• Welcome Visitor! Please take a few seconds and Register for our forum. Even if you don't want to post, you can still 'Like' and react to posts.

Updating the 4-Cylinder Tech Page - Suggestions Needed




Rock Auto 5% Discount Code: 7FA902352B4C01: April 5th, 2021

1991dangerranger

New Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2018
Messages
15
Reaction score
2
Points
3
Location
Fort Meade, Florida
Vehicle Year
1991
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Size
2.3
Transmission
Manual
could you separate the engine like have a classification for the 4 plug 2.3 and the 8 plug 2.3
 

Charlie Cheap

New Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2014
Messages
29
Reaction score
4
Points
3
Age
77
Location
Rising Star, Texas
Vehicle Year
2011, 2016, 196
Make / Model
Ford, Ford, Sun
Engine Size
2.3, 1.6, 2.3, 200
Transmission
Automatic
My credo
Be nice, you may need help later!
I am putting a Lima 2.3 out of a 1985 Mustang in a sportscar. It is nothing like my 2011 Ranger 2.3. The different years HEAD CC numbers would be nice to know. I rebuilt the engine putting the head on without checking the CC's and I need that to find compressions...Static / Dynamic. Factory numbers would work as a starting point but I can't find them.
 

Charlie Cheap

New Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2014
Messages
29
Reaction score
4
Points
3
Age
77
Location
Rising Star, Texas
Vehicle Year
2011, 2016, 196
Make / Model
Ford, Ford, Sun
Engine Size
2.3, 1.6, 2.3, 200
Transmission
Automatic
My credo
Be nice, you may need help later!
I want to update the 4-Cylinder page in the Technical Library in the coming month(s).

The page is old and I'm not sure how accurate the info is anymore. If you have ANY suggestions as to what should be added, changed or deleted from the page, please post them here. This includes part numbers, names of manufacturers, links, custom modifications, know problems or even cheap tricks.

Thanks.
I am going out on a limb here, but carbs are not outdated. While I'm at it, neither are points ignitions. At 76 years and an ASE engine mechanic I have lots of experience with carbs. The Autolite 2100/2150 two barrel is excellent for a daily driver, and points work great up to about 5,000 rpm. Ford spent over a million bucks in 1957 to design the best carb available, which would be about 7-10 million today, and came up with Annular Atomization. It works great and Ford had the patent for 50 years. When it ran-out Fuel-Injection was the norm, so little attention was paid to carbs. For the record FUEL-INJECTION IS BETTER with today's computer controls. Unfortunately we tend to ignore what was really good in the past opting for NEW MUST ALWAYS BE BETTER. With computer-controlled timing and fuel control, carbs disappeared...but they still work, and do not need a computer, MAP, MAS, TPS, O2 sensor, Knock sensor, RPM reading, air-temp, phases of the moon, time of day, heart rate, blood pressure, higher fuel pressure, or anything electronically controlled. OH, my degree is in electronics and I chased electrons in home entertainment equipment for 20 years. For reference, points make a much longer spark than electronics and that is why MSD (Multiple Spark Discharge) was invented to simulate the mechanical (points) long spark. That partially solved the problem of the hotter electronic spark that was much shorter...but not completely. At some RPM "points do better" than electronics. That is MSD's testing not mine, though I agree. My 65 Mustang 6 gets 25 mpg highway running the A/C with no electronics except Pertronix, which is what it gets with points. I am building a 67 Sunbeam Alpine installing a Ford 2.3 out of a Mustang and backing it with an A4LD overdrive. I spent 50 years building Street Rods and even had a 32 Ford coupe appear on the cover of Performance CARS magazine and Centerfold, and a color story in Rod Action back in 1976. For a decade I was shop super for a city responsible for Cop cars, Ambulances, Fire equipment, and Police department/officers firearms. I am a Federally Licensed gunsmith also. My point (sorry) is, for those wanting to simplify their fuel/ignition system, don't ignore the old stuff. When upgraded with the best available parts, a hotter coil, better wires, platinum plugs, tuned for maximum torque, highway power/economy will NOT suffer enough to notice. For those thinking points require too much attention, every 5,000 miles is driving across the U.S. and back. If you are not looking under the hood more often than that...you are NOT a real car guy. I know this will start a debate, which is good. I just wanted the younger guys to understand one can update an old points system and make it better...with zero computers.
 

