2.5 conversion

I know it's been covered many times however most of the articles I have found pertain to 95 and up OBD-2 swaps.

In my case I would like to drop a 98 OBD-2 2.5 Lima into a 93 2.3 ranger. Clearly we would need to use the intake manifold and exhaust manifold off of the early 2.3 however this will not resolve the crank sensor issue.

My question: is it possible to use the older 2.3 front engine cover on the 2.5. I am sure all the sensors would also need to be used off the original 2.3 out of the ranger to include the older style crank sensor, oil pressure sending unit, and temp sensor.

I know the latter 95 and up 2.5 swaps are very strait forward but would like to get more details if it's possible on the pre 95s. Also this truck is a 8 spark plug coil ignition. Clearly the 2.5s don't have a hole for the distributor so this would be impossible on a 2.3 with a dizzy.

I'm not 100% certain about the method, but this has come up before. Not just with the 2.5 swap but with swapping any of the 2.0/2.3/2.5 engines...

There is a way to do it but it requires drilling the block to install the crank position sensor...

I would search for you but don't have time...can do it later if nobody else responds...but you can search on something like "crank position sensor"...or similar...

That would definitely be helpful. I have been searching but have not found a clear answer or DIY thread.

If all that is required is simply drilling and taping two holes to mount the sensor that doesn't sound to bad.

OK...I found a thread on TRS but you might want to consider this before going ahead.

http://therangerstation.com/forums/showthread.php?t=142043

As an afterthought the original post by Tinman was followed up in another thread and he didn't think it was such a great idea after all the work he had to do...read the last post in this thread for more information.

http://www.therangerstation.com/forums/showthread.php?t=167318&highlight=crank+position+sensor+2.5

I bought a 96 Ranger from a TRS member who had swapped a 98 2.5 in and his thread is on here also...he ran into a few problems but managed to work them out. He put on 50,000 km and when I purchased it from him it still ran great. Smooth as anything with plenty of power, but he used the 96 fuel injection parts.

Anyway...it can be done...hope this helps.

Thank you. That was very informative. I would just keep the stock 2.3 however she is starting to get a little tired and compression is starting to fall off a little.

One of the reasons I am considering the 2.5 swap is a friend has a low mileage 98 that was rear ended. The accident broke the rear tail light and bent the rear bumper so insurance totaled it. He purchased the truck back for parts and would sell me the motor half of what I would pay at the bone yard. I figured I would take the low mileage 2.5 and do the normal timing belt, water pump, gaskets, and seals overhaul and run the truck for another 200,000 miles .

I wouldn't expect a huge gain from the 12ci increase thanks to the longer stroke. And the head improvements with the exception of the roller cam seem to be very mild or every early 2.3 owner would be rushing out to grab the latter model heads out of the junk yards. At the end of the day if I wanted any measurable gains I would just swap out to a 2.3 turbo but that's not really what I am going for.

That's understandable by all means. What you want to do is similar to what I wanted but to be honest, my gains were considerably more because my 88 2.3 was carbed and baffed out so bad I don't think it was even making 65 HP...so I was, essentially, almost doubling the power and improving the torque considerably.

I would say what you have in mind is worthwhile, but also that you are in for some modifications that might make it a bit frustrating...just so you know it's not exactly a walk in the park...maybe for you it might be if you have the experience and everything you need though...makes a big difference.

With mine I had to swap in the 96 dash to my 88 cab and that made the project considerably more complicated than if I'd just swapped an engine...

Keep us posted if you do go ahead...it's always nice to see completed projects...

Sorry the pics on that old thread are gone. I did some digging and found some of them, particularly some pics of the crank sensor. The first shows the herb lid that I used to determine the position the sensor should be. I just used a Sharpie on it and marked the locations of the key way and the sensor. (Not shown in the pic but I think you get the idea.) Then I moved the lid over to the 2.5 and lined it up. I lined the sensor to the lid and marked where new holes should be. Note that the upper hole fell dead in the middle of an oil galley so I drilled a new hole in the middle of the bracket.
WARNING: be careful where you drill the holes. There are oil galleys along the front of the engine. That lower bolt ended up being crazy close to one of them. If you drill into one you will have one heck of a paper weight.
It has been on the road like this since late 2013 with no issues to date. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions, there were a lot of other knick-knacky things I had to do to make it work.

Thanks for the pictures and the how to that really helps to paint a clear image.

For the guys that have done the 2.5 swap what is your impression? Any noticeable improvements or negative effects you have noticed.

Here is the other option I have been considering for a few months.

http://www.therangerstation.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1588663#post1588663

Looks like an extensive list of projects...all seem within easy reach and would compliment each other...in most cases when you have a specific application or goal it's easier to make things work together...

I steered away from things like trying to have that all round vehicle that would do everything and still look good in the driveway.

Two things you might consider depending on your preferences...delete the power steering if you have it in mind...a manual steering gear box can be found easily enough and there are minor gains in power and weigh reduction. If it's an extended cab you're working with you can toss the jump seats if you don't have little ones to occupy those seats...although I don't think the 93 jump seats were nearly as heavy as the earlier versions.

