lorodz, your engine should have a bolt on block off plate where the fuel pump goes in front of the distributor.
i think it does havent really tore into it yet just accumulating all the goodies .so i can drop it in the a
I seem to remember some discrepancy between turbo sizes on auto and manual Turbo Coupes. I think the auto was bigger, the numbers 60 and 65mm stick in my head. That may be useful to some of you. As far as transmissions go... It's been made clear that the v8 t5 has a bigger input shaft than the one from the turbo coupes and svo's. What are the differences in size between a 4-banger clutch disk and a v8 clutch disk, can you put a v8 disk into a 4cyl pressure plate? Can you drill the flywheel to bolt on a v8 pressure plate?
My wife named the 2000 model Ranger we bought a couple of weeks ago. The "sacrificial lamb" will be her daily while I prep the Falcon, so I am debugging it now. I think the last of the previous owner's issues are resolved. They had let someone that was really good a screwing up car stereos do some electrical work on the lighting that would have embarrassed a 3rd grader with a Radio Shack sci-fair kit. It has also popped a trouble code indicating a lean condition that seems common when the mass-air sensor is dirty. I cleaned it up tonight and took it for several short drives to see if it reset the code and all seems well so far. Once inspected, the Falcon gets a make-over, starting with floor pans. As far as retaining the EFI, I just have a knack for stepping in shit. Here's what I have found so far... The 2.5L motor is not quite identical to the earlier 2.3L. They stroked it 7mm to get 2.5L, but they also went to the cast aluminum oil pan and moved the oil pump from the distributor drive (now deleted entirely) and put it on the auxiallary balance shaft with the oil pump pickup to match. It looks like the earlier pan could be installed, but I have no idea what the oil pickup looks like. The cast pan includes webbing at the rear that integrates into the engine block as a lower mounting face for the transmission. Ditching the aluminum pan would delete two bolts from the bellhousing and potentially jeopardize the strength of the bell. It would be possible to create a couple of support brackets to do the same thing while using a steel pan, but it would still interfere with the rear steering on the Falcon, so no gain. I did a good deal of measuring tonight and have decided that it will be easiest to drop the centerlink by swapping it from mounting above the pitman and idler arms, to installing it from below. If I can weld up and re taper the tierod stud seats from the opposite side, it will net a ~2" drop. If I need more than that, I could use a tubular centerlink having heim ends and maybe 1/2-1" additional spacers to drop the link a little more. The steering geometry would not change since the tierods attach to the pitman and idler. As far as the EFI, the pre '96 models use the EEC-IV computer that is very well supported and uses an external ignition controll that is easily retroed to the pre '88 ignition module. I think the blue module is the hot ticket. That ignition will work without EFI, too. The '96 and up computer is the EEC-V that has the ignition module integrated into the computer. The dual plug set up is about firing a plug on the exhaust stroke to reduce emmisions. I have seen them run on one set of plugs without any issue. It appears that either computer can be made to stand alone with some careful wire tracing and a pin-out diagram for the firewall connector. Extraneous systems are easily removed, but need to be turned off in the programming. In the end, it takes maybe 6 wires to run either system on a modified harnes, depending on if you try to retain any accessories like A/C cut-off at WOT or cruise control. Even the second O2 sensor can be deleted. A speed sensor is needed, but can be inserted inline with a cable speedo, if needed. The fuel pump is a little tricky. The '98-'01 model makes the most power. This is solely the result of increasing fuel pressure to support higher output from the injectors. This is accomplished with a variable voltage control to the fuel pump. I suppose any EFI model before '98 was using a fixed supply voltage, but the '98-'01 model uses voltage increased with engine speed to up the fuel pressure. There is a fuel pressure sensor somewhere, but I haven't found it yet. I'll chime in with more as I learn.
O.K. fellas, I got the bent up pile of scap metal running. I cut away a lot of the metal so I could get the radiator from where it was wrapped around the front of the motor. I repaired part of the wiring harness that was damaged. I tapped into the steering column harness since I did not have keys. I "hot wired" it and VROOM!!!. She was happy to be breathing again after a 6-month hiatus since the wreck. I only let it run less than a minute since there's no radiator. As soon as I can find a temporary radiator, I will rig it up so I can drive the little orphan around to verify the rest of the drivetrain. Then I'll strip away more of the twisted body. But as for now, she starts easy and runs well. I'm checking into what kind of body to find/create so she'll live once again but in the body of something that looks vintage, maybe a boat-tailed roadster body or something else open-wheeled. Who knows what she'll be ??? Ideas welcomed!
