Register now to get rid of these ads!

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

Discussion in 'The Hokey Ass Message Board' started by Kenneth S, Dec 14, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Kenneth S
    Joined: Dec 15, 2007
    Posts: 1,527

    Kenneth S
    Member

    That's sweet FAW!

    My old O/T 72 Pinto 2.0, with a 4 speed.
    [​IMG]
     
  2. correct me if im wrong but down here these engines were used in ford cortinas and later, sierras. i brought three of em (2.0) for my old 42 anglia, but sold the lot about a year ago.
     
  3. Kenneth S
    Joined: Dec 15, 2007
    Posts: 1,527

    Kenneth S
    Member


    I don't think the D-port will make much of a difference power wise. Do you know if you have a 2.0, or a 2.3?
    The 2.0 has a bore of 3.520" dia.
    The 2.3 has a bore of 3.780" dia.
    If you have a 2.0 the valves on a D-port would more than likely hit the cylinder walls, and you would loose some compression with the D-port also (the Ranger 2.0 never had a D-port head, they only had the round port with smaller valves).
     
  4. Kenneth S
    Joined: Dec 15, 2007
    Posts: 1,527

    Kenneth S
    Member


    The early 2.0 EAO engine that was used here in the U.S. in 1971-73 Ford Pinto's are the same that's used in the old Cortina's, etc.
     
  5. Kenneth S
    Joined: Dec 15, 2007
    Posts: 1,527

    Kenneth S
    Member

    On my O/T 88 Ranger with a 2.3 I couldn't use a conventional Ford 2.3 D-port intake so I used a OMC intake that is used on 2.3's in boats, it has a Rochester 2 barrel bolt pattern, but I modified a Holley 2 barrel, to a Pinto 2.0 carb to intake adaptor to make it work. The problem I had was that the carb linkage was hitting the power brake booster. Here's some pics of the OMC intake (it's cast iron, and a little heavy, but it works). You can just get the float bowl off the carb with the valve cover still on.
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  6. need louvers ?
    Joined: Nov 20, 2008
    Posts: 12,911

    need louvers ?
    Member

    Thanks Kenneth! I haven't been in this engine yet, so I'm not sure if it's 2300 or 2000. I guess I have to do an exploratory and find out. I much appreciated the P.M. as well. Thanks again, Chip
     
  7. Kenneth S
    Joined: Dec 15, 2007
    Posts: 1,527

    Kenneth S
    Member

    Not a problem, let us know what you have after the exploratory.
     
  8. I used to race a 2.0 back in 1972 and used a lot of stuff by an American Company ,I think was called Spearco.....its taken me 38 years to get back into these motors and things sure have changed.......great thread.
     
  9. I need to put a rear-sump oil pan on a '77 2.3 for my Rambler project. I saw where you stated that '74-'88 2.3's are interchangeable....can I use the rear sump oil pan and pickup tube from a pre-'88 2.3 to replace the front sump pan from my MII engine?
     
  10. Kenneth S
    Joined: Dec 15, 2007
    Posts: 1,527

    Kenneth S
    Member

    It should be a bolt on deal, you will also need the one main bolt that has a stud on it to help support the rear sump pickup tube. The only thing I'm not sure about is if the dipstick tube in the block is going to be in the right place (it's been a while since I've seen a front sump block).
     
  11. Thanks for the info! I'll check out the dipstick location, too.
     
  12. sgtlethargic
    Joined: Oct 8, 2005
    Posts: 5,587

    sgtlethargic
    Member

    Idahno if earlier blocks do, but my late 80's block has two dipstick holes. I switched from rear sump to front sump, switched dipstick location, and had to plug a dipstick hole. I don't remember if I had to unplug the one I used or what the deal there was.
     
  13. chileverde
    Joined: Jan 10, 2011
    Posts: 2

    chileverde
    Member

    thinking about using a 2.5 ranger 8 plug motor in my 2.3 powered 92 mustang. do you see any hurdles i'll need to overcome?
     
  14. I finally did just that....got a later model 2.3 from a Ranger and it fits into the Rambler, although is a seriously tight fit. Figuring out motor mounts is going to be a lot of fun! :)
     
  15. 26 roadster
    Joined: Apr 21, 2008
    Posts: 2,015

    26 roadster
    Member

    my 2.3 87 t-bird, super 16g turbo, ranger roller, turned gutted and knife edge intake for F/BGALT car, pic in albums
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Jan 11, 2011
  16. Kenneth S
    Joined: Dec 15, 2007
    Posts: 1,527

    Kenneth S
    Member

    See page 1, post 1 for just added cylinder head pictures.
     
  17. totalawsum7
    Joined: Jan 7, 2011
    Posts: 3

    totalawsum7
    Member
    from Tacoma, WA

    Anyone have access to : 1) 2.5 Industral (LRG425) carbed intake; 2) 2.3 OMC boat intake.....looking for pics,info for projects. Thks Tony
     
  18. Kenneth S
    Joined: Dec 15, 2007
    Posts: 1,527

    Kenneth S
    Member

    You are talking about this intake.
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    I got the OMC intake pictured above on ebay for $60.00 (they are on there from time to time).