Not sure on the pros and cons of diesel though...heard enough about their economy to consider learning more but also enough about their complexities to shy away from venturing down that path.

Gasoline engines are about 20-25% efficient, that means if a gallon of gas is $4, $3 dollars worth goes to heat up the air and radiator and $1 goes to pushing you down the road
Sucks big time, lol.

Diesel is 30% efficient, some TDI are 35% and up to 41%.
Diesel fuel also has more energy stored in a gallon of fuel, 10% higher, which is why the better MPG, but it generally gets 25% better MPG because of higher compression as well.

Diesel engines also cost more to build, because they have to hold higher compression and operate on self ignition of the fuel, so they "ping/knock" on purpose, lol.
That pinging would/does destroy gasoline engine pistons and cylinders, so diesel engines need thicker metal parts which of course makes them heavier compared to gasoline engines of same displacement, and cost more to build

For strictly a transportation point of view diesel is the only choice, better MPG, in Europe fuel is $6-$8 a gallon, so they have been using diesel engines for decades.

For cost to build and performance gasoline wins out, in North America we have "cheap" fuel, regardless of what you think, lol, so we value performance above MPG, but only up to a point.
Every time the price of a barrel of oil spikes talks about diesel engine spikes, lol.

Turbo diesels are coming into their own, as far as MPG AND Performance.

And I don't think anyone thinks a gallon of gas will be dropping to $.50 or a $1 again, so a diesel engine conversion will give better MPG regardless of future fuel prices

The OM617 engine is pretty old technology, I think they stopped making them in early 1990's but technology was from 1970's, so looking at a newer turbo diesel would probably be better.
Same amount of work but more efficient engine which is the point of a diesel swap

A lot of good information on that response. I am a diesel mechanic and have a special place for mechanical injected IDI engines. Mostly because they are simple and last forever when maintained.

The OM617 was found in a huge range of 300D series cars for over a decade. They are well known for durability. They are very simple compared the 90s diesels that preceded them. The big advantage the this swap is you can find a hole rusted out but running car for about $1000. That means you can grab every thing you need including the oil cooler and make sure the engine is actually running properly before starting the swap.

What makes this really appealing to me is the fuel mileage and torque you can get from the little 5 cylinder 3.0L. From a bone stock OM617 with MB automatic will put down about 85 horsepower and 140 torque down on the dyno let's all agree that's not very impressive. However it is well known the stock MB auto in the 300D has a very soft convertor and was a power hog. So we look to the rare 4 speed manual OM617s and find them putting about 100 horse power and 160 ft-lbs to the ground. Still not super impressive but now let's start looking into the normal free OM617 mods (tuning the injection pump, adjusting boost, timing, etc) now we are looking at a motor that should be able to put about 130 horse power and 185+ lb-ft of torque to the ground. That's 3.0 horse power levels and 4.0 torque but with better fuel mileage then the stock 2.3.

Using the ford R2 transmission and 8.8 rear with 3.73 gears is also kind of key. The MB 4 speed auto behind the OM617 didn't have overdrive. Since it only had the 1 to 1 top gear they typically came with 2.88 or 3.08 rear axles so they could still run 70mph on the highway. Since the R2 matches the MB auto in 1 to 4th gear almost exactly in ratio to ratio we can afford to bump up our rear gear ratio and still end up with a lower finial drive ratio for a slightly lower RPM in top gear. The OM617 is not a 4BT and has a power band similar to the 2.3 Lima and 22RE in the sense that it usable powerband is from about 2400-4000 rpms.

As for the power steerimg system I had not considered swapimg to a manual rack but I will look into it a little more. Truthfully I was just going to run the MB PS pump and vacuum pump until I get brace enough to switch over to hydroboost.

Well that suggestion would probably work best with the 2.3 or 2.5 engines...

With a better power plant and parts to run the MB ps then it's not worth bothering over...I've always preferred manual steering and the Ranger is not that difficult to maneuver...or work around...I drove my Ranger with manual steering for 14 years and never had a problem with it. Better road feel in my opinion and better exercise...lol

When you start loading up the front end with bigger tires and heavier engines it might be a problem though.

You kind of having me thinking now truthfully. It's not something I had considered in the past but would free up some more room and possibly make for one less thing if I did go OM617.

The OM617 uses three belts to run every thing.
1: To power steering pump (top drivers side of engine)
2: AC compressor (lower drivers side and removed for my application)
3: Drive belt for alternator and water pump (alt is lower passenger side)

The vacuum and fuel pump are driven off the injector pump.

I don't know what a 2.3 turbo Lima motors weight is (guessing just under 400lbs) but the OM617 is probaly just under 500lbs. Probaly about the same as a 3.0 ford V6.

Having more room under the hood so you can get at things was part of my swapping the 96 power steering for the manual. The lima engines are fairly compact and easy to work on but with everything added it does get busy.

Even with the extended cab and the longer wheel base it was fairly easy to steer.

Only problem might be finding the manual gears...they were in many base model Rangers and those with the 2.0 especially...might be able to buy them remanufactured if you can't find one in the junkyard.