2.3L ('83-'97) Adjustable Cam Gear

[Adam1234567]

Hello,

I'm rebuilding a 1989 2.3, which I picked up for a song. Everything is apart, and looks good. My goal is a nice, durable engine that I can drop into my Ranger when its engine declines, or keep it around as an industrial engine... or project car... Who knows? I've got no interest in high performance. I just want a durable, economical power plant, and I like these 2.3s.

When driving, my vehicles rarely hit 3k rpm. As a rule, 2,500 is the max, and that's only on the freeway. (In case you're wondering: Yes; you've passed me.) I'm wondering if because of that, an adjustable cam gear might be a good choice for me to move it's peak into my range.

Thoughts? I'm also open to a cam that would better fit my driving style. In a perfect world, I could drop this in my '02, and get 40mpg.

If anyone's got links to this engine's performance chart and efficiency chart, I'd appreciate it. I haven't been able to find them.

 

[Shran]

Lima 2.3’s and similar engines from that family are great little motors and very reliable but you will never see 40mpg or even 30. I’ve had a bunch of them and even in the lightest 2wd short box Rangers, it is very hard to average over 20mpg. They are just old technology, very heavy for what they are and not super efficient. Also very expensive to build, even stock rebuilds are pricey.

Does your ‘02 have a 2.3 in it? If so I believe those would be Duratech engines, they are the same displacement as a 2.3 Lima but share absolutely nothing else, they are a totally different engine.

 

[Adam1234567]

Lima 2.3’s and similar engines from that family are great little motors and very reliable but you will never see 40mpg or even 30. I’ve had a bunch of them and even in the lightest 2wd short box Rangers, it is very hard to average over 20mpg. They are just old technology, very heavy for what they are and not super efficient. Also very expensive to build, even stock rebuilds are pricey.

Does your ‘02 have a 2.3 in it? If so I believe those would be Duratech engines, they are the same displacement as a 2.3 Lima but share absolutely nothing else, they are a totally different engine.

Yeah; the '02 has a 2.3 Duratec. The simplest plan is to install the Lima with the trans, wiring harness and controls from the '92 (which all came with the engine). If I've got time, however, I'll be putting a Speeduino or Megasquirt on the Lima along with a manual trans. (I had been in the market for any engine, so I could experiment with these controls before installing on the '02. This Lima wasn't what I was hoping for-- it was in bad shape, but now I'm this deep into it...)

Any thoughts one why these engines are so inefficient? I rented a Versa a few months back, consistently got 45mpg. They're low, light and aerodynamic-- but double the fuel economy?!? I figure it's got to be in the cam.

 

[scotts90ranger]

way back in the day my '90 got 26-28mpg with tiny tires and stock form (195 75 14 tires with 3.08 gears) but that was before '04 when I think the fuel changed to E10... my '97 gets 23-25 depending on the time of year (it runs cold, doesn't help the mileage).

Tires and wind resistance make the most difference, switching from all season tires to car tires on my '97 gained me like 2mpg and switching up my driving style to staying under 3000rpm (it has 4.10's, took some tire size playing to find a balance) and going to 4k to accelerate hard onto the highway.

That said you would have to play games and try hard using a Lima to meet let alone beat a Duratec in mileage... the duratec has better cylinder head design and is sequential injection instead of batch fire... you'd be better off going to a lower rolling resistance tire and optimizing the gear ratio for efficiency with the duratec than a Lima...

 

[alwaysFlOoReD]

The Lima engine in general is very old tech. 60 year old tech.

 

[RonD]

To start off, the 2.3l Lima weighs in at 425lbs
2.3l Duratec 175lbs
Aluminum matters, lol
Power to weight ratio matters

2 valves per cylinder is old school and not as efficient as 4 valves per cylinder
And you release more energy which means less fuel burned/required to maintain, say 65mph, on the highway

Esslinger knows more about the 2.3l Lima than anyone anywhere: https://esslingeracing.com/ford-2-valve-4-cyl-engines-parts/2-3l-sohc-lima-engines-parts


Think about using an electric cooling fan, makes the engine more efficient
If setup for temp correctly the fan is only on when driving under 20mph, and air flow thru the radiator is needed
Above 20mph the fan is not needed so no alternator/engine "drain"

 

[Adam1234567]

way back in the day my '90 got 26-28mpg with tiny tires and stock form (195 75 14 tires with 3.08 gears) but that was before '04 when I think the fuel changed to E10... my '97 gets 23-25 depending on the time of year (it runs cold, doesn't help the mileage).

Tires and wind resistance make the most difference, switching from all season tires to car tires on my '97 gained me like 2mpg and switching up my driving style to staying under 3000rpm (it has 4.10's, took some tire size playing to find a balance) and going to 4k to accelerate hard onto the highway.

That said you would have to play games and try hard using a Lima to meet let alone beat a Duratec in mileage... the duratec has better cylinder head design and is sequential injection instead of batch fire... you'd be better off going to a lower rolling resistance tire and optimizing the gear ratio for efficiency with the duratec than a Lima...

That Duratec makes me fume-- it's got the variable intake manifold. Great idea, but it breaks, and even if it were reliable, I've got no need for it, the way I drive.

It's also got DOHC-- 4 valves/cylinder. What am I going to do with that? Again: great idea, but for me, it's just more stuff to break.

