Moderate 2.3 stroker - computer end? (+ others)

[Captain Ledd]

I have all the parts for my 4x4 swap and then some, and the other issues of the truck are getting to a point where I almost have to do a tear down for regular maintenance sake. Sooo much is getting to the point where I cannot put it off anymore. Thanks to several thousand miles with a misunderstanding of timing marks, this includes the engine. It doesn't have nearly the power it had with 3.73's even with 4.56's, and is getting a little rough running.

I have a 1997 2.3L, bone stock, somewhere in the 240k range (speedo gear was off for a long time), even still, 225k officially.

I'd like to keep the OBDII system.

Plan is:
factory block and accessories
2.5L crank/rods/pistons
enough re-bore to clean up the walls.
Deck enough to make things straight again (if necessary)
pre-94 roller cam
factory head/intake (ALL of it, including the silencer) But it will get a valve job and get all cleaned up
basic port match, knife edge the throttle body like in the tech section
Exhaust will be redone, probably 2.5" all the way back. But will roughly follow factory lines and will have a converter and a quiet muffler.

Would kind of like a full neutral balance, since I do have 4.56 gears and small tires. I spend a lot of time in the 3-4k range. But we'll see how much that's going to take (and cost).

The only other possible mod is a 5lb inertia ring for just a little bit extra low end smoothness, this isn't a speedster build, it's a truck build, moving and pulling.

Kinda keeping my fingers crossed for 160lb-ft+ and maybe 140hp.

Questions:

So will the factory OBDII system handle this? I haven't seen much during searching regarding the computer end of things.

Would I need something like this? do these even work?
http://jetchip.com/shop/chips-modules-programmers/jet-ford-module-manual-transmission-184/

I'm not very good and figuring out the injector thing, and kinda get a bit overwhelmed. Currently the truck has nearly new injectors, they're red. 19lb? will they be enough?

I'm assuming I'll have to do a little clearanceing on the pistons for the added valve lift? Is there enough meat on them?

Last one on Clutches: Kinda want something with a bit more holding power, but I don't want grabby. Know what I mean? Any suggestions?

Is there anything else I'm missing? I think I've got a pretty good handle on it otherwise.

 

[scrapper]

I am subscribed
good questions

 

[turbo91xlt]

Easiest way would be to pull a running 2.5l out of a '98-'2001ish Ranger, swap the oil pan & pickup from your current 2.3l (obd2 blocks are all essentially identically). Swap your return fuel system style fuel rail over to the 2.5 engine with matching injectors and swap in the 2.5l ecu. It'll be pretty much plug and play doing it like that. No need to get the older cam as the specs are identical to your current one.

 

[Captain Ledd]

Easiest way would be to pull a running 2.5l out of a '98-'2001ish Ranger, swap the oil pan & pickup from your current 2.3l (obd2 blocks are all essentially identically). Swap your return fuel system style fuel rail over to the 2.5 engine with matching injectors and swap in the 2.5l ecu. It'll be pretty much plug and play doing it like that. No need to get the older cam as the specs are identical to your current one.

Easy is not necessarily a priority.

Do you think the 2.5L ECU will cope with a bit of extra air? (it makes sense that it would). I just don't know how much extra air this cam is going to flow. Any anti-theft stuff I have to worry about?

I'll probably be keeping the 2.3L head and intake, the 2.5L's are different. BUT, depending on how different (because I've yet to source a 2.5L), I may be inclined to go with the 2.5L setup. It all depends on where things end up. I'm not doing any custom intake work, aside from a mild port match. So if I can get my factory intake to line up with the newer 2.5L hoses and locations, great.

I've heard from quite a few sources that the cam is different. '95+ used a longer rocker arm with a smaller lobe lift, while '94 and earlier used a shorter arm with a higher lobe lift. In the end, as far as the valve movement is concerned, it works out to be the same cam. But when you switch apparently you can squeeze something like and extra .040" lift and retain an otherwise stock power band, just more of it. I'm sure there'll be a little bit of difference though, like some marginally longer duration.

From newer searches, I've also seen that drilling out the MAF would help trick the computer into putting things where it needed to be regarding fuel. Not sure where I can get a reader, I haven't done that searching yet, but get a wide band O2 sensor to check where my modifications are going with the MAF or otherwise. As long as I can get the computer to run it where not only it thinks it's running as it should, and it actually is.

Though, I'm starting to think I might have to pony up and check out a tuning shop. Part of the criteria is that I squeeze another 200k out of this engine, so this thing really does need to run correctly.

My main concern, is fuel delivery. Running lean, etc.

 

[turbo91xlt]

I've heard from quite a few sources that the cam is different. '95+ used a longer rocker arm with a smaller lobe lift, while '94 and earlier used a shorter arm with a higher lobe lift. In the end, as far as the valve movement is concerned, it works out to be the same cam. But when you switch apparently you can squeeze something like and extra .040" lift and retain an otherwise stock power band, just more of it. I'm sure there'll be a little bit of difference though, like some marginally longer duration.

This info is well know for being false. The lima 4cyl roller cam has pretty much identical specs from '89-2001. This myth has been going on for years thanks to route66hotrodhigh.com for still being around lol. The change in 1995 has to deal with the use of a thinner 7mm valve stems and matching stamp steel rockers to fit those valves. The valve train geometry remained unchanged.

 

[Captain Ledd]

Sounds like you've been around these engines for a bit. This is my first forray into one of these engines. He's got quite a bit of information on there about it, it's really just an elaborate hoax?

So would you recommend a mild cam upgrade and where might I find one? Searching has revealed stuff for a bit higher than what I'm looking for, or for the Duratech. Stock-ish selections advertise starting at about 800 rpm. What is your opinion on adjusting the cam position itself for moving the power band up just a little?