Attachments

alwaysFlOoReD

Forum Staff Member
Forum Moderator
TRS Banner 2012-2015
TRS 20th Anniversary
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
10,799
Reaction score
1,605
Points
113
Location
Red Deer, Canada
Vehicle Year
'91, '80, '06
Make / Model
Ford, GMC,Dodge
Engine Size
4.0,4.0,5.7
Transmission
Manual
2WD / 4WD
4WD
A little trick from in the day...
To prevent point bounce at higher rpm a little bit of vacuum tube stuffed behind the points would help. The dizzy cam follower wears down very quickly tho.
 

Grumpaw

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
U.S. Military - Veteran
Joined
Mar 20, 2019
Messages
2,205
Reaction score
1,490
Points
113
Location
Virginia
Vehicle Year
2009
Make / Model
Ford Ranger XL
Engine Type
2.3 (4 Cylinder)
Transmission
Automatic
2WD / 4WD
2WD
Total Lift
Stock
Total Drop
Stock
Tire Size
Stock 225/70/15
My credo
I don't count birthday's anymore...just happy to be looking down at the ground instead of looking up
I am going out on a limb here, but carbs are not outdated. While I'm at it, neither are points ignitions. At 76 years and an ASE engine mechanic I have lots of experience with carbs. The Autolite 2100/2150 two barrel is excellent for a daily driver, and points work great up to about 5,000 rpm. Ford spent over a million bucks in 1957 to design the best carb available, which would be about 7-10 million today, and came up with Annular Atomization. It works great and Ford had the patent for 50 years. When it ran-out Fuel-Injection was the norm, so little attention was paid to carbs. For the record FUEL-INJECTION IS BETTER with today's computer controls. Unfortunately we tend to ignore what was really good in the past opting for NEW MUST ALWAYS BE BETTER. With computer-controlled timing and fuel control, carbs disappeared...but they still work, and do not need a computer, MAP, MAS, TPS, O2 sensor, Knock sensor, RPM reading, air-temp, phases of the moon, time of day, heart rate, blood pressure, higher fuel pressure, or anything electronically controlled. OH, my degree is in electronics and I chased electrons in home entertainment equipment for 20 years. For reference, points make a much longer spark than electronics and that is why MSD (Multiple Spark Discharge) was invented to simulate the mechanical (points) long spark. That partially solved the problem of the hotter electronic spark that was much shorter...but not completely. At some RPM "points do better" than electronics. That is MSD's testing not mine, though I agree. My 65 Mustang 6 gets 25 mpg highway running the A/C with no electronics except Pertronix, which is what it gets with points. I am building a 67 Sunbeam Alpine installing a Ford 2.3 out of a Mustang and backing it with an A4LD overdrive. I spent 50 years building Street Rods and even had a 32 Ford coupe appear on the cover of Performance CARS magazine and Centerfold, and a color story in Rod Action back in 1976. For a decade I was shop super for a city responsible for Cop cars, Ambulances, Fire equipment, and Police department/officers firearms. I am a Federally Licensed gunsmith also. My point (sorry) is, for those wanting to simplify their fuel/ignition system, don't ignore the old stuff. When upgraded with the best available parts, a hotter coil, better wires, platinum plugs, tuned for maximum torque, highway power/economy will NOT suffer enough to notice. For those thinking points require too much attention, every 5,000 miles is driving across the U.S. and back. If you are not looking under the hood more often than that...you are NOT a real car guy. I know this will start a debate, which is good. I just wanted the younger guys to understand one can update an old points system and make it better...with zero computers.
I miss the days when you could open the hood on a car and actually see everything, plugs, dist, wiring, ect. And, you could actually reach and touch everything. Could do a regular tune up in 1/2 hour, 8 plugs,points, condenser, rotor and cap.
I still have my old...really old, Craftsman timing light, distributor wrench, old feeler gauges, tucked away in hopes that someday we will return to simpler times. (Yeah, right).
Grumpaw
 

