kishy's 1985 Ranger

[kishy]

Well, at least with a diff swap you could get better gears. What's it got now, gear wise?

I believe it's 3.45:1. Or something like that.

"Better" gears are not any sort of priority. It already accelerates too slow AND has too slow a top speed. There's really no balance to improve anything that won't hurt something else critically.

[DerekTheGreat]

It'll probably end up doing better on gas with 4.11's. My brothers Ranger was significantly better on gas and easier to drive with his 4.11's compared to my 3.73's. Not sure where those things made their peak torque or yours for that matter but they seemed to like high/mid RPM's better than low.

[kishy]

It'll probably end up doing better on gas with 4.11's. My brothers Ranger was significantly better on gas and easier to drive with his 4.11's compared to my 3.73's. Not sure where those things made their peak torque or yours for that matter but they seemed to like high/mid RPM's better than low.

Torque is 106 @ 2600
HP is 72 @ 4000
It pulls hardest in the upper 3ks, I don't try to push it past 4, harmonics tell me something isn't happy when it's up that high.

Those were the factory numbers at the crank and it has extreme blowby now and a poorly tuned carb, so...

It is literally not able to hold 70mph on a slight incline with just me in it (think I75 going up over the Davison freeway). I cannot sacrifice any more top speed or it would basically rule out driving it on your side of the border.

[kishy]

[DerekTheGreat]

Noice! Sweet pics. We had some fun in our K1500 last night. Ashley has all the pics but my truck doesn't have a thread in the Darkside. WTH is on your roof in some of those pics? You like to moonlight slinging pies?

Also, I believe that with 4.11's out back you'd be able to make better use of your 0.84 overdrive. Our '89 truck has 3.73s, a bit steeper OD ratio @ 0.73 and spins ~2,100 rip 'ems at 70mph. I'd estimate that your truck would turn roughly 2,700-2,800 rip 'ems if I've got my math right, which seems to be right around where you'd want it.

The M5OD-R1 will bolt right up but is about 3 inches longer.. You're already looking for a rear end so why not say, pull a trans, driveshaft and rear end from an 88-92 truck and swap it all over? Or is the 88-92 rear end the one you're trying to avoid due to those changes you mentioned?

[VicCrownVic]

...
WTH is on your roof in some of those pics? You like to moonlight slinging pies?
...

Pizza Planet!
I don't get many movie references, but I get that one. Although the truck in the movie was a yellow Toyota.

[kishy]

Noice! Sweet pics. We had some fun in our K1500 last night. Ashley has all the pics but my truck doesn't have a thread in the Darkside. WTH is on your roof in some of those pics? You like to moonlight slinging pies?

Also, I believe that with 4.11's out back you'd be able to make better use of your 0.84 overdrive. Our '89 truck has 3.73s, a bit steeper OD ratio @ 0.73 and spins ~2,100 rip 'ems at 70mph. I'd estimate that your truck would turn roughly 2,700-2,800 rip 'ems if I've got my math right, which seems to be right around where you'd want it.

The M5OD-R1 will bolt right up but is about 3 inches longer.. You're already looking for a rear end so why not say, pull a trans, driveshaft and rear end from an 88-92 truck and swap it all over? Or is the 88-92 rear end the one you're trying to avoid due to those changes you mentioned?

I'm not understanding how reducing my top speed is going to help me go faster lol.
I also don't want it revving higher anywhere at any speed. Way too much NVH. Again the floor is thin, screwed-in sheetmetal that has nothing on top of it.
I'm pretty sure it's keeping the gear ratio it has now forever until it's scrap time.

I don't want to change driveshafts (necessitated by the newer axle) because I don't want to go to the newer U-joints, I just put in brand new Moogs and this is my only vehicle that uses this size. Plus the slave cylinder (also new) is (supposedly but I don't think I believe it) different between the TK and M5 transmissions. I also don't really like the M5OD shifter, the TK4-shifter-installed-on-a-TK5 is way better to my taste even if the trans is universally recognized to be garbage. I might be picking up the TK5 that currently resides at Warren Ave Parts Galore as a spare/take-it-apart thing. My plan with any engine swap was to keep the TK5 anyway.