This is about the only one I found that doesn't say it starts at 2-3k rpm. Right now 70mph is a solid 3,000 RPM in overdrive. I should be ok starting from a stop as I'm strongly considering the inertia ring, and already have 4.56 gears with small tires, and soon low range.

(1,400-4,600)
http://www.summitracing.com/parts/crn-199501/overview/

Really, vast majority of the driving the truck does is 2,500-3,000 rpm, with pulls to 4-4,500 while accelerating. It looks exactly like what I'd be after. Do you have any links or information on the stock cam specs? Seeing as Hotrodhigh's trustworthiness is now suspect.

It says it won't work for a computer engine, possibly just a CYA, but I know most computer engines can only tolerate so much deviance from the factory. I looked into some tuners for OBDII computers and basically I need a rolling road for most of them. Looks like I may just have to go to a tuning shop (if it ends up being necessary).

Learning more and more about this everyday.

I noticed you have some turbo 2.3Ls, care to comment on clutches? I'd like something stronger, but not a racey/grabby clutch. Is a turbo 2.3L clutch different from the standard?

 

[turbo91xlt]

If you're actually willing to spend money on a cam I call up Schneider Cams, tell him your specs & what you're looking for and have him grind a cam just for you. Shouldn't cost much more then what you were looking at. Theres always the cheaper route where you can find one of the old FMS A237 cams for around $200 but even then those aren't great...

If you're looking to tune your obd2 ecu look into SCT Tuners. Browse over on turborangerforum.com for more info on that as there are a lot of members there tuning their obd2 trucks.

Clutch wise I feel a stock HD replacement clutch will be fine for what you're doing. You can also piece together a HD clutch set using a stock 2.3t spec pressure plate and 3.0l ranger clutch disc. That should give you a stock feeling clutch that will hold up to the power levels you'll make without a problem.

 

[tomw]

What is an 'inertia ring'?

 

[alwaysFlOoReD]

What is an 'inertia ring'?

WAG; weight.

Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk

 

[Captain Ledd]

What is an 'inertia ring'?

An extra weight, usually ring shaped, that attaches to the back edge of the flywheel. You could probably get away with wedges if you do it right, but it's easier with a ring. This will help smooth the engine out a bit overall, and especially at lower RPM's, and will lead to a little easier starts from a stop with a manual transmission and make the engine slightly less prone to stalling.

 

[tomw]

Translated to old people talk: A heavier flywheel.
I would figure that the inertia is useful when four-wheeling and needing to get moving from a standstill without having to give the engine a lot of gas, and the rpm jump which will occur, making control in 'situations' a bit more difficult.
Why not go to a diesel, which will have gobs of torque when slow, and 'walk' away from a stop without problem...
I did not know they made such things.
tom

 

[Captain Ledd]

Translated to old people talk: A heavier flywheel.
I would figure that the inertia is useful when four-wheeling and needing to get moving from a standstill without having to give the engine a lot of gas, and the rpm jump which will occur, making control in 'situations' a bit more difficult.
Why not go to a diesel, which will have gobs of torque when slow, and 'walk' away from a stop without problem...
I did not know they made such things.
tom

Yeah, heavier flywheel. A lot of the 4 banger off road guys go with a 9lb ring or so, but I don't need to go quite that heavy.

A diesel was considered, VERY heavily. But it's got a couple things against it.

First is 2 books from Ford Motor Company, stacking nearly 7" combined on exactly every single detail specifically related to 1997 Rangers (old people talk: Factory Service Manuals). Which are damn handy, and I intend to keep this vehicle around for a loooong time.

2nd is that some other mods have been done already to help the 4 cylinder around. 4.56 gears and an ARB air locker in an Explorer 31 spline rear axle. I've also picked up some 4.56 gears for the front, as well as another ARB air locker.

2nd part B, I have no intention on going to larger tires. The current size does everything I need this vehicle to do. I have other vehicles for the other stuff. So the RPM's get a little high.

Admittedly, the D35 4.56's were for my '84 Ranger at first, but I really shouldn't have gone that low in the rear, so I never put them in. It was part of the consideration for 4.56's in my Red Ranger, I was going to go with 4.88, but if I ever finally got around to the 4x4 swap, I'd have these nice 4.56's for the front already.

3rdly, I've done the wild and crazy mods, and it doesn't make for good reliability or driveability. Too many weird things here and there. So for this truck the goal was to keep it as close to stock as reasonable, with the choisest parts available from the Ranger line. I mean there's a few exceptions like the ARB's and the proposed engine cam, but It's mostly going to be all Ranger.

I've put a LOT of miles on this truck, and it's already done nearly everything I've asked of it. But there's been those few instances where "I really could use *blank*", and I've kept the mod list to what I would really, genuinely, absolutely, minimally need. For the most part the power is there, I'm not expecting crazy numbers, but a little bump up from stock would sure be nice.

Post #220 <clicky

And those were with the old 3.73's!!!

 

[tomw]

I have shop manuals... 1959 Ford - one manual, 69 Mercury, 74 Pinto, 81 Escort, 85 Ranger, 87 Sable/Taurus, 90 Mustang, 97 T-bird, 07 Escape/Mariner/Tribute. The last two are on CD and DVD, which I find not user friendly. No place to stick PostIt tags for reference, and you need a laptop to have the stuff handy when tightening in sequence and torquing.
Terribly crappy work descriptions, and some 'references' go to thin air. Try to find out about the radiator fan on a 97 Bird. Ain't no such thing on the DVD.
My wish is that Ford would include the DVD in the same packet as the owners manual. Cost? Thirteen cents. Cost on the 'market'? $100 or so. A rip. The majority of the information is carried over year-to-year, with some changes by year.
Fighting a dead horse, I think.
tom