Hey ScottyBaccus, or anybody who might know the answer... Seeing your last post on the 2.0/2.3 Ford thread, it looks like you've done a lot of homework so far. Do you konw where I can get a wiring diagram for a 95 Ranger with the 2.3 / manual? I've got the wrecked teal Ranger shown above that I'll be removing for a transplant. I have all the original harness, modules, sensors, etc. It's running now, but a diagram would help to keep things clear as I go along. Additionally, I have a 2.3 from an 86 Mustang for a later project. It has a carb and the TFI distributor, but no wiring or control module. I understand the TFI distributor has no advance to it; that the advancing is all done in some control module. Where can I find info about the best way to deal with this? (find the original harnes and module (did that module do anything else), replace with an earlier distributor (what years), any other possible solutions, etc.)? Any help would be greatly appreciated!
On your 86 2.3 engine just swap out the tfi distributor with duraspark distributor, get the wiring harness from any Ford vehicle that has a duraspark ignition system, or you can make your own harness. Go the thread link in my signature, I have the wiring diagram for the duraspark ignition system there. Unless someone beats me to it I'll scan the 95 engine wire harnes, along with some other year models 2.3 harnesses later on today.
Thanks for the help. I did see your diagram on the link in your signature. So I'll know what years to ask for, What years and vehicles had the Duraspark Dist? I'll keep my eyes open for the scanned wiring diagrams. Thanks again,
I just tell them at you local parts house it's for a 1976 Ford Mustang II with the 2.3 4cyl. I usually get them reman from advance auto parts, you have to pay something like $10.00 extra if you don't have a core (they won't take the tfi dist as a core), when you ask them for the module tell them it's got the blue plastic where the wires come out of it (don't get the ones that are either the yellow, or brown).
little help here. I have a 4 bbl intake, I think for the 2.0. will it fit the 2.3? thanks for the info. I need to know so I can sell it.
I just swapped out the top end on my 2.0 ranger motor in my avatar. I put on a 2.3 oval port head, Offy dual plane intake, and an Erson cam. I topped it off with a 390 cfm Holley. Havin' a hell of a time getting it dialed in. I'll be watching this thread . My '26 modified is laying down mid throttle. Any suggestions?
If the intake is for the early Pinto (71-73) with the EAO 2.0L it won't fit on a 2.3 (the distributor on the 2.3 would be in the way of the intake), post a pic or two, and I can tell you what it is.
I hate to give you the bad news but! With the 2.3 head on the 2.0 you lowered the compression (plus the intake ports in the oval port head are too big, even for a 2.3), the Erson cam doesn't help with the lower compression (what are the specs on the cam?). On the Holley 390 cfm 4 bbl the fuel enrichment holes in the metering block (where the power valve is) are too big, and it makes the engine go rich (even on the 2.3). The way to fix that is to drill the enrichment holes no more the a 1/16" down using a drill bit that is the same diameter of lead shot, put the lead shot in the hole, and tap it in using a small punch so the lead will stay put, then get a .017" dia drill bit, and drill through the lead shot, now that you made the enrichment smaller (the holes that Holley uses something like .030" - 035" in diameter which makes the engine go too rich when the power valve opens) There are two different ways to make your 2.0 perform better. #1) Put the 2.0 head back on with the Erson cam in it, find you a 1986 - 87 Ford Ranger with a 2.0 in it (they have a 2 bbl carb intake, but the 2 bbl carb on it computer controlled), then you would just need to make an adaptor plate for a Holley 350 cfm 2 bbl. Or. #2) Find you a good 2.3 short block with a D-port head with the Erson cam, and the Offy dual port with the 4 bbl on it with the modification to the power valve enrichment circut like I decribed earlier.
If this doesn't belong here, I'm sure somebody will let me know. Also, please tell me where it does go. Here goes... I've searched for this and can't find a clear answer. I can buy a 1992 ranger with a 2.3 and 5-speed, but there's a problem with the 5-speed. No matter where you move the shifter, it's stuck in some forward gear. I don't know which gear. I can press the clutch and start the truck, so the clutch seem to be dis-engaging like it should. If I decide to take a chance and buy this truck, any ideas where I should start looking for the tranny problem? and... What other engines shared the bell housing bolt pattern of the 2.3 should I decide to look for a replacement trans? There's also an 86 Ranger with the 2.9 and 5-speed. Do they share the same bell housing pattern? Any help appreciated. Thanks!
The 92 ranger will either have the (M50D-R1 the bell housing is part of the main case), while the later version the (M50D-R4 is basically the same but the bell housing is removable). On both of these transmissions you should be able to remove the top to look inside, if your transmission has the removeable bell housing you might be able to swap the V6 5 speed provided is it has the removeable bell housing, and or if the input shaft is the same legnth (the 2.3 bell housing bolt pattern is a little different than the 2.8 - 3.0 60 deg V6's bell housing bolt pattern. Look in mid to late 80's T-Birds, and 1985 - 93 mustangs some came with a T5 5 speed, but it's not as stout as the regular V8 T5.
There are at least two companies making adapters to put V8 bellhousing transmissions on the 2.3. Opens up a ton of transmission options.
just looked at my 2.o today or what i think is a 2.0 ..was looking for the manual fuel pump cover ..but ther isnt one only 2 holes where it should be ...what year motor is this..it came from a 87 mustang lx...maybe it was swapped out before i got it ..