    Here it is after I made a adapter to mount a holley 2bbl for my O/T 88 Ranger.
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2011
  19. mhidpa
    Joined: Mar 10, 2011
    Posts: 4

    mhidpa
    Member
    from Tennessee

    I just found this thread while searching for information to fix my 96 ranger and I was hopingv I could get some help. I need to replace my engine.

    We saw what was advertised as a 95 2.3L enging on craigslist, and got ahold of the guy. First he said it had 4 plugs (my 2.3 has 8) and then he said that he found out that it took 8. It seemed that he didnt really know what he was talking about. He gave us the enging casting # and it checked out to be a 95 Ranger Engine.

    My Uncle picked up the engine today and it definatly is a 4 plug head. I looked up the head casting # and it is a Ford Industrial. It has the indentations where the extra plugs go, other than that it seems to be the same. Does anyone know if I can get this engine to work in my truck. Could I drill and tap the new head for the extra plugs? Could I have my old head rebuild and put on the new block? Can I just slap it in as is and do something to my ECU to run with 4 plugs. It is my understanding that the extra 4 plugs dont really do anything and are just there for emmisions. Thanks in advance for your help.
     
  20. You should probably do an intro, as the rules state, or be prepared for a shit-storm.
     
  21. mhidpa
    Joined: Mar 10, 2011
    Posts: 4

    mhidpa
    Member
    from Tennessee

    Done. Sorry about that.
     
  22. lorodz
    Joined: Jul 26, 2009
    Posts: 3,728

    lorodz
    Member

    take the 8 plug from your old motor send it out and put it on the new motor with all new gaskets ... i would think there was to to much involved switching to a 4 plug head ...if ya got a good head use it..
     
  23. Kenneth S
    Joined: Dec 15, 2007
    Posts: 1,527

    Kenneth S
    Member

    You can run the 4 plug head just unplug, and remove the second set of coil packs, but the extra 4 plugs should help the performance some (plus I think they did the 8 plug to help with emissions).
     
  24. mhidpa
    Joined: Mar 10, 2011
    Posts: 4

    mhidpa
    Member
    from Tennessee

    Thanks. I would run the 8 plug head butit would have to be rebuild, as the valves are damaged. I am tring to keep this as inexpensive a possible. Do you know if I would have to do anything to the wiring harness or ecu if I just put in the engine as is with 4 plugs?
     
  25. sgtlethargic
    Joined: Oct 8, 2005
    Posts: 5,587

    sgtlethargic
    Member

    You might try the turboford.org forum.
     
  26. flyguy
    Joined: Mar 30, 2011
    Posts: 3

    flyguy
    Member

    Read your post, very informative ! hoping you can shed a little light on my questions. have a supposed 73 2.0 eng. that came in a sandrail I bought. It has 8 bolt valve cover, the dist. is in front of #1 cyl.. The #'s on the block, on the right rear are 23E73. Have a spare eng., it also has an 8 bolt valve cover, but the dist. is below the #1 cyl.. The # on the block is on the right front and is D8EE-6015-BA. A little confused as you stated 10 bolts for valve cover on the early mdl's. can anyone tell me which or what eng. or mix of eng. I am dealing with !
    Thanks
    New guy
    flyguy
     
  27. flyguy, that sounds like a 78 or later 2300. D8EE says 78 production Pinto/Mustang II (IIRC) BA will tell you what revision, which may narrow down the YOP.
     
  28. Kenneth S
    Joined: Dec 15, 2007
    Posts: 1,527

    Kenneth S
    Member

    On the early 2.0 (the EAO engine) the valve cover had bolt on each side of front cam tower about an 1" above the two front valve cover bolts, aftermarket aluminum valve covers like the finned M/T's did not have them.
     
  29. flyguy
    Joined: Mar 30, 2011
    Posts: 3

    flyguy
    Member

    kenneth ; Right, 10 bolts on the valve cover. So I have a 73 and a 78 pinto eng. Now could you tell me how to get the two bolts off the oil pump appears to be a 16 point 8mm x 125 bolt. What tool removes these two bolts ?
    dave
     
  30. Guest user
    Joined: Aug 25, 2010
    Posts: 16

    Guest user
    Member
    from On Maui

    This thread is as close as I have come to finding the information I need, and I have been searching quite awhile now.

    I understand that 2.0 - 2.5 heads will interchange as far as bolting on the respective blocks, but what I'm not clear on is if a '95 2.3 head is put on a '98 2.0 block, will the 2.0 manifolds bolt up to the 2.3 head?

    This is a very informative thread to say the least, I just became confused early on in the thread about the different sized ports.

    Maybe it will help if I add that I'm trying to put a '95 2.3 head from a Ranger onto a '98 2.0 Escort.

    Thank you very much for any information.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Register now to get rid of these ads!

Archive

Copyright © 1995-2020 The Jalopy Journal: Steal our stuff, we'll kick your teeth in. Terms of Service. Privacy Policy.

Atomic Industry
Forum software by XenForo™ ©2010-2014 XenForo Ltd.