Help with 2.3 rebuild

Daniel Black · Aug 27, 2017

Hi, I'm in need of some advice. I have a '86 2.3 Ranger that I've been driving for years now with a broken ring. I finally found an '88 mustang 2.3 to rebuild and still drive my truck. I got the '88 back from the machine shop and started running into a problem. I was just going to order a rebuilt kit with new pistons but they are not the same for '86 compared to '88. Why? It looks identical. Even just going to the part store they show two different oil pan gaskets from '86 to '88. I know I'll need my truck oil pan. Shouldn't the block be the same? On a 302 a front sump, rear sump or dual sump pan all use the same gasket. What's the deal? Do I need a rebuild kit for an '88 mustang or an '86 Ranger?

Mark_88 · Aug 27, 2017

I had to search because I wasn't sure but I found this thread that will probably answer your questions...

http://www.therangerstation.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25019

I used Mustang parts on my 2.0 and later on a 2.3 but only the head and an intake from a 78 Mustang II and a head from a 91 without any problems.

I do remember reading about the change from a two piece oil pan gasket to a one piece and the difference between the steel and aluminum pan clearance (that's covered in the link above) so when I swapped in my 2.3 short block I used the aluminum Ranger oil pan and a one piece gasket.

As far as the rings and other stuff go there is a spec sheet and tons of other information in the link below:

http://www.therangerstation.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9

From what I read the rings and everything else between those two years should work...but the mustang engines may have went with the smaller journals earlier than the Ranger...not sure on that tbh...

Daniel Black · Aug 27, 2017

Okay, from what I read my '86 truck could possibly still have a 2-piece rear main seal where the '88 was a one piece when I tore it down, which I'd much rather have. The '88 could have the small crank so I'll take it back to the machine shop and let him check the size. Someone had an early '80s 2.3 dropped off there for work so maybe we can compare with it. My truck has the aluminum oil pan but it should work with the one piece gasket, which I'm also in favor of. Thanks for the link. Very helpful. Now if I can figure out why every piston I find for this motor shows compression height instead of just telling me the compression ratio, like every other piston ever sold, I'll be in great shape.

Mark_88 · Aug 27, 2017

Not sure about what they stamp on them now but I do remember seeing others with similar problems. Maybe the parts are not made in North America...where they have different requirements.

Pretty sure the compression ration is listed in that second document though...or if you are familiar with the search feature on the site or even google it might be another source of information. About 80% of the time that I search for information on Rangers with Google they bring up links for TRS posts but there are also Mustang forums that I've used over the years.

The 2.0/2.3 spec sticky link I posted has made it onto other Ford related websites so it is a pretty good source.

Daniel Black · Aug 28, 2017

The crank just had to be polished but the motor had to go .030 over so I'm gonna have to go aftermarket. I'd like to be around 9.5:1 without doing anything to the head. Parts for this thing are confusing me. It definitely ain't a SBF.

Mark_88 · Aug 28, 2017

I had to look after knowing I saw it somewhere...

Engine/Year
2.3L ...............HP..............TQ(LB-FT)......CR..
'83-'85........79@ 3800........124@ 2200.....9.0:1 Manual Trans
'83-'85........82@ 4200........126@ 2200.....9.0:1 Auto Trans
'86-'88........90@ 4000........134@ 2000.....9.0:1
'89-'90.......100@ 4600........133@ 2600.....9.2:1

From that it looks pretty close on stock engines and I've never really played with anything that affected the CR except when I had the head shaved. It wasn't enough to throw it out of the original specs and seemed to work fine with a nice (small) improvement.

Others on here might be able to offer more insight but I'm reaching the limit of my comfort zone in terms of dabbling in performance modifications.

The more technical it is the more it usually costs so my limits were measured by my yearly income. I did consider turbo charging at one point but that took a back seat to reality and affordability too.

mavereq · Aug 28, 2017

Dual plug head means small journal

Daniel Black · Aug 28, 2017

Thanks for all the info. The only pistons I find that show CR are 8.7:1 and they have two valve reliefs like the ones I pulled out. The Mustang motor has the same D-port 4-plug head as my truck so maybe it'll have the large journals. I'm just trying to get all the cheap power I can. We have an '89 Ranger shop truck at work and it seems to have twice the power and torque of mine. It's very noticeable when you get out of one and into the other. Granted, my truck has 250K and a broke oil ring, but still. It's ridiculous.

scotts90ranger · Aug 28, 2017

The oil pan differences started in '86, early '86 engines had a trough in the rear main cap for the oil pan seal in the main cap, late '86 engines the seal was in the oil pan so no trough. you can fill the trough with JB weld or lead I've done both, lead worked better, if needed I can explain what I did.

As said above, the small journal cranks started with the dual plug heads on the Ranger engines, I think it's an '89 thing on the Mustangs but not sure since they didn't go to dual plug til '91 I think. Technically the small journal cranks are going to be more efficient... Unfortunately I scrapped all my small journal parts before I knew any better and ended up needing the parts...

