Ford’s 2.0/2.3/2.5 litre engine family guide

Come to think about it. The engine had a Fram ph8 & because in the clearance problem I used a shorter filter Ph16...That may be the problem huh?

 

Thanks for the Great thread on 2.3 info!

I just picked up a rust free Mustang 2.3 Auto for $400 , but needs a top 135K KM (84K Miles) & has 50 miles on new tires . A good price I think.

It has been sitting for 4 yrs after owner replaced broken or jumped timing belt. He couldn't get it running after replacing the belt. I assumed it's a crasher, so probably has bent valves. I just read somewhere else it is an interference type on that year of Ranger truck. Then on another site elsewhere I read it's non-interference (hopefully!) again on the Ranger.

Thanks very much in advance!

Randy

 

They are all non-interference engines.

 

Could be! When I do an engine swap where oil filter clearance is an issue I use a remote oil filter kit so I can use a good ol Motorcraft FL-1A filter.

 

Awesome!

Ken thanks so much for that reply!

Regards!

Randy

 

The Merkur xr4ti has a 90-degree oil filter adapter that fits the 2.3, but I can't remember if you need to run the oil cooler or not.

 

Update on the 2.0.
Kennith, found the oling problem. Seems when I first fired up the 2.0 the damage happened before I found that the oil galley plugs were missing. Tore down again & found 2 main bearings were scored bad. Good thing is, I took it back to the machine shop, said they would stand behind it, regrinding the crank, cam & replacing the runners, oil pump & bearings. All I'm out is the gasket set, oil, & labor.....Lesson Learned....Never trust a Machine Shop, Always Check Their Work

 

You can run it without the cooler.

 

That's why I never let a machine shop put my engines together.

 

I agree that no matter what, rather than assuming things are as they should be, always check and measure.

On the other hand, most people, both shops and induividuals, assume they know more than they actually do. A lot of engines get put together and work ok not because the builder did everything correctly and carefully, but because they were fortunate. In spite of what self-proclaimed "experts" say, a GOOD shop will do a better job of assy than the typical enthusiast. Maybe hard to do, but one needs to be honest with themself about the actual level of expertise. That's hard when you don't know what you don't know. Having been a mechanic, engine builder, and machinist, I have seen plenty of do-it-yourself projects gone wrong. Not to take anything away from you, but for many the best option is a GOOD shop.

 

To bump this back up and to add some info.

I was looking for some parts for the '72 2.0 motor and had some difficulty. Here's what I came up with.

**Timing belt tensioner - Melling BT10 (the 2 I bought have the ford logo on the wheel)
**Cam, Aux shaft, Front Crank seal (all the same) - D1FZ-8592-A (I bought them at green sales) Nos, National Seal #473560N
**Thermostat housing - D3FZ-8592-A (Green Sales) Nos
**Rear Crank - D1FZ-6701-A
**Tune up kit - TKF-24

 

Another bump to keep this thread going............

Hey sgtlethargic, are you going to use the trans setup you got from the wrecking yard?. Mine has a C4 in it and I'm thinking of going to a manual....but they're fun to find. I also scored a header at pomona swap a few months ago.

If anyone runs into an old aluminum valve/timing cover for a 2.0 EAO pm me.....thanks.

 

Ok more info needed, what about a manual trans for a EAO 2.0. What will fit, what years and what will a stock trans hold HP wise (maybe around 130-150?). Lastly, are the manual and auto trans the same dimension say from the block to end of bellhousing and from the block to trans mount...so I can keep the trans/motor mounts in the same spot and not hit the firewall.

Thanks for any info.

 

I swapped out a C4, and put a 4 speed out of a Pinto with a 2.0. It held up to all my abuse, as long as you don't put sticky slicks on it, it should be ok (it held up to this engine).

(dual 45mm Webers, mild cam, milled head for 10 to 1 compression, big valves, ported exhaust, and a long tube header). The trans mount should be very very close to the same position as the C4. You will need the yoke from the 4 speed, and you shouldn't need to alter the drive shaft. It's been 15 years since I last messed with a 2.0 EAO, but I'm pretty sure I got the swap right.

 

Wow Kenneth, that thing looked like it screamed. I'm going pretty mild, it's just going to be a peppy, good mpg motor. I can tell a 2.3 bell housing now, but not the trans.. what about a kent 1.6, are they close enough for me to mistake them?. Also, when I'm looking for parts I notice it will sometimes say "german trans" or "english trans"....is there an option for the 2.0 if so which one is better or is this the kent and EAO motor deal.

 

I think the bell housing on the Kent 1.6 is different also (never messed with the Kent all that much), but I do know that the Kent 1.6 had a weak transmission behind it compaired to the one the that was behind a 2.0 EAO.