My thing-- and don't get me wrong: I appreciate the expert guidance, but I've kinda fallen in love with this Lima -- my thing is that "good heads" just means good flow, but that doesn't mean much in regard to fuel economy, which would be a function of efficiency, not flow. Yes? Folks who want power, they need the DOHC and such, but that lowers efficiency because the chamber is emptied with more unspent fuel?

 

[Adam1234567]

The Lima engine in general is very old tech. 60 year old tech.

No doubt about it, and that batch firing sure makes a difference. But in the engine itself, not the controls, what can be so bad about the Lima? I mean, it's got a roller cam. I can't imagine the rings and bearing are adding much in way of friction above what today's engines have.

 

[Adam1234567]

To start off, the 2.3l Lima weighs in at 425lbs
2.3l Duratec 175lbs
Aluminum matters, lol
Power to weight ratio matters

2 valves per cylinder is old school and not as efficient as 4 valves per cylinder
And you release more energy which means less fuel burned/required to maintain, say 65mph, on the highway

Esslinger knows more about the 2.3l Lima than anyone anywhere: https://esslingeracing.com/ford-2-valve-4-cyl-engines-parts/2-3l-sohc-lima-engines-parts


Think about using an electric cooling fan, makes the engine more efficient
If setup for temp correctly the fan is only on when driving under 20mph, and air flow thru the radiator is needed
Above 20mph the fan is not needed so no alternator/engine "drain"

That's a flash there; I had no idea the Duratec was so light.

In the sense of efficiency as "percentage of fuel delivered to the rear wheels," I can't see how extra valves makes a difference.

But if the Duratec has aluminum pistons, or a light crank, that would make a whole lot of sense to me as increasing efficiency. (Edit: apparently, aluminum pistons, saving .3lbs per, but the rods and crank weigh the same.)

Thanks for the tips.

 

[Shran]

The Lima engines are just stupid heavy. I read somewhere that they weigh somewhere close to as much as a GM LS V8.

IMO they fit right in with the old 300 inline six- brutishly tough, heavy, will run forever but don’t make much HP.

 

[Adam1234567]

The Lima engines are just stupid heavy. I read somewhere that they weigh somewhere close to as much as a GM LS V8.

IMO they fit right in with the old 300 inline six- brutishly tough, heavy, will run forever but don’t make much HP.

Yeah; they're heavier, but the moving parts are mostly steel of identical weight. The pistons though; I bet those aluminum pistons in the Duratec make all the difference.

 

[Blmpkn]

You seem to be putting a lot of thought into this and it seems like all out efficiency is paramount..

Kinda shooting yourself in the foot with a Ranger though.. and then youre dumping another round in the other foot by wanting to swap its current motor.. the most efficient motor ford has ever put in a domestic ranger.. to a 60 year old motor that by itself is inherently less efficient.. and has the side effect of adding 300lbs to curb weight.. further decreasing efficiency..

 

[Adam1234567]

You seem to be putting a lot of thought into this and it seems like all out efficiency is paramount..

Kinda shooting yourself in the foot with a Ranger though.. and then youre dumping another round in the other foot by wanting to swap its current motor.. the most efficient motor ford has ever put in a domestic ranger.. to a 60 year old motor that by itself is inherently less efficient.. and has the side effect of adding 300lbs to curb weight.. further decreasing efficiency..

Yeah; in a sense there's something to your assessment, but what underlies my reticence is a lack of faith that modern engines are more efficient because they're modern. Fuel/air ratio is still the same. If larger percentage of the hydrocarbon is transformed into kinetic energy that reaches the back wheels, how? It's not magic. It's less weight in the moving parts, less friction. It's not more/bigger valves because more/bigger valves just means more of the same fuel/air passing through-- that's more volume, not more efficiency. It's not an aluminum block and head because the parts that count are still steel.

The lighter pistons would be a large improvement in efficiency, I would think. The sequential fuel injection, I'm sure would reduce wasted fuel-- maybe. 150 lbs of extra weight isn't going to make that much of a difference though. And if the Duratec is significantly more efficient, why can't I easily find an efficiency chart?

I do like the Lima, but my preoccupation is related to figuring out why.

 

[alwaysFlOoReD]

Less weight is cheap horsepower. Always has been the first thing and cheapest thing to look at in racing
Newer engines have closer tolerances in machining, so use thinner oil for less friction. Look at some of the 0w08 oils being used stock...
Also the improvement in transmission gearing, letting the engine work at its peak bsfc. Its why you don't see manuals anymore, the manufacturer needs to meet cafe standards.
2 sparkplugs per cylinder increases horsepower.
4 valves per cylinder increases more than an extra plug, so that's why 2 plugs isn't on the 2.3 anymore.
Probably other things that I didn't think of or am unaware of...

 

[scotts90ranger]

Pretty much all engines in the last century plus have aluminum pistons... more modern engines have more modern design that just takes less metal...

More airflow or easier airflow is more horsepower but less restriction means the engine has to try less hard to do the same thing which requires less fuel. To an extent the more horsepower you make the more efficient, if you use less power you use less fuel, the less parasitic restriction you have in a more efficient engine design the less horsepower it takes to do anything and the less fuel you use. air/fuel ratio is a given, all gasoline engines run at stoichiometric ratios unless running rally hard so all you have is to use less power... more valves per cylinder makes it easier to flow air which is less resistance...