my brother and I messed with 2.3's a bit...and a buddy is heavy into turbo coupes...we pulled my brothers turbo motor down (ranger install) and were starting to price everything to make 500 streetable horses at the wheels (which is daily driver material with the turbo ones we hear)...but the project got sidelined for others....anyways...they are cool motors..and tons of people have already posted the guys to talk to for performance parts... oh, and we were lookin into making his dual plug head act like a single plug head by wiring the coil packs differently...dunno if it would have worked..but in theory..it woulda ran good..IN THEORY hahahaha....
150 hp should be pretty easy with a non-turbo setup. 300 hp is easy to get with a properly tuned turbo setup......without fancy exotic parts.
500 hp from a 2.3 even with a turbo is not really daily driver power. It'd cost a small fortune to do and make it truely streetable... and run on common pump gas.
I have a finished engineering drawing of the intake flange if anyone needs it to build a custom intake. It would be nice to give something back to the HAMB. (I usually do more taking) im interrested in the intake flage drawing
my son lived in NC for about 6 years near Bowman Grey race track the hot shoes there in the minis say that a Rt side 302 header bolts right up to 2.3 head.I cut my own flange using an exhaust gasket for pattern and used a Rt. side sbc header cutting off the flange and welding mine on this was on 74 pinto 2.3 Im just getting back to the ford 4 so don't know ranger or other 4s yet but have 4 to play with 2 svo mustang turbo 2 non turbo all fuel injected which i have no experience at all yet. I would like to get coppies of those drawings if you pm me i'll send my info
500 at the wheels is very streetable...with a turbo motor...there have been many examples...its been a few years since I've looked into anything for them..but the guy who was gonna help with the fuel mapping is an "sport compact" racer and race engine shop owner(really good guy) but anyways...can't say it woulda made the power, because its still a abre block on the stand...but I do know everyone I've spoken to said it woulda been easy...not saying you'd be putting regular in it, and those motors aren't cheap to get parts for..my 2 cents... and I should probably mention that it was in a ranger that layed body flat on the ground on 22 inch wheels, with I beam suspension...something people told us couldn't be done...but thats for another board...haha
Littel known tidbit of information... the SVO Mustang (and presumedly the '87-'88 T-Bird Turbo Coupe and any other EFI Turbo Ford products) got a special cylinder head with a special cam. The SVO's (and I think Turbo Coupes) had a switch on the console that told the Engine Management system if you wanted to run with no boost being made basically. It opened the waste gate pretty much all the time. I don't recall it's actual name. Anyway the engine had about 120 hp without boost according to Ford back in the day. All other 2.3's had like 88-95 tire ripping hp. The best 2.3 to build (turbo or non-turbo) is on out of an EFI turbo car.
You have to be careful about boosting a non turbo motor. There are no provisions for the turbo oiling system and the deck and cylider walls are thinner.
My 2.3 is a 87-88 T coupe motor. I am not sure if its the 175 or 200 horse motor. Still wainting on those pics
All 2.3 blocks are the same though. The only thing special was maybe the rods and definitly the pistons.
GREAT thread!!!! What about flywheels? Are 2.0L and the 2.3L interchangable??? I'll be picking up a few 2.0 blocks and cranks and want to know my options. Thanks! (Don't ask WHY I need to know............hahahaha)
not true. there are many different varieties of the 2.3 block. The differences are not great but they are there. For instance only the turbo blocks has provisions for an oil return line from the turbo. Most other differences are reguarding the casting. Turbo blocks were cast with a much higher nickel content making them stronger. Dimentionaly they are interchangable. Some are better suited for performance.
Whew -- great info. If your looking for other things to turbo the Dodge 2.2/2.5L engines are another great source, just gotta adapt a stouter tranny to them. I had a Lunati camshaft, dual 40mm Webered Shelby Dodge Charger and it was lot of fun, and I've still got a Dakota with the 2.5L engine just sitting out back waiting for a project or new owner. Hmm.
Your 88 2.0 isn't the same mill as the 71-73 style "Pinto" motor....it's the same as the 2.3 but with a smaller displacement. some of these had 2 plugs per cylinder also... I run a basically stock 71 2.0 Pinto mill in my 28 Woodie Ford Model A....bored .020 over, new bearings... I have a Shelby-Spearco finned aluminum cambelt cover and a Tappet cover as well. I made up an adapter on the lathe and milling machine to fit a 10" Edelbrock air cleaner, and adapted an Edelbrock Oil breather for a SMC, the square type. It fits and barely clears the firewall. Looks good. I get about 20 mpg with her. Recently I've been experimenting witha mix of "E85" fuel, mixed 1 part to 2 parts of unleaded for about a 20% mixture of alcohol. So far, so good, runs nice. Basically what was sold in South Bend IN in the late 80's as "gasohol".... We'll see if the carburetor parts disolve with this mix....still using stock jetting as well....