On top of all that, that's just too much money to spend on this thing.
REAR END ASSY W/DRUMS $99.99 +core $15.00
or REAR END ASSY W/ DISC BRAKES $129.99 +core $20.00
TRANSMISSION – ALL $99.99 +core $15.00
DRIVESHAFT 1 PIECE- STEEL $19.99 +core $2.00
=286.97 or 250 less the cores
=325 colourful moneys, exactly half the purchase price of the truck

Now...if that engine and trans for 100 deal was still on there's a sliver of a chance I might have gone M5OD. Warren Ave has a handful of 2.3/M5OD combos but they're all +200k miles. Really puts me on the fence because none of them have any damage externally that should have put them in the yard. Engine or trans wear are the likely causes and there's no way to know that as they sit.

Reminds me, one had an electronic retrofit flasher. I need to check that truck for LED bulbs.

Pizza Planet!
I don't get many movie references, but I get that one. Although the truck in the movie was a yellow Toyota.

Shhhh, there's no room for such negativity here...

I'd paint it yellow and make it an OR (instead of a YO), but red is a good look on crappy 80s trucks.

[VicCrownVic]

LOL, I would rather have an OR over a YO any day. Painting the truck yellow would be more work than it's worth; the sign is all you need for those who know the reference to get it.

[sly]

reducing top speed with gears generally allows you to speed up faster. Since the top speed with 2.73 gears is somewhere north of 160mph (given enough run and tail wind), reducing your top speed to 150 but actually being able to get across the intersection under 2 seconds instead of barely making it at 4 seconds (think 7 lane both ways intersection) with 3.55+ gears does make city driving much nicer.

[DerekTheGreat]

I'm not understanding how reducing my top speed is going to help me go faster lol.
I also don't want it revving higher anywhere at any speed. Way too much NVH. Again the floor is thin, screwed-in sheetmetal that has nothing on top of it.

I don't want to change driveshafts (necessitated by the newer axle) because I don't want to go to the newer U-joints, I just put in brand new Moogs and this is my only vehicle that uses this size. Plus the slave cylinder (also new) is (supposedly but I don't think I believe it) different between the TK and M5 transmissions. I also don't really like the M5OD shifter, the TK4-shifter-installed-on-a-TK5 is way better to my taste even if the trans is universally recognized to be garbage.

On top of all that, that's just too much money to spend on this thing.
REAR END ASSY W/DRUMS $99.99 +core $15.00
or REAR END ASSY W/ DISC BRAKES $129.99 +core $20.00
TRANSMISSION – ALL $99.99 +core $15.00
DRIVESHAFT 1 PIECE- STEEL $19.99 +core $2.00
=286.97 or 250 less the cores
=325 colourful moneys, exactly half the purchase price of the truck

Now...if that engine and trans for 100 deal was still on there's a sliver of a chance I might have gone M5OD. Warren Ave has a handful of 2.3/M5OD combos but they're all +200k miles. Really puts me on the fence because none of them have any damage externally that should have put them in the yard. Engine or trans wear are the likely causes and there's no way to know that as they sit...

You're not reducing your [feasible/realistic] top speed, rather, you're making it so your truck can do 70-80 and do so in an RPM range that is still "safe" (~2,800) by what you've listed before. Not to mention what sly said, that you'll have a much easier time tooling around in the city with it and will most likely see an improvement in the MPG department as well as make better use of all 5 gears. With all the money & effort you've invested in it already I'm surprised you've mentioned "the scrap heap" when talking about your Ranger... You don't want to do the driveline swap because you don't like the shifter? LoL Ok, I'll try not to knock ya for that. But I will say the advantages outweigh the cons; like you mentioned, the scrap yard is littered with 2.3/M5 combos so parts are easier to come by...

Once you own a vehicle, purchase price becomes irrelevant if used as a DD, well at least in this case since you've got a great deal of time, effort & money into it. Maybe that's your thing though. I know I wouldn't invest that kind of time into something if I didn't plan on keeping it, like our '89 K1500. If I had factored it's worth into the repairs & time I put into it, it would have been sold or more likely scrapped. Now though, it's reliable as can be (so far). Judgement call made by me since the frame, floor pans & cab mounts weren't rusty. I don't think we'll even break even if we went to sell the truck right now though. 4x4 has been really fun so thankfully this winter has given us annother excuse to justify the cost of the truck.

