98 2.5l ford ranger performance/fuel mileage rebuild

[BrownC]

Ok i think i am going stock cam and injectors and nboring it 30 over then a cold air intake , header, egr delete but i need to know how to fool the o2 sensors

 

[DJ2.3]

I am not aware of any way to fool o2 sensors, when the eec is in closed loop they send a signal back to the eec which is continously fluctuating as the eec tries to keep the air fuel ratio at or near stoich. I would just get a $5 02 sensor bung and weld it into your new header. Fyi egr delete won't get you any more power, the eec actually slightly increases timing when egr valve is opened because when you are sucking exhaust into the engine the combustion temps are lower.

 

[Mikel89us]

Alright Pete, you have already shown your dissaproval of this engine. Thats all good, we dont care that you dont like the 2.3. I tried to share my knowledge with you on how to get a bit more bang and fuel mileage out of yours and you shot it down. So back out f this one and let us help him with what he wants. AND you say the 2.3 isnt a good platform to build for performance, and once again i must disagree with you. The stock 2.3 block, with a good crank, main caps, rods,pistons, and hardware will put 900HP to the ground when you turbo charge it. You cant even do that out of a 5.0.

 

[Mikel89us]

BrownC, while you have the engine apart, you should always have the head shaved to make it strait, that being said, take .075" to .100" off the head while its already on the machine. Also, the stock cam and injectors along with a stock tune are going to yeild you no more power. You really dont need a CAI, gutting the intake muffler will help out, and a "cold air intake" might actually hurt performance if its not done right. The stock cam is useable for some performance, but the injectors need to be upgraded and it needs to be tuned. I will tell you about my Mustang, I am running 11.2:1 compression, (.150" shaved off the 4 plug head) and 17lb injectors. But i dont have it tuned, so it runs really rich at idle and wide open throttle, and it doesnt make any more power. It has loads of low and mid range torque which is great for driving. But its still slow. Trust me when i say its all worthless wiithout a tuner, and bigger injectors.

 

[PetesPonies]

Mike, you don't get it. I hope he builds an engine as you guys want him to do. I can't wait to see the end result. Inefficiency is the key, what you get for what you spend. And Mike, you don't comprehend well. I never have said its a bad engine, I don't disapprove. But I'm not a "baseball cap on backward yougin'" who thinks a fresh air intake makes a hipo engine.

 

[Mikel89us]

Sorry Pete, but every time i see you post on someones 2.3 build thread, you seem to think they are a waste of time. There is always negativity on your part. That doesn't help someone who wants to know what they can do to their engine. I can appreciate a good background in high performance engines, I just wish you would either back what we say or say nothing, UNLESS we do say something that's wrong. I would much rather be told i got something wrong, I will go and research to see who is right, but learning about this stuff is my passion.

 

[PetesPonies]

I'm not going to back misinformation. Why would I do that? If you get someone's hopes up and don't deliver, it's not good. Putting a thousand dollars into performance gains on a 2.3 that won't add up to a hill of beans is not efficient. I speak always of efficiency, what you get for what you put in. Any engine can be effected by changes, some good so not. But the amount of change is what makes a difference. People race 2.0s and 2.3s. There are things that can be done to increase power, but these gains are at high RPM, not what a small truck will be doing on the street. Again, it speaks to efficiency. You build an engine for a purpose. The smaller the engine, the more defined the purpose will and must be. Turbo 2.3s make them swallow air like a large V6 or small V8. You get that at an RPM that fits within a street driven vehicle. Without pressurized help, you just won't be in the efficiency range that you can easily be in when working with other sized engines. Sorry, it's just the way it is. I said I hope the engine gets built and I'd love to see the money spent and results

 

[DJ2.3]

On my daily driver i spent 200 on a new cam from ebay, 80 to mill the head, i ported it myself, i had 24lb injectors laying around, i bougt a used tweecer rt for 200 (that can be used on almost any pre 2004 efi ford so i didn't just waste money on something that can only be used on my pos daily driver) I got a used long tube header for 70. So essentially i spent 350 on the motor and it didn't take that long to do. Its not fast but it is fun and i still get 22-23mpg running around town in the summer. I GUESS THAT WASN'T EFFICIENT THOUGH? guess i should start shopping around for a good running 5.0 with all the wiring, and take off a week of work after i get it..... Not trying to be an jerk just giving my opinion.

 

[Rogue_Wulff]

I can see both sides of the issue. But, I am going to ask a couple questions that come to mind, and could be of relevence to the OP as well.

Cutting the head: Just how far can one go on cutting, before the "non-interference" aspect of these engines is lost? Even the best, newest timing belt *can* fail. Bending valves requires the head to come off, which is very rare on a stock Lima 4cyl.

Cam and/or bigger injectors: How much is "too much" for the stock ECU to cope with? Especially the later OBD-II ECU. Not everyone has access to, or the desire/knowledge to use, an aftermarket tuner or ECU.