There shouldn't be any piston differences, but if I remember right there was a difference at one point in time but the only thing was the ring land width, so order the correct thickness rings for the pistons and you should be good. All of the production connecting rods were the same from like '74 through '01 when they became a 2.5L so all pistons are interchangeable for that year range...

One thing to get a touch of power is to go with a roller cam. These started in '89 on the Ranger and I think '91 on the Mustang and is a bolt in, you just need the roller cam and followers, they can be junkyard and '89-96 Rangers have what you need... newer engines have the same cam but the followers have narrower grooves for the valves since the newer valves have smaller stems...

Daniel Black · Aug 28, 2017

Thanks for all the advice. I may do a test fit with the Mustang oil pan since I know it fits the motor and had a one piece gasket. It sure looks like it should fit in the Ranger easily. I do want the roller cam I just haven't had any luck finding one yet. I have a factory '93 Ranger header style manifold for the new motor. Not sure it'll help HP but it sure is a lot lighter than the regular manifold, so at least I'll save some weight. I've been reading a lot about these adjustable cam gears but is that just for the coil pack ignitions? I can change my timing with the distributer. I found a flat top piston with no valve reliefs but the people who sell it can't tell me the compression ratio just comp. height so I may just have to go back with stock style replacements.

tomw · Aug 29, 2017

I think the geometry of the piston/rod/crank determines the stroke, thus displacement, and the valve reliefs in the piston crown would not make a significant difference in cr. Unless you get into single piston engine racing, i.e., the Predator 212 hemi's, etc, there won't be a significant difference in flat top pistons. They should all be the same.
OTOH, if you do increase the volume of the stroke, by going .030 over, you will increase the cr because that volume will be squished into the same volume in the combustion chamber. The cr should go up, if the head is left alone.
tom

scotts90ranger · Aug 30, 2017

Anything that changes the quench area changes the compression ratio which includes combustion chamber volume in the head and reliefs in the piston. Displacement is determined by bore and stroke which is crankshaft and connecting rod related. The turbo engines have 8:1 CR with dished pistons where the engines with just valve reliefs have 9:1. The compression ratio is the ratio of the volume at BDC versus the volume at TDC, the swept volume is a constant (cylinder displacement with bore and stroke) so the less volume in the head and piston dish or relief means a higher CR.

There's like 5 different volumes for the cylinder head and I haven't paid attention to that over the years... I think D port is less volume than the old oval port, and the dual plug heads have even less volume...

On the oil pans, when I first assembled my engine from a thunderbird block (was an '85 block so had the trough in the rear main and front seal housing) I had to change to the Ranger oil pump as the T bird pump was too wide for the aluminum Ranger oil pan but was a bolt up... Other than the oil pan gasket type on these, the bolts closest to the crank hump on the rear man are 8mm threads instead of 6mm like the newer style, so those two holes need to be drilled as well...

Daniel Black · Aug 31, 2017

Very interesting. Everybody says all these motors are "basically" the same but they are not. All these small differences seem to be adding up to a headache. I wonder if I can just use the oil pump and pan from a '89 -'92 Ranger if it would be a direct bolt up to the '88 Mustang block.

scotts90ranger · Sep 1, 2017

There are small differences all over the place, but nearly all parts are directly interchangeable... Honestly just throw the best parts you can find together and the ones that fit your needs best and just go for it... my engine is a complete conglomeration of all sorts of years of parts... it's an '86 block with '94 oil pan and a '90 oil pump, E6 exhaust manifold, '89 front seal cover, '90 crank sensor and distributor hole plug/oil pump drive, '90 engine harness with DIS and coil pack, brown top injectors... I'm sure there's more conglomeration going on that I'm forgetting... getting all the seals I needed to rebuild it required lots of spares to have everything covered

The oil pumps are interchangeable, they made the body a little narrower for the aluminum oil pan but that's the only difference that I noticed...

Mark_88 · Sep 1, 2017

+1 on what Scotts90Ranger said

My 88 was so mixed and matched that it was becoming hard to order parts at times because I kept all the information in my head (I eventually wrote it all down for the new owner).

88 extended cab on 96 frame with 98 2.5 engine running on 96 wiring with 96 dash, 92 front end and 92 box with 88 tail lenses (they are all the same), 88 manual steering gear that connected perfectly with 96 steering parts...

And before that my 88 2.0 was as complicated with Mustang and 78 Mustang II parts tossed into the mix.

As long as they all fit and function they are good...but do document them as much as possible to reduce frustration...

It's great when someone asks what engine it is...anyone not familiar with the parts interchange on these trucks (similar to the Chevy S10s) usually stands there with their mouth open for a few seconds...and those familiar with it get that "That's what I did" look on their face...

I know that didn't answer your question but it looks like the oil pump will work...problem is sometimes you open something up and realize it isn't what you expected because the previous owner made mods that you weren't expecting to be there...

Help with 2.3 rebuild

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Sponsored Ad

Sponsored Ad

Member & Vendor Upgrades

Truck of The Month

Recently Featured

Follow TRS On Instagram

TRS Events

25th Anniversary Sponsors

Check Out The TRS Store

Sponsored Ad

Sponsored Ad

Sponsored Ad

Amazon Deals