I remember the oiling problems when the 2.0 was first introduced....I think that the new Ford recomendation to change oil at 7500 miles was a big part of it.... As well as the necessary oil for the new OHC engine being unavailable...this I was told by another car guy who put a 2.0 liter Pinto mill in his T Bucket...(he never got that one on the road...) When I did the rebuild on my 71 2.0 liter I had a bad cam/bad lifters situation also. I got a cam and lifters from a 39k mile car in a boneyard and that cam had probably .015 " of wear in the cam. I bought a new cam and lifters, but never installed it. I drove it for years and it didn't wear anymore when I tore it down for a valve job this summer. Still running that cam. I'm thinking that my regular oil changes, and using Valvoline 30W oil is the reason for the non-wear situation. I also run it in my 1951 Ferguson tractor with good results. I hope this helps.
Back in 89 I bought a 79 Pinto with a C4 for a go to work car....from what I've found out, 79 is the year to find the C4 transmission...the others used a C3. I have no idea what the difference between them is. We're putting that 2.3 and C4 combination in son Dan's (13) 30 A coupe. Hope this helps...look for a 79 Model year Pinto for that C4 transmission.
Hey Grumpyblues: On Dan's 30 coupe I got a set of Ranger pickup motor mounts and I can use these with the stock Ford Flathead V8 style motor mount biscuits....paid $5 for the monts and $22 for the V8 Biscuits...and with some tube steel for the frame adapter part and a little time on the milling machine and bandsaw...it looks Factory. Hope this works... PM me sometime...how did the shifter kit work for the C3 trans you were talking about?
One of those 1987 Ford thunderbird turbo coupe valve covers is on ebay. http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1987-Ford-thunderbird-turbo-coupe-valve-cover-2-3-1988_W0QQitemZ180063627498QQihZ008QQcategoryZ33627QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
my dad has a 2.3 in his courier. awsome little engine! hes bored it 20 over, shaved the head .011, hogged out the ports, hogged out the intake, adapted a 42mm SU to the intake, and built a header for it. its also got a decent cam in it also. damn thing will scoot right along with the 5 speed. heres a pic. not pretty at all, but it get the work done.
I have a 86 ford tempo ''high performance'' version, and it has a 2.3 PUSHROD engine, no overhead cam here,just a straightup pushrod engine. it makes about 100horse,. it isnt based on the pinto 2.3 as far as i can tell, its a pretty sweet motor, teamed with the ''sport'' auto trans the car is really quick for a shitbox. im pulling the motor now, hopefully il have it out soon, and il snap some pics. as far as the pinto/mustang 2.3's, stay away from the A4LD auto trans, ts the most shittiest tranny you will ever come in contact with. I ve gone through 3 of them on my 93 notchback 2.3. (only temporary anyways, till the 302 is done)
Can anyone posting to this thread set us up a chatroom?I have always like the "Pinto 4s"but haven't built one up in a long time the last I built was a 74 turbo 2.3 but using a paxton blower inplace of the turbo.I'm getting ready to build a later version of this engine but with an svo turbo engine with fuel injection.This will be my first time working with injection and it sure would be nice to have a chat room of like minded folks to talk to ,If I was computer literate I'd set one up but as it is I don't have a clue how to!Anyone else interested in live chat about these mills ?
Thanks SGT I am little worried about the getting the breather to fit under the hood but after looking at some of the pics I think I can keep from bumping the hood. Check here for some reference. http://www.rothfam.com/svo/reference/
You can get tons of gofast goodies for the 2.0/2.3 fords.You can also get a 2.0 head that will fit the 2.3 block and not have to worry bout the end ports being at an angle.also you can get dual sidedraft webber carbs,carrillo rods,with a good balance job I had one that would rev 9k and lived on the street.hit me up if you want any more info
TJM, The carburated Ranger versions of the 2.0/2.3 U.S. built fours in the `80's utilized this head. They are pretty plentiful and I think Esslinger has manifolds to accomodate this head with different carb types. Don't confuse the 2.0/2.3 U.S. engine with the earlier Euro made Ford 2.0 of the early `70's. They are both great engines and usually run rings around any other four you can build for the price but they are different.
The Jalopy Journal
