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

Doug, you have the late 2.3 with the smaller main journals, since it's a 88 FI engine it has the D-port intake runners. Are you running the stock FI? It may make a little more power with 200-210 water temp the only way to know is to try it. Now as far as the cylinder bore is concerned, if you are running a engine that has the stock bore yet it's best to go ahead, and have it bored out because it's probably worn past of the maximum clearances.

 

Thanks for the quick reply

 

I have a 1965 Lotus Elan. A friend has a fresh Esslinger 2.0 liter motor that has never been fired sitting in a crate. He is willing to sell it to me to use in the Lotus. I would like to adapt the Lotus twin cam head to the 2.0 liter block. What modifications if any are needed to make this swap. My old block is a 1558 bored .040 over to 1600. It's either liner the block or replace it. That's still with a cast crank and rods. It would be nice to have the extra 200cc and a fully forged bottom end in the Lotus. Bigger valves, Weber 48's and maybe some hotter cams than the S/E's would make that 1465lb sports car really go.
Joe

 

Those are two completely different engines.

The Lotus Twincam is based on the old 1500 Pre-crossflow engine, that later evolved into the Crossflow ( Kent )

You can put the Twincam head on a 1600 crossflow, but it has a different deckheight so you'll need some special parts to do it.

A crossflow can be enlarged to 1860cc, if I remember correctly.

A 2 litre with a crossflow is also possible, if you use a Aluminum block meant for the BDA ( also Kent based )

A Kent / Lotus Twincam / BDA head will not fit on a Pinto block.

Use the Esslinger in the Elan ( would probably need lots of modifications to the car, the Pinto is longer and taller, and its heavyer too ) )

Or sell the Esslinger, and buy Kent parts.

The Twincam is a great engine ( specially the big valve Weber head ).
That can make a lot of horsepower.

You can make a Elan a really quick car with one, without cutting it up for a Pinto.

 

Guy, My first visit to this thread. Turned on to it by sgtlethargic - my buddy Kurt.

Attached is the gasket that show how the openings are in the head. We trimmed the gasket to match the opening. Would anyone know the part number that would match my modified gasket ?

Know you guys can do it !

Dave

 

hi I JUST PUT THIS UP ON THE general discussion page and figured that this might be better please help me ID this 4 cylinder intake with dual holley/weber carbs thanks Bruce,

 

Can you bolt a 2.0 71 Pinto head on a 89 2.3 mustang engine?

 

Has anyone put a pair of SU carbs on a Pinto? Would the carbs from a ‘77 federal Lotus Esprit work in such an application?

 

Never seen an intake like that for the Fords.

No.

Someone has bound to have done it (I've never seen one done though), but if the Lotus Esprit engine in close to the same size, I don't see why not.

 

While the 907 twincam has a displacement of two liters, it was designed for very high RPM operation. That, aside from how I could make a manifold that produces the required vacuum, is what worries me.

 

[Never seen an intake like that for the Fords.] looks like a 2.0 early pinto gasket to me but I don't have any gaskets laying around,this is a 3 piece unit with 2 aluminum castings each containing 2 ports and 1-2bb carb plus a steel plate that they bolt to and everything bolts to the head, I may order a gasket to try and figure this out.I've looked all over the internet looking for some thing like it, thanks for your efforts

 

2.0 Pinto/Capri intake manifold.





Looks like it's for a 2.0 except for the extra 2 upper bolts, I've seen a dual 1bbl intake for a 2.0, but that one is the first one I've ever seen that's for dual 2bbl downdraft Webers.

 

looks the same to me but I will have to get the gasket to be positive thanks for your help.

 

Let us know how it lines up with the gasket.

 

will do thanks Bruce

 

thus looks like it is for a early 2.0 pinto motor here are some pics

 

Somebody cut, and modified two stock 2.0 intakes, pretty ingenious.

 

yes I'm sure that is what it is,pretty ingenious for sure

 

Here is my 2.3 Turbo Coupe block with Volvo 16valve twin cam head , turbo / injected ,projected 430 HP , these Folvo engines have produced gobs of HP.This is in my non HAMB car , a 1975 BMW 2002.

 

to run a turbo 2.3 as a NA can a ranger TB be used on the turbo intake or does the whole manifold need to be swapped?