 

Ok, I bought the transmissions. Another question, are the capri and pinto transmission the same?. I have a complete pinto trans and a case for another one, the trans looks the same but the tailshaft of the case is shorter.

 

The shorter Capri should be the same as far as the gearbox goes, (using the long Pinto trans in a Capri puts the shifter too far back). Actually it's good to have the two different tail housing lengths, it will give you more choises where to position the engine/trans in the car.

 

I should have asked before this, is it ok to post on your thread or should I start a new one. This is the two transmissions I bought today, also on the case with the shorter tail housing it has a different way the shifter attaches and a different mount. Lastly, did the EAO 2.0 and manual trans really need all the vibration damping stuff on the trans. I was wanting to take some of it off and see if I can get a regular yoke for the trans.

 

I took that weight off the trans, and had no problems. The early Pinto 2.0 had a yoke without the "balancer". You can just cut the outer ring off of the yoke if you can't find an early yoke (I couldn't tell any difference with, and without the "balance" weight). The trans that uses the "3 bolt" shifter is just a newer style shifter. Lastly, no need to start another thread for anything concerning the 2.0 EAO, and the "Lima" 2.0/2.3/2.5 engines, the more info this thread has on it the better for everyone who uses, or thinkng of using these engines.

 

Here's what I believe to be a 1.6 L Pinto 4-speed. The transmission-to-bellhousing bolt pattern is approximately 5.7" h by 3.9" w. It doesn't fit the bellhousing I got from a 2.0 L Capri. It weighs about 60 pounds. This looks to be a single-rail shifter linkage versus the Capri transmission which had external linkage.

 

That's the trans that came behind the 1.6 Kent in a Pinto, not as strong as the trans that came behind the 2.0. The Capri trans with the external shift linkage is another weak transmission to avoid.

 

Sorry Kurt, if I would have read the thread slower I would have seen your pic and read that the capri has external shift linkage. I measured mine and the bell bolt pattern is 5 1/4" x 4 3/8". Both the tail shafts are the same length @ 14 7/8", but the shifter is 13 3/4" on the pinto (tailshaft flange to shifter center) and the other one is 11"....so it looked shorter at first glance. I also read somewhere that the german trans has a metal cover with 10 bolts and 23 splines.

 

Not a problem. Keep us posted.

 

I am having a little trouble with the transmission issue myself. I have a 1995 2.3 out of a Ranger and need a tailshift trans. I am trying to source a transmission from the local wrecker and found a 1996 Mustang 3.8, and a 1977 Pinto wagon. Will either of these bolt up directly with no adapters and such. 4 speed of 5 doesn't much matter.

 

If the 77 Pinto wagon has a 4 cylinder in it the transmission, bellhousing is a bolt-on, along with the clutch, pressure plate, and flywheel. The 3.8 uses the bigger small block Ford bell housing, and it will only bolt-up with a aftermarket adapter plate, and flywheel $$$. If you can find a 87-88 Thunderbird turbo coupe with a manual transmission it has a T5 5 speed that will bolt-up to your engine also.

 

I had a T-Bird Super Coupe...Still have the trans, flywheel, & 3.8 Huffer Engine....Is someone looking for a trans & flywheel?

 

I am wanting to put a 2300 turbo from an 89 T-bird in a boat, I have a donor boat with omc cobra outdrive and entire set up from that and a 89 donor car, I want tor replace a 260 hp 350 chevy/mercruiser set up with it.
Anyone have experience with that? How hard is it to get 300 hp from one of these and be reliable, remember a boat is going up hill @ 3000 or more rpms most of the time but has an entire lake for a radiator.
Not wanting a race motor but want the weight reduction and possible fuel economy benefit, this is a cruiser/ski boat (Searay 24.5 ft Sundancer) small cuddy cabin
I do know both outdrives use the same transom holes. other than that it is uncharted territory, I can do most of the work, just curious if anyone else has tried it.
Any help would be appreciated!

 

Trying to sort out some timing issues on a 2.3. The car was timed by ear and started to have a ping problem under load. I went to set the timing with a light and found the timing at 30 degrees. It likes that much timing at idle....any less and it doesn't run right.

Is this normal?

The car has a Mallory dual point distributor and twin 97's on a log intake. I'm guessing the Mallory is putting too much timing into it with the advance. When you bring the rpm's up the timing mark goes off of the timing tab.

Think there is a problem with the belt timing?
Thanks Clark

 

I all ways check the engine for TDC, and remark the pulley. I've seen them as little as 5 degrees off to as much as 20 degrees off. Never seen one that was marked exactly perfect.