Seems like a natural fit to me, but with a lot of plumbing and wiring work necessary.
If it would fit, as I have said before, the 200 small six would be a great engine in the Ranger. Someone did one, but the radiator ended up behind the cab, if memory dredged up the right thoughts.
tom
If it could be done, it would be. Any increase in low end torque comes at the expense of high end power, in general.
Why not get hold of an eco-boost and plumb that into place? Has anyone done that? "Power on demand" from the engineers first pencil on paper. Seems like a natural fit to me, but with a lot of plumbing and wiring work necessary.
If it would fit, as I have said before, the 200 small six would be a great engine in the Ranger. Someone did one, but the radiator ended up behind the cab, if memory dredged up the right thoughts.
tom
Laughing Gas
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,175
Likes: 9
From: So. Cal.
So hopping it up and gearing it down will improve things, but people shouldn't go sniveling that it doesn't make enough power. It was never intended to!
Post Fiend
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 23,849
Likes: 20
From: McKenzie River
I think those are bad comparisons. It is much easier to produce power without powerband compromises with DOHC configurations than with a SOHC configuration.
Can you reach 150hp NA, absolutely, but you will have to sacrifice one part of the powerband (low rpm) to do it.
There are DOHC heads that you can use. The cost of a swap becomes a serious issue. Another consideration is that many small displacement high output engines are built to produce power by being able to not only rev higher, but to flow at higher RPMs.
Hitting 130 hp should not be a problem, that's only a 20 - 30 peak increase over stock. Still, to get it you may have to give up some torque, and you are probably going to need to tune, since I doubt the stock tuning can adapt enough.
For the record the high compression version of the 2.0l used in the Pinto only produced 99hp, you have to make sure you aren't confusing kw ratings and hp ratings when comparing engines.
Can you reach 150hp NA, absolutely, but you will have to sacrifice one part of the powerband (low rpm) to do it.
There are DOHC heads that you can use. The cost of a swap becomes a serious issue. Another consideration is that many small displacement high output engines are built to produce power by being able to not only rev higher, but to flow at higher RPMs.
Hitting 130 hp should not be a problem, that's only a 20 - 30 peak increase over stock. Still, to get it you may have to give up some torque, and you are probably going to need to tune, since I doubt the stock tuning can adapt enough.
For the record the high compression version of the 2.0l used in the Pinto only produced 99hp, you have to make sure you aren't confusing kw ratings and hp ratings when comparing engines.
FTE Legend
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 31,930
Likes: 1,499
From: Ottawa, Ontario
I have to disagree with that to some extent, they were still thinking with the 80's mentality where the best(most profitable) way to reach the emissions and fuel consumption goals was to restrict the motor so these early EFI versions were nowhere close to making the torque or horsepower that they could. I have been working with this vintage truck for some time now and there was lot of potential left on the table. All stock the early EFI 5.0 truck motor could barely maintain highway speed into a headwind and you were lucky to get low teens fuel milage, but with a few simple upgrades to let it breath(cam and exhaust) I have seen 18+ mpg highway and a ton more power across the board. Now obviously there isn't as much potential in a 4cylinder with less than half that displacement but there is still room for improvement.