93-94 tubular header on 87 2.3

[cody93]

well, after coming across a little cash, i decided to replace the o2 sensor in the ranger, well, the little turd is stuck in there and theres no easy way to get it out, i think a P/O didn't use anti sieze on it.. now i kinda broke the o2 sensor and stripped it a little... truck runs crappier now, BUT there some good news, i can afford to do the header style manifold swap now! planning on going shopping at the salvage yard tommorow and im planning on getting a header of a 93-94 2.3. IIRC, those years have the o2 sensor and egr hole, right? big question is will this be as simple as taking the old one out, getting a new gasket and bolting the new one in? do the egr hole and the egr tube line up? does it line up with the factory exhaust pipe? ive know people swap it on the carbed trucks all the time but dont think ive seen one do it on an efi ranger.

 

[Mark_88]

This can be fairly simple to do...the manifold is the same length as the original header so it should bolt right up...it did on my truck but may be different on the EFI style.

There is an O2 bung on the 93-94 exhaust header and if you measure the length of the pipe on your truck you can measure the one on the junk yard to see if it's the same...and if it's in better shape than the one you have you can simply pull the whole thing...as long as it's not rusted up.

I think the header O2 bung sits a bit lower than the stock header location so measure, measure, measure...the pipes can be made shorter and flared, but they need to be patched or fully replaced if longer is needed...

You may be able to cut what you need off the junkyard EGR and patch your old pipe to it...but that introduces leaks that are not good and inhibit proper function of the system...so look for an exact fit if you can find it to save yourself quite a bit of frustration and hours of looking for a proper fit.

 

[cody93]

i scored a cast iron 98-01 manifold for 30$ the 94 one was spoken for... it seems to look like it'll work, egr in right place and o2 sensor in a better place than mine.

 

[Mark_88]

I didn't know they went back to cast iron on the later models...thought they all used the metal headers...I like the shorty headers simply because it is lighter...makes it easier to install and remove...

 

[cody93]

yea, the 98-01 2.5 are cast, they look similar to the 83-92 ones, but with alot less material, its kinda a hybrid between the 83-92 and the 93-97 ones. can't wait to get it on. im getting my second ranger on the road on thursday and will be using that one while i work on ranger1, now i can take my time fixing my truck without having to rush.



heres the best picture i can find

 

[Mark_88]

Is that a complete 2.5 that you got or is that just a pic to show the exhaust? I'd be tempted to swap the whole thing...

Anyway, yeah, they actually look better than the shorty headers for length...I heard years ago that the tubes all should be the same length or they don't work as well...can't recall if the shorty headers have equal length pipes off hand, but I'm sure they do...

Good score! Hope it bolts on without any problems...

 

[Mikel89us]

the tubular ranger manifold is actually no better for performance, the stock style cast manifold is a better design and with slight work is far better than the tube. The 2.5 manifold is lighter than the 2.3 but i dont think its any better flowing. If you guys want some power and performance tips for the 2.3 or 2.5 i strongly suggest joining us on moddedmustangs.com and look through the 2.3 mustang forums for performance threads. OHC230 is probably the smartest person i know in terms of 2.3s and many other things. He can give you tips, but a slight amount of reading and you will find most of his advice throughout the threads.

 

[Mark_88]

The tube header that I put on mine was a good 50 lbs lighter...that was more of a concern with my truck than actual performance...I had, at the time, a slightly longer duration cam and that actually gave me a performance boost.

I've checked out quite a few other forums over the last ten years and found some things very useful. I'm not too concerned with performance improvements so much as having an engine that runs right and doesn't leak, burn, or blow oil. Weight reduction has been the biggest factor in my truck being as good as it has been with its modest ability for the truck to do what it should do...

I wouldn't mind swapping in a low mileage 2.5 and adding the fuel injection though...that should bring me up about 25 hp or so alone without any other enhancements...but maybe toss in a better cam...and turbo charge...and...and...and...

Fortunately, I'm on a limited budget for improvements...but will check out the thread anyway...can always learn new things...

 

[cody93]

i wished i scored that 2.5, im half temped to go back and get the rest of that engine..

my plans down the road involve makeing a long block out of 3 diffrent lima's, a 93-94 2.3 block(for distributor hole and smallers journels) a 2.5's crank, rod and pistons, and a 91 mustangs head. will slowly start collecting parts now...

 

[Mikel89us]

The tube header is ~20lbs lighter, its not much, and its not an even flow header, and it has a severe choke at the end(look at the tubes). For performance it is a bad idea, it has been dyno tested by an engineer that i am in contact with. And its been tested many times. If you want performance, you will buy a long tube. If you cant use it due to emissions, use the cast manifold. The 2.5 cast manifold is ~10lbs lighter than the stock cast. Thats your best bet.

Cody, you dont want a 91 mustang head, it will be an 8 plug head. The 4 plug head (needed for the distributor) is 90 and older mustang, and 87 and older ranger.

 

[cody93]

hmm, i though 91 was first year of roller cams, and last of 4 plugs...

my friend is bringing me my parts tomorow so i can get to work. i just hope she dont forget again, it took her 3 tries to remeber to bring me my old VCR...

 

[Mark_88]

I thought that too...maybe 90 is the cutoff for the 4 plug head...but the roller cam was definitely in a 90...I have a guy with a full 90 mustang engine that I wanted to go get but it's a 5 hour round trip...he was nice enough to knock the price down but it was still beyond my finances at the time...would have been nice...

I also thought the 90 short block had the bigger journals...so it could have been made into a 2.5 short block...another reason I was really keen on getting that one...

But the guy who was going to build it wanted me to find the crank and pistons from the 2.5 before going ahead...and said something about the pistons on the 2.5 being a bit smaller than the 2.3...it gets confusing trying to mix and match parts...and I didn't even ask about forged pistons for it...dang!

 

[cody93]

the 2.5 had smaller journals than the pre 88 2.3s, thats why i want to use a 89-94 block, to accept the 2.5 internals while still having a dizzy and carb.

 

[Mikel89us]

79 to 85 were carbed 4 plug
86-90 mustang were EFI 4 plug, large journal
89-up 2.3&2.5s all use the same roller cam. (maybe 86 i know most EFI 2.3s use the same cam)
91-93 musatng 88-94 ranger is 8 plug small journal with a dizzy receptical

My 91 pootytang had an 8 plug, i did the conversion.

 

[cody93]

well poop, the egr tube is broke off in the manifold... the threads are stuck in the header... if i cant get it out, im half tempted to do an egr delete... I AM NOT BUYING ANOTHER HEADER!!! grrrrr....

ok, im looking at the new gasket, i notice the ports have 3 holes in the gasket, 2 ofcorse are bolt holes, i think the 3rd one is emmisions right? did all heads have them? guess i'll find out once i pull the manifold off...