Rebuild - 94 or 95?

[71PA_Highboy]

Hi all,

I have a 94, and it is tired... 261K and lots of abuse by the previous owners... during a recent head replacement I took a good look, and the fore and aft movement on the pistons was a good .060, hence the tired part.

That is not to mention 1qt of oil every 200 miles...

So, I picked up a 95 engine at the JY.

I know I can swap the externals and run the 95, but it has 200K, so I am not sure it would be a significantly better engine.

So, the question I have is: Which engine should I rebuild? I now know there are block differences (dist blockoff and oil pump drive) and I know that the kits to rebuild the 95 are about $120 more than the 94, so what is the advantage?

I don't have a machine shop, but I can do all the rest of the work by myself if that changes the dynamic.

Thanks!

Highboy

 

[adsm08]

The answer to this question is extremely simple and hinges on only a single point.

You rebuild the 95 engine. Take the time and expense to have it machined and measured properly as well.

The reason for this is, it is not already in the truck that I assume you are still driving. Rebuilding the engine that is not already in the truck will greatly reduce the down time.

 

[71PA_Highboy]

Thanks.

I have a few other vehicles, so the need to drive the ranger isn't significant.

May I ask an additional question?

What is different in the short block that would cause a 'rebuild kit' to be 25% higher for the 95?

Please excuse my ignorance. This is the first 2.3 I have worked on since '79.

Regards,

Highboy

 

[adsm08]

Beats me. I'm not that familiar with the 2.3. Frankly I think the entire notion of a 4-cylinder pickup truck is ridiculous.

 

[Mark_88]

I believe the difference would be the oil pump...up to 94 the oil pump was driven by the auxiliary shaft and could be fitted with a distributor...in 95 they redesigned the block so that the oil pump could be removed without pulling the engine...and I think they added the CKP or CranK Position sensor...

 

[Mikel89us]

They added the cam sensor in 95, and changed the crank sensor from a hall effect (vane style) to magnetic pulse generator (36-1 wheel). If you don't have to drive the truck, pull the 94, rebuild it. Its cheaper, and you would have to convert the 95 motor over to the hall effect sensor by drilling holes in the block and tapping them. Or changing the wiring and ecu to a 95 to support the mpg sensor.

 

[tinman_72]

I have done this (mine was a '98 2.5 into a '93) and if I had to do it again I would just rebuild the '93. There are considerable differences. (One of which Mikel89us mentioned.) Nothing impossible to cope with but not worth the trouble if you have to rebuild it anyway. Most differences can be seen in my conversion thread.

 

[Mark_88]

I went the other way...87 2.3 to a 98 2.5...mostly because I've been through the rebuild process so many times I lost count...and I'm trying to forget how much money I wasted...but no point belaboring that...easy come...much easier go...

But I do think that would be the best way...rebuild what you have...as long as it has a good head on it's shoulders...hey...why don't they call the block "shoulders"?

 

[adsm08]

That's a good point Mark. After all, the engine has a neck too.

 

[Mark_88]

It does?

Oh, you mean the "filler neck"?

Cool~ant!

 

[adsm08]

I was thinking about the water neck.

 

[71PA_Highboy]

Beats me. I'm not that familiar with the 2.3. Frankly I think the entire notion of a 4-cylinder pickup truck is ridiculous.

I get that, but it depends on your needs.

I have a Big Block powered 71 F250 4x4... but the MPG isn't all that wallet friendly so when I just need to pick up a couple of 2x4s or propane for the grill, the Ranger with the 2.3 works just fine.

I guess what I am trying to say is that I have different vehicles for different purposes... I, unlike Alton Brown, don't believe in Multi-taskers...

Thanks for the input!


Highboy