Pizza Planet!
I don't get many movie references, but I get that one. Although the truck in the movie was a yellow Toyota.

LOL, I would rather have an OR over a YO any day. Painting the truck yellow would be more work than it's worth; the sign is all you need for those who know the reference to get it.

Oh, right. Went right over my head but yeah, I'd much rather have an OR over the YO myself. But Californians don't really know what a Ford is, Fjord maybe, but not a Ford.

[kishy]

Going to cross-post this here because, even though we don't deal with the 4 bangers here typically, I'm pretty sure "generic engine management" topics are well understood by some folks here on GMN so maybe some input will be available here.

http://www.fordrangerforum.com/4-cylinder-tech/143277-2-3-efi-intake-2-0-a.html

Hi folks. I've got one small easy question, but it leads into a whole bunch of garbage...

The small easy question:
1. Does the 2.3 EFI intake manifold bolt up to the 2.0 cylinder head, and do the ports line up enough that you'd get a reasonable running result? Obviously, the 2.0 ports are smaller...

If the answer is "no", we can probably just leave it at that and call this idea toast.
But if it's yes, the bigger pile of garbage that this leads up to:

I'm really not a fan of carbs. I want to improve cold weather driveability (jump in, start, and go). I'd like to put in remote start, which is not immediately feasible with a carb. Therefore, I'd like to do a whole 2.3 EFI swap in my '85, and I am aware of all that is involved in doing the whole swap (that topic has been beat to death online).

The problem is I cannot confidently buy a junkyard 2.3 near me and trust that I'm getting a good engine. Everything has upper 200k-miles and no collision damage, so mechanical failure is the logical cause of death...

So, since I don't trust that I can buy a good used engine, my "second best" plan would be to take the complete harness, computer, and intake (and all that goes with it) off a 2.3 truck and put it on my 2.0. If I can leave the existing block, head and exhaust alone, it cuts the work down considerably.

Here's what I know:

I will need a spot to put an O2 sensor, and am pretty sure there's a plugged threaded hole in my exhaust manifold that will work for this.
It looks like my donor truck would need to be 93-94, because I need Mass Air for this but 49-states didn't get it until 93, and there is a cam position sensor on 95+ which would be hard to integrate onto the 2.0.
I need an EFI fuel sending unit, and it looks like I can take it from up to 88. This will be needed regardless of whether I try to EFI my 2.0, or do a full 2.3 swap.
Donor truck for harness and ECM needs to be stick to reduce possible complications.


Here's what I need to know:
2. "Big Picture"...if the intake will line up and flow acceptably, and the MAF computer will properly adapt to the needs of the 2.0, should I expect a result that at least runs as well as the stock 2.0 carb setup (non feedback) and potentially smoother/better winter driveability?

A note, fine print, whatever you want to call it: I'm not afraid of the wiring. What I need to understand is more mechanical/airflow type stuff.

Something I did NOT think about but which just occurred to me is ignition.
A MAF 2.3 setup is twin plug and distributorless. 2.0 is single plug and Duraspark II with a traditional pickup in the distributor.

If I use a 93 or 94 Non-California donor truck, I will need to put a crank position sensor on my 2.0. This doesn't seem like it should be a huge deal but there are some unknowns:

3. Does the crank position sensor trigger wheel attach directly to the crank pulley? If so I can just grab that off a junkyard truck.
4. Will the crank pulley of a 93 or 94 2.3 fit directly onto the crank of a 2.0?
5. What do I need to do for mounting the crank position sensor? I'm seeing some references to needing to replace the "front cover" of the engine but it isn't clear if that's just the plastic timing cover or something else (no pics anywhere).
6. Will running the ignition electronics (coilpacks, modules) with half the spark plug outputs disconnected cause those parts to prematurely fail?

If anyone can help with 1 and 2 in the first post, and 3-6 in this reply, I'd really appreciate it.

Normally, a discussion about "can my engine management system handle x, y and z changes to my engine" involves increasing displacement and/or airflow rather than decreasing it (as is the case here - net result is a 2.3 with less displacement), so I'm not sure how much I can assume is just going to work.

