I can t wait for more pics. Where did you get the track nose to fit the A.? The only ones I found were for a model T.
Glad to see the "Pinto" motor is getting some respect! I'll post some pics of what I've got, plus some things I've discovered along the way. By the way, one of the Goodguys Scottsdale show "top 10" cars is a 2.0 powered Modified that's the evil twin of the car I have. Joe's is much nicer and finished. Here's the manifold I build for 2 weber 44's. Its still not on yet... You can get a similar one from Esslinger. I have the engineering drawings for the head including the valve cover, intake and exhaust bolt patterns.
Here's another picture. I think this is the nicest 2.3 valve cover I've seen. You can get a SWEET finned cover for the 2.0. The other good one I've seen is a simple chrome one that Ford made. The rest of them are either plastic or say "turbo" or Fuel injection on them. My dad and I built this header from half a SBC kit. I got the flange from Esslinger. That one was 1 3/4" holes in it that are oval and tilted. I don't think I'll buy another one of those. There's a guy on ebay that's making a zoomie header for the 2.3 and will sell flanges for 25 bucks. thrashperformance is his EBAY name. I've never bought from him, but he's responsive and will make any header for $120, he said.
As for the engine, the head is ported and has a solid cam in it. The head needs some special machining to use a solid cam. I have a Crane cam with .533 lift and 284 duration. It lumps and sounds about as awesome as a 4 cylinder can sound. As for performance, I can't compare too much because its the only cam I've run. I know its a dog out of the whole, even with a 4.11 gears. The 29" tall tires make it tolerable on the freeway. Only about 3200rpm at 65mph by my calcs (and I do that for a living). I made an excel spread sheet to compare Eng rpm vs cruising speed if you want it, shoot me a PM. The trans is a C3. Shift hard with the shift kit but I got boned on the rebuild price. IT NEED A CONVERTER. That would probably solve my problems. Hughes said they'd build me a C3 converter for ~$350. Not totally unreasonable, I think. If you want to use a C4, you'll have to find a special 2.3 to C4 bellhousing that is RARE and expensive. I have one that was repaired (badly) but still is usable. I might keep the C3 now and buy a converter. I'll spend $350 rebuilding a C4 and getting a decent converter. C4 and C3 have the same gears. If you want to have fun, use a Manual trans. I would, but there's no room for a clutch pedal. The internal parts of the engine are stock. The intake's an Esslinger one with a 500cfm 2 barrel. I need to try a 350cfm cause the engine's never run right and I think it must be the carb. At high rpm though, this thing RIPS! My 2.3 takes an FL-1A oil filter, but its too long and I can't get it off while the engine's in place. I use the shorter equivalent w/o a problem. I've also read these engines don't like synthetic oil. I have no idea why and generally don't believe that, but that's what I've read a few times. 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) What else? You can get a little more displacement by using a later 2.5L crank from a Ranger. You'll need some crank journal adapters to use it on an older 2.3, but those are not to hard to find. There are MANY stroker kits for this engine, but they are PRICEY!! The lure of this engine is LOW COST, so I didn't want to screw around and end up saying, "I could have had a V8" (with twice the power!!) Any questions or anything else, shoot me a PM or email at pikesan99 AT hotmail Pike (I can send a video of the car running if you want to hear what it sounds like)
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.
That intake looks great, Pikesan99. One of the problems with the dual-plug head is the stock lower intake manifold doesn't leave room for a distributor. The DP comes with a distributorless ignition system. Thanks, Kurt
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?
The Jalopy Journal
