2.3l build

[RangerBogger]

Hey, this is my first post so I'm kinda new to this site lol but I'm taking my 88 2.0l and replacing it with a decked out 2.3. Does anybody have an idea as to what the specs of the engine would be for around 1000dollars in upgrades? I was hoping to include a turbo not include in the $1000.

 

[Mikel89us]

Well if you are doing a turbo swap onto that N/A motor you will need good forged pistons (you should do them either way). The big issues you are going to run into wether you go N/A or boosted, anything over 120HP will require a tuning device. Youre looking at $1000 in just those two necessities. However, once you make that investment you will be good for what ever power level you want. You can push 400 HP easy with that motor on stock rods with enough boost or engine work. You need to know what you want to do though, turbo pistons knock own compression so they cant be used for a good n/a engine.. If you get some 9:1 forged pistons (N/A) you can still do boost, but you have to be careful. If you run anything over 10 psi you will run into reliability issues. The up side to that setup is the better gas mileage and better throttle response and quicker spool. If you need any advice you can ask me specific questions, I will help out as much as I can! Just shoot me a PM if you want.

 

[Mark_88]

I'd imagine that the 2.0 is carbed...so putting in a 2.3 block that has been reringed and maybe over bored, then adding a roller cam head, ported and polished...with a longer duration cam could probably be done for less than $1,000...depending on where you have it done etc...

I did that to mine (without the over bore on the short block) and though I did not have it dyno tested it was definitely more powerful than the 2.0 with the stock setup...maybe 100 to 120 hp, but I have no idea.

Going in another direction you could probably get a 2.5 and plop that in and then go fuel injection...probably get the stock HP of around 117 or whatever it was rated at...and that would be almost 40 HP more than the stock 2.0 (if 80 HP was expected)...so you'd gain about 50% more power that way...for probably less than you'd spend reworking a 2.3...and they bolt right up to your transmission...

Only major problem with going to EFI is swapping out all the fuel lines, wiring, and gas tank...including adding the computer...and patching the wiring to the old dash...so it can mean quite a bit of work...

Probably why I just dropped in the 2.3 block and kept the carb setup...gets you from A to B but not very quickly...

Biggest bang would be to swap in a 4:10 rear end and maybe a 2.3 block...then get a roller cam head and have it reworked...and maybe add the longer duration cam...

 

[Mikel89us]

or get a newer 2.3 block and rebuild it with a 2.5 crank and rods, then you can still use the carb and distributor, though if you have the single barrel carb i would suggest the 2bbl intake and carb. with a corresponding head.

 

[Mark_88]

Yes, that was another option I'd thought of suggesting but not sure if he would squeeze in under the set limit...I was thinking of having this done but it must be an engine that is 90 or later...with a 4 plug head to stay with the current carb/distributor configuration...

 

[Mikel89us]

its really an easy swap, I have the crank and block at home to do the swap myself, the machine work and piston/rod it are all i need.

The 2.0 head is about usless IMO because of the intake design. the single barrel carb is garbage for performance. It wouldnt be bad if you could use the 2bbl intake on it, but they dont work, so you would need an intake and head off of any 2bbl 2.3. The later models with the heart shaped combustion chamber and D shaped intake ports are the best for a close to stock 2.3. The oval ports are harder to find and work incredibly for high rpm applications, but i doubt he is looking for 8k or higher rpm.

 

[Mark_88]

My 2.0 had a 2 bbl on it when I got it...and I was able to swap in a 78 Mustang II 2 bbl intake without any problems...so they can be used but I prefer the 2.3 heads...and preferably the roller cam...had one from a 90 Mustang (have it now, actually) with the roller cam and it made the engine a bit stronger...but I did do a P&P on it myself before the valve job...

Overheated it once and am dealing with the aftermath of that...leaking oil into #2 cylinder...but I have the replacement head ready to go in...hoping to replace the cam with something better than the stock one though...and looking to buy a 90 Mustang engine to upgrade to the 2.5 bottom end...

 

[RangerBogger]

well i was shooting for for a 170-200hp range of the 2.3. Also my truck already is fuel injected...it was one of the leaders of its time boasting it on the tail gate lol

 

[scotts90ranger]

ALL 2.0's were carbed, so you have a 2.3L if it's injected.

a box stock turbo 2.3L is rated at 170ish HP, a few minor free mods (unplugging boost controller, knock sensor and flipping octane switch) and you are in the 200hp range... no tuning, just stock setup, that's what I'm running just a whole assortment of stock parts . For your $1000 you could get a donor 2.3L Turbo from craigslist, rebuild it and have yourself a reliable powerful engine.

 

[RangerBogger]

Sorry bud but ok my truck and I can tell a carb from injectors lol...it's defiantly a 2.0 with injectors. But anyways I think I decided to just convert the new 2.3 to carb and go nuts on the internals instead of dealin with turbos and running. Or I might find a little 4 cyl diesel

 

[Mark_88]

There was a 2.3 diesel available...with an amazing 65 hp or so...I actually saw one in Barrie Ont when I was trying to sell my Ranger (how could I even think that???)...

Amazing because they were strong but gutless...and there was even a turbo diesel version IIRC...so it can be done either or many ways...

There are many options...nice if you could keep us informed~

 

[Mikel89us]

Sorry bud but ok my truck and I can tell a carb from injectors lol...it's defiantly a 2.0 with injectors. But anyways I think I decided to just convert the new 2.3 to carb and go nuts on the internals instead of dealin with turbos and running. Or I might find a little 4 cyl diesel

If its fuel injected, and a stock bottom end its a 2.3L They NEVER fuel injected the 2.0L... Plus you said it was an '88 right?? thats a 2.3L they didnt even make a 2.0L in 88.

 

[Mark_88]

If its fuel injected, and a stock bottom end its a 2.3L They NEVER fuel injected the 2.0L... Plus you said it was an '88 right?? thats a 2.3L they didnt even make a 2.0L in 88.

Unfortunately, they did in Canada...87 and 88 the 2.0 carb was an option...and I'm sure there were thousands of owners who wished they didn't take that option...

I checked the vehicle history when I bought mine...11 previous owners...no wonder the thing was butchered when I got it...and, for some strange reason, the original owner ordered "CRUISE CONTROL"...

It took me about a week to figure out what it was and about ten minutes to yank it out and donate it to someone else's new car via the scrap yard...

Anyway...and mine was built in Kentucky...of all places to ship a totally non-thoroughbred mutt from...

I guess when it was new it ran OK...

 

[Mikel89us]

Well i didnt realize we sent our, umm... junk to Canada They are dependable, just not powerful. If youre driving a Canadian ranger, my bad...

 

[19bonestock88]

my 88 is a 2.0 with a carb... and yeah, it's slow