[gadget73]

may or may not be easy to do the crank sensor. Depends what they did with the accessories and how the crank sensor actually mounts. The trigger wheel will be on the balancer. if the balancer is otherwise the same as what yours uses, I don't see much reason you can't swap the balancer and mount up the crank sensor. Possibly you'd need to swap the timing cover to get the mount, though I do not recall that being very difficult since these have a timing belt that is a service item. I know virtually nothing about this motor's evolution over time other than I helped someone swap a head on a carb 2.3 in a Capri once.

Is there a supply of Mustang 4 bangers up there? We got a lot of 2.3 EFI Mustangs down here, and its very common for people to do V8 swaps. 2.3 pulls were damn near free at one point. The harness would be better out of a truck just for fitment but unless there is something magic to the truck motor I don't see why you couldn't use the Mustang one. Diff cam perhaps?

[kishy]

may or may not be easy to do the crank sensor. Depends what they did with the accessories and how the crank sensor actually mounts. The trigger wheel will be on the balancer. if the balancer is otherwise the same as what yours uses, I don't see much reason you can't swap the balancer and mount up the crank sensor. Possibly you'd need to swap the timing cover to get the mount, though I do not recall that being very difficult since these have a timing belt that is a service item. I know virtually nothing about this motor's evolution over time other than I helped someone swap a head on a carb 2.3 in a Capri once.

Is there a supply of Mustang 4 bangers up there? We got a lot of 2.3 EFI Mustangs down here, and its very common for people to do V8 swaps. 2.3 pulls were damn near free at one point. The harness would be better out of a truck just for fitment but unless there is something magic to the truck motor I don't see why you couldn't use the Mustang one. Diff cam perhaps?

From looking at pics and diagrams I do think the crank trigger wheel goes with the pulley, and the pulley should pop right on. Mounting the sensor seems to require a "front engine cover" and I have been unable to confirm if that is the timing cover or some cover that goes behind/under the timing belt (I suspect the latter may be the case). I'll likely disassemble a junkyard example to get eyes on how it goes together.

If that can be transplanted onto the 2.0 block then we're back to the original questions which are the airflow restrictions of putting bigger manifold ports against smaller head ports (gotta be bad for flow), and the ability of a MAF EEC-IV to compensate .3L displacement difference (my suspicion is it'll be a cakewalk for the computer, and a buddy who builds race engines says he agrees with the theory behind it).

Of course, this is all a really stupid plan. My engine has enormous quantities of blowby, it's at the end of its life by most reasonable estimations. But the concerns about how to get a known-good engine are...well...real.

Good point about Mustangs. I was targeting the trucks because I figured the chances they'd been driven like Mustangs was pretty low, but that decision was made when I was looking at whole engines. Just the air-fuel stuff, it doesn't really matter how the car was driven.

I'll check with local Mustang people and see if anyone has a lead on a running 2.3 up for grabs.

Oh yeah, that's right. I wanted to ignore Mustangs because Fox harness routing is a giant pain (ECM inside the car, passenger side under dash, and extracting the ECM harness requires taking the whole car apart). But I could get a truck harness and car engine parts. Or a whole car engine if one turns up.

[gadget73]

I'd expect a 4 cylinder truck to be worked like a V8 one anyway, so those motors are just whipped to death. Its how 4 banger S10's are anyway. Every 2.2 S10 I see sounds like its ready to die. Or its absolutely mint and has never been used to carry anything heavier than a microwave oven it's entire life.

yeah skip the Fox harness, they're stupidly routed.

Big into small creates a lot of turbulence where it hits the "wall" basically. Even if you could do a 2.3 head on the 2.0 that would help, but honestly if we're talking about a motor with blowby that wouldn't make any sense to do.

[kishy]

Big into small creates a lot of turbulence where it hits the "wall" basically. Even if you could do a 2.3 head on the 2.0 that would help, but honestly if we're talking about a motor with blowby that wouldn't make any sense to do.

Bingo. Also I think I read that a 2.3 head on a 2.0 is a no-go because the valves will whack into the cylinder walls, but not 100% on that.

Had a lightbulb moment. Looked up intake manifold gaskets for 94 2.3 and 85 2.0. The intake manifold to cylinder head bolt pattern is different, and the big fat coolant passage in the middle of the 2.0 head would be left open even if the 2.3 intake could bolt up.

So that would be the reason (if it weren't a silly enough idea to begin with) nobody has done this before. Looks like I'll try to find a running parts car/truck for the whole engine.