My 88 ranger (I put in a 2.3 from a 89 mustang in it, and it had a block off plate) I guess in the late 80's they were using up old blocks that needed a block off plate, along with blocks that were not machined for the fuel pump arm.
The Turbo Coupe T-5 is a World Class T-5 ... just as strong as the 5.0 t-5's of the same years... I see no reason to use a V8 t-5 in a street 4cyl car honestly. Now the XR4Ti had a wienie transmission, not good enough for a turbo 2.3L but not bad for the NA 1.6, 2.0 and 2.3L and it's a little shorter and will bolt to the Pinto Bell housing allowing the use of cable instead of a hydrolic clutch. FrankBoss www.PintoWorks.com
hey guys can i have some links to performance sites for 2.0 / 2.3 ..so i can get some ideas of what iu can do to my 2.3...thanks.. oh and anyone have a carb adapter for my efi manifold...cheap..there so expensive ..
If you use the carb adapter plate to the efi intake, it will be very cold natured, and will run like crap until you get the rpm's up to around 3000-3500 rpm's (been there, done that, got the T-shirt!). You will be better off running a short runner carburator intake, on my O/T 88 ranger I have a cast iron OMC intake manifold from a D-port head 2.3 boat application (got it for $30.00 on e-bay) it mounts a rochester 2 bbl carburator sideways, I adapted a holley 350 2 bbl on mine (the sideways mount made it clear the brake booster), it runs soo much better on the street than it did with the efi/2 bbl adapter.
2.3 Ford performance parts http://www.stinger-performance.com/ http://racerwalsh.zoovy.com/c=w86C3w...ory/4cylinder/ http://www.esslingeracing.com/home.htm http://www.bo-port.com/ http://www.rheaperformance.com/ http://www.speedwaymotors.com/Produc...+ford&deptId=0 I also added these in my Ford 2.0/2.3/2.5 litre engine family guide. (see my signature)
Kenneth S<SCRIPT type=text/javascript> vbmenu_register("postmenu_5087980", true); </SCRIPT> hey where can i get the manifold i want it to run good ...from lower end up..i dont want any problems mine is a round port head though. what and where can i get for this head
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD colSpan=2>2.0 L PINTO(FORD) OFFENHAUSER 4 BARREL INTAKE MANIFOLD </TD></TR><TR><TD class=ipics-cell><FORM method=post name=ssFrm action=http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?VISuperSize&item=150427021490 target=ssFrmWin><INPUT value=0 type=hidden name=ssr><INPUT value=0#http://i.ebayimg.com/12#!BpRUI4g!mk~$(KGrHqIH-DIEuWIYS+lGBLqn)fcyV!~~_14.JPG#!BpRUI4g!mk~$(KGrHqIH-DIEuWIYS+lGBLqn)fcyV!~~_12.JPG|1#http://i.ebayimg.com/06#!BpRU)WQBWk~$(KGrHqEH-DUEuWlF3OBcBLqnzUmkig~~_14.JPG#!BpRU)WQBWk~$(KGrHqEH-DUEuWlF3OBcBLqnzUmkig~~_12.JPG|2#http://i.ebayimg.com/01#!BpRVcEgBWk~$(KGrHqIH-DYEu(oIvDCPBLqn1(gi+Q~~_14.JPG#!BpRVcEgBWk~$(KGrHqIH-DYEu(oIvDCPBLqn1(gi+Q~~_12.JPG|3#http://i.ebayimg.com/03#!BpRWRS!!Wk~$(KGrHqYH-CoEu,nzjTn5BLqn3v6DWg~~_14.JPG#!BpRWRS!!Wk~$(KGrHqYH-CoEu,nzjTn5BLqn3v6DWg~~_12.JPG type=hidden name=iurls><INPUT value=0 type=hidden name=dtid><INPUT value=1 type=hidden name=vs><INPUT value=0 type=hidden name=sh><INPUT value="2.0 L PINTO(FORD) OFFENHAUSER 4 BARREL INTAKE MANIFOLD" type=hidden name=title></FORM><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=vs_w-a><CENTER></CENTER> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> is this what i want to use ..or is there something else i can find cheaper im on a tight budget. oh and is the 2.0 round port the same as a 2.3 head ? </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
That intake is for the EAO 2.0 that came in 1971-73 Pinto's, since yours is the ranger 2.0 it won't directly bolt up, plus on the 2.3 based engine the distributor get's in the way which is why the 2.3 had the intakes with striaght runners and curved intake ports in the head. I have a Ranger 2bbl intake from a 87 ranger 2.0 (the only year for a 2bbl round port head) if you make an adapter you could fit a Holley 350 cfm 2bbl on it. I'll post a pic of the 2.0 Ranger round port intake as soon as I can find it.
The Jalopy Journal