These are things that *should* be addressed at the time of suggesting that a person do these types of mods to their engine. It is always best to have *all* the relevent facts out in the open.

 

[PetesPonies]

Well DJ, efficiency is basically a ratio. So to measure the value, we would need some inputs like what were some measurements or times before the changes and what were the measurements or ties after the changes. Without that info, how do we know?

And Rogue brings up some good questions. Because as everyone should know, every change you make creates other changes. So you must understand what changing something from OEM settings to a "new" setting or value, that there will be consequences. What are those consequences and are they acceptable ( another way of saying efficiency ) ? Let's understand that the engineers who designed these vehicles are not idiots. On the contrary, they are some of the best minds out there. Understand that they are designing for the masses, so some tweaks are available that might create a consequence you can accept. I get that, hell I modify all the time. But there are many ideas out there that especially the inexperienced may hear and believe, that are just plain bull, marketing to sell something or worse. You have to be informed, understand . . having taught for so many years, that's difficult for some to do. But if you really want to learn, you can. My '82 GT ran 15.7 bone stock in 1983 when I ran it at the strip ( well the cat was empty . It runs 12.87s now. So I definitely improved the ET, no doubt. But what else did I change? and is it acceptable for the desired usage? That's a big question, understand the usage you desire and what you really want or can accept.

 

[Mark_88]

These are things that *should* be addressed at the time of suggesting that a person do these types of mods to their engine. It is always best to have *all* the relevent facts out in the open.

Exactly...

I think what the OP in this post has in mind is fine and he sounds comfortable with doing the work (or can outsource it appropriately as needed).

There is a whole world of information out there on-line that needs to be assembled into a somewhat concise document to help guide others looking to build or improve their 2.3 or 2.5 engines or as a resource reference.

I was going to attempt this a while ago but have been swamped with other things...maybe with the winter I can have a go at it...but input would be very helpful...and I will ask for it as needed...hopefully we can get the experienced people involved and build a decent answer document...or maybe someone already has one...

 

[DJ2.3]

Rogue: I cannot speak from experiece but i have been told that the .420 lift cam is about as big as the stock eec will work well with. Im sure a slightly larger cam would run but probably would be fat at idle and low rpm. That is a very good question about the interferece factor in these engines. I have thought about that before and would love to have someone shed some light on it.

 

[Rogue_Wulff]

Rogue: I cannot speak from experiece but i have been told that the .420 lift cam is about as big as the stock eec will work well with. Im sure a slightly larger cam would run but probably would be fat at idle and low rpm. That is a very good question about the interferece factor in these engines. I have thought about that before and would love to have someone shed some light on it.

Yes, I thought they were good questions, not that I really need the info myself.
However, adding a higher lift cam is likely to decrease the amount that could be milled off the head, before interference can become an issue. Logic dictates this.

Race engines are different than a daily driver engine. Mods that will result in the engine losing it's non-interference status are acceptable in racing applications. But, with the 2.3/2.5 being one of few late model belt drive cam engines that a timing belt failure doesn't result in a head having to come off, the belt failing is more of an annoyance. The cost of replacing it is the same when done before or after failing, not counting any towing charges. This feature alone makes the lima engines a bit more desirable to some folks, so blindly advising these folks to shave the head and/or swap in a higher lift cam is pointless. The rest of the people should at least be warned about the possible consequences of doing these types of mods, so they can consider the risk vs reward.

 

[Mikel89us]

Ok, since it seems to be a concern, YES the head being shaved will make an interferance engine out of a 2.3 with a bigger cam. But a stock cam with .100" shaved and a stock head gasket will not. A .420 lift cam will have no issues at .075" shaved. Im not sure about .100".. I dont have little faith in the timing belts, i have never broken one. I even had a cam come out of the front of an engine because i forgot to put the cam retainer in (mistake i will never make again) and the belt didnt break, I actually re used it. The tuner might seem like an expensive piece to buy, but its not, you can tune a bone stock 2.3 and get better mileage and HP out of it if you do some tweaking and throw some slightly bigger injectors in it. Milling the head is in no way going to hurt the low end performance, it will do quite the opposite. It makes the engine more efficient. Higher C/R makes the cyl pressures higher, and thermal efficiency higher. Thats how you get the fuel mileage increase, and torque. I can tell you that most of the Mods i have suggested are for an engine to run in the stock RPM range also. The engine i would like to build would have .621" lift and turn 9k rpm all day, when i wanted. But i wouldnt have the fuel mileage to go with it. Thats not what im suggesting him to do. a .450 lift cam will make good power and low end torque, as well as still get good mileage.

 

[Mightyfordranger]

Let's bring this one out of the cob webs shall we and as one of those backward hat people I resent the hat statement ha ha