 

We are getting a bit too far Off Topic here...

Lets at least stick to the earlier carburated aplications...

 

There is nothing really too different between the turbo, and NA fuel injection upper, and lower intakes, so it should bolt on.


On another note, a 2.3 blow thru carb turbo setup.

 

Great thread and of course timely.

I just bought this for the 2.0 in my '28 Tudor. I found out from carbking that the holleys were made for edelbrock and kits are long gone. I was thinking of using some carter YF's (thanks again carbking).

 

The carters should work.

 

The carbs are based on a holley 1940 it looks like. I took one apart and bought a hygrade 540 kit, so I'll see if the kit is a match. I also found 2 1940's and 2 carter YF's for $5 at a swapmeet (1 YF is a parts carb.).

 

Kinda of a dumb question, but I'll ask it any way. I have been trying to figure out an overdrive automatic for the girlfriend's 200 in six powered falcon wagon for a bit now. I happened to notice as I was wandering around my shop this afternoon (not kidding, it was 124degrees, trust me I was wandering!) how similarily shaped and sized the bell housing is for one of my 2.3 Fords. The question is this - what did Ford do for an automatic over drive behind these engines? What were they in and were they worth a tinker's damn? Oh, what years m i looking for in the wrecking yards? I smell a possible adaptor....

 

Ford did put a aod behind 2.3's but there is no adapter that I know of that will do what you want to do. On the 250's, and later 200's they used the small block Ford bell housing bolt pattern with the only difference being the two upper bolt holes.

 

Thank you for answering. I know there isn't an adapter out there to do this, but I have built them before, so I think I can handle it. Besides, if I fail I have lot's of even smarter friends!
Did they do anything but the AOD behind these? Maybe something a bit more compact? Ability to hold massive amounts of horsepower is not going to be the deal with this thought, just the ability to load the girlfriend and dogs into our wagon and head for San Deigo without getting run over on the "southern Arizona Autobahn" that is highway 8.

 

Kenneth, you seem to be the one person that knows about the 2.0 & 2.3 engines, so I need to pick your brain, if I may.
First, I have a 1972 EAO engine out of a pinto, now installed in a Nash Metropolitan.
I'm having a problem with low oil pressure when warm at idle, but when I bring up the rpm the pressure goes to 45 to 50 lbs. No knocking yet. Engine has about 150 miles on it now.
Engine temp runs at 180 to 190.
I have a light at the dash & a pressure Guage at the block. At idle when warm pressure shows 3 to 5 lbs & oil light is on.
I took the engine to a machine shop, had blocked honed, crank polished, head redone. I rebuilt the engine to book specks & plastic guaged the bearings making sure I had the right clearance.
NEW PARTS.
1: Rod & Main bearings
2: Cam bearings
3: Valves
4: Rings
5: Oil Pump

THINGS I'VE DONE TROUBLE SHOOTING PROBLEM.
1: Removed the cover from the idler shaft & found, the machine shop removed the 3 small plugs (not threaded) from the oil passage & never replaced them. (I have been looking all over the web looking for a diagram on the oil passages, with no luck.)
2: I replaced 2 of the plugs, leaving the hole open that drains to the oil pan. (still having low pressure problem)

THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN CHANGED ON THE ENGINE AT REBUILD.
1: Replaced the front sump pan with a rear sump & pickup tube from a Mercury Capri.
2: I removed the fuel pump & rod & put a cap where the pump went because of using a electric fuel pump.

What I need to know, is there perhaps more plugs missing in the oiling system? Maybe I need to plug the oil return below the idler shaft? Should I have not remove the fuel pump rod?
Your advice would be a big help.
Thanks, Mike

 

The Pinto 2.0 doesn't have alot of oil galleys in it. The hole below the aux shaft shaft that returns oil to the pan needs to be open, if not it could blow the gasket, or aux shaft oil seal out. I have also ran them without the fuel pump rod with no oil pressure problems. The only time I had a oil pressure problem with one of these engines was due to a Fram oil filter (trashed a fresh rebuilt engine with just 50 miles on it, I was pissed). Try a different oil filter (especialy if you have Fram oil filter on it now).