What is the difference between the old 2.0 and the 2.3 Lima engines?

[Old-Black-88]

I've read they are the same block. Do they have the same heads? (I already know about the 8 plug one) Im looking for a header for my 2.0 but can only find one for the 2.3. Unless I look up the cast iron stock replacement which I already have.

While Im at it, would the camshafts be interchangable as well? I have found racing cams (and heads) for the 2.3 turbo and non turbo.

 

[Dprocks100]

Tech Library has a lot of info on the 2.0 vs 2.3 engines. Here's the link

http://www.therangerstation.com/tech_library/4cylinders.shtml

Should answer most of your questions. Good luck man!

 

[Mikel89us]

They are not the same, the bore, stroke, and bore spacing are different. Nothing between the old 2.0 interchanges with the 2.3, or mid 80's 2.0.

 

[scotts90ranger]

The Ranger 2.0L and 2.3L are nearly identical other than the bore, the exhaust manifold from a 2.3L will fit, so will the cam, the intake manifold pattern is the one used on carbureted 2.3L's

 

[Mikel89us]

Correct Scott. As I stated, the mid 80's 2.0 is a 2.3 block. As you said, just a smaller bore. I went into mustang forum mode, and forgot you guys almost never mention the old old 2.0

 

[tomw]

Nope, not mustan forum, Pinto forum. The older 2.0 was from Germany. It was used in the Pinto as the 'big' engine when introduced in the 1970 model year, with the Kent 1600 as base. The 2.0 was kept available even in 1974 for Pinto use, when the 2.3 was used in the Pinto and Mustang II, and the Kent discontinued. The German 2.0 was also used in the Capri.
As I remember, the 2.3 was supposed to be an enlarged 2.0, and to use 'some' parts, hopefully a lot, to save $$$'s. As it turned out, almost everything was different. I don't know of one part that interchanges. Maybe some bolts and spark plugs...
tom

 

[Mikel89us]

Tom, the Lima 2.3 was a German motor too. It was actually first designed for use in military equipment.

 

[Old-Black-88]

You know what, I'm just gonna buy the header, and if it does fit I'll be back to ask some of you what you been smoking.

 

[Mark_88]

As long as the header is from the Lima style 2.0 it will work. I took one from a 93 B2300 (the metal one) and it fit my 88 2.0 perfectly...except those little holes under the exhaust ports that someone explained what they were for but I forget...

You will see a small hole about 3/16" under each exhaust port on a lima 2.0...the header covers them...I think...not sure if the original Pinto 2.0 had those holes in the head but that may be one way to tell...

The cams work...the head bolts are reusable but mine were rusted halfway through on the first 2.0 that I had...the second one got newer bolts...and I also replaced half of the exhaust manifold bolts because some were stripped...bought those right from Ford too...

Just use a bit of anti-seize on them to help keep them limber in case you need to replace the head...they suffer the same weakness as the 2.3 head with cracking...

 

[Mikel89us]

The 2.3 header will fit a ranger2.0. No doubt at all. My first comment was because when you said old 2.0, my brain went directly to the old pinto 2.0 which is not the same as the ranger 2.0. The ranger 2.0 is a 2.3 with a smaller bore, and different intake runners. A 2.3 cam will also fit in your 2.0

 

[Old-Black-88]

You will see a small hole about 3/16" under each exhaust port on a lima 2.0...the header covers them...I think...not sure if the original Pinto 2.0 had those holes in the head but that may be one way to tell...

Those little holes are for the old smog pump emissions system Ford used back in the day. Basically this smog pump pumped oxygen into the exhaust to thin out the c02 and other deadly gasses these liberals are claiming cause global warming. AKA "Climate Change".

Back to the smog pump, Its a very inefficient system. And all the rumors you may have heard about using a smog pump as a supercharger, well, they are just rumors.

 

[Mark_88]

Those little holes are for the old smog pump emissions system Ford used back in the day. Basically this smog pump pumped oxygen into the exhaust to thin out the c02 and other deadly gasses these liberals are claiming cause global warming. AKA "Climate Change".

Back to the smog pump, Its a very inefficient system. And all the rumors you may have heard about using a smog pump as a supercharger, well, they are just rumors.

Yeah, I found that out myself...but a hair dryer works pretty good...I had mine up to 2 psi of boost using 4 hair dryers with a long extension cord and a power bar...it was just getting up to boost level when the extension cord got yanked out so I'm thinking of maybe solar panels stacked on the roof or maybe adding another alternator and a converter or two...

Anyway...the Ranger 2.0 was thought by many to be underpowered but I've read a few build threads using it with a few power mods...like a better cam, a bit of shaving, and a better carb...

I put a better cam into my 2.0 and was surprised by how much more pep it had...until I cracked that head I was quite happy.

 

[tomw]

"There is no substitute for cubic inches." - some engine guy

I cannot disagree. But. If you want stump-pulling torque to wander over large rocks, there's no substitute for long-stroke engines. If you want to turn your tires into smoke and dust, then a hi-rev, short stroke will get that done. If you want both, go big.
Personally, I would put more into a 2.3 or 2.5 than a 2.0. I do not have any reason I can think of as to why they developed the 2.0 from the 2.3. Maybe they got a huge order for meter-reading trucks that won't ever exceed 50 mph or have anything in or behind the bed. There were a LOT of Rangers ordered as 'utility' trucks across the nation, and I suppose that 300cc might have increased mpg enough to justify the design, emissions testing[both auto & manual, Fed & State], and parts numbering and accounting and predicted consumption, etc, that ANOTHER 4-banger entailed. The HSC chopped 6 was available in Temp/Topaz, the 2.3 in Ranger, the 2.5 in the Taurus/ Sable.
Yeah, they needed another 4-banger like they needed an extra hole in their head.
To this day, I do not understand why either of the OHV engines could not work perfectly well in the Ranger. You need / want OHC for parts count, and high rpms. Who cares in a pickup truck? You want torque. Never made sense to me or my brothers.
Anyone have a good explanation?
tom

 

[Mikel89us]

The 2.3 ohc made its peak torque at like 1500 rpm. And it made just as much torque if not more than its similar sized ohv counterparts.. The 2.3 ohc was already being mass produced in rwd vehicles, it was much easier to use it than design another one. The lima 2.3 has been around since 74. It only makes sense that its in the ranger that was first produced in the early 80's if I'm correct. The hsc wasn't even around back then was it?? Plus cam in block (ohv) has more parts, and more points for failure, plus limits port routing and size on one side of the motor. Ohc makes sense in every aspect. Cam grind makes the performance, not cam location.

 

[Mark_88]

I think 89 was the first year of the high swirl 2.3 (that's what I was told it meant) because I bought one...maybe 86 but 85 was the last year for carbed versions of this one.

It was no powerhouse either...my little tempo got smoked by a Chevy with a small v6 and three guys vs me in my HSc 2.3 or whatever they called it...although I had them worried right up to that first hairpin turn.

That little engine was very reliable though...put almost 400,000 on mine before someone decided that the engine was to blame and forgot about a possible wonky inertia switch...but, heck, they replaced it and my transmission too when they made the number one mistake of pulling the drive shafts out at the same time...

I would have contested the bill they gave me but my Dad said he'd cover it at the time...so I shut up...probably the hardest thing for me to do is to keep my mouth shut...well I can recall....blah, blah, blah...foghorn leghorn strikes again...