Charlie Cheap

New Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2014
Messages
29
Reaction score
4
Points
3
Age
77
Location
Rising Star, Texas
Vehicle Year
2011, 2016, 196
Make / Model
Ford, Ford, Sun
Engine Size
2.3, 1.6, 2.3, 200
Transmission
Automatic
My credo
Be nice, you may need help later!
Grumpaw, I still have an old analog DWELL METER and flashing timing light. My 32 was driven all over the south with points and it NEVER left me stranded. With a Mustang 289 V8 and points my next Street Rod was a 1940 Ford coupe, it did the same and ran great. I use BWD Select ignition parts (points, rotor, cond., cap), an ACCEL coil, a MSD 1 ohm ignition resistor, solid copper plug wires, and platinum plugs. The computer allows for great timing control of fuel-air mixture and spark...but requires lots of sensors to be accurate. Think about this: we could time a machine gun to fire between the propeller rotations in WWI...and do it mechanically way back in 1918. It may not be High-Tech but mechanical ignition timing also works, and it still does so as fast as a computer...at road speeds. In the 4-cylinder points open and close at half the rate of a V8, and points are only a switch to turn on/off the flow of currant. The spark of a points system is longer than a computer spark and more likely to ignite the mixture. That is a proven fact.
 

Charlie Cheap

New Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2014
Messages
29
Reaction score
4
Points
3
Age
77
Location
Rising Star, Texas
Vehicle Year
2011, 2016, 196
Make / Model
Ford, Ford, Sun
Engine Size
2.3, 1.6, 2.3, 200
Transmission
Automatic
My credo
Be nice, you may need help later!
Ford 2.3 Lima engine data: Bore = 3.78" / Stroke = 3.126" / Rod length = 5.2" / Head volume = 60cc / Piston eyebrow cuts = 2cc / Deck Height = "0" / Compression = 9 -1 / Advertised Horse Power = 88 Net @ 4200 RPM / Advertised Torque = 124 pounds per foot @ 2200 RPM / Engine weight = Just under 400 lbs. with head, intake, carb, alternator, starter, and Dizzy...No exhaust. I weighed mine on a new scale. Cam specs can be found on-line at Melling Cams for "stock numbers" which will be ball-park for Ford. This was researched from many sources and there is LOTS of bogus BS data out there. I am an ASE engine builder...retired in 2005. Due to carb engines, blow-thru turbo models, FI turbo's with and without intercoolers, normal distributors and crank triggered ignitions, different boost numbers, and a few other differences, there are many differences model-to-model. These numbers are what I used to build my 1985 2.3.
 

Fredness

Active Member
U.S. Military - Veteran
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
117
Reaction score
28
Points
28
Location
Sasquatch Country!
Vehicle Year
2005
Make / Model
Ford Sport Trac
Engine Type
4.0 V6
Engine Size
4.0L SOHC
Transmission
Automatic
2WD / 4WD
4WD
Watch for ANY compression specification changes - these will be due to turbo/emissions open chamber heads and dished pistons if they go down (Thunderbird Turbo Coupe) or rod length and piston pin height changes if they go up.
The 1995 to '97 2.3L and 1998-2001 2.5L have a 5.4570" Rod length, shorter piston pin height and compression height than the '74-'94 2.3L that have the 5.205" rods.

Going to post some cam data here in the next month - I've gather Ranger and Mustang cams, followers and a test head.

Cheap mod for Pre-'94 2.3L is to use '95 to '97 rods and pistons to increase Rod Ratio from 1.66 to 1.75:1
[5.7" rods net a 1.82:1 Rod Ratio]
 
Last edited:

Cy Sanders

New Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2021
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Points
1
Location
Camp Hill PA
Vehicle Year
1994
Make / Model
Ranger
Transmission
Manual
I want to update the 4-Cylinder page in the Technical Library in the coming month(s).

The page is old and I'm not sure how accurate the info is anymore. If you have ANY suggestions as to what should be added, changed or deleted from the page, please post them here. This includes part numbers, names of manufacturers, links, custom modifications, know problems or even cheap tricks.

Thanks.
I am swapping a 2.5 for a 2.3 in my 1994 Ranger. Found my "new" 2.5 has 1/2 inch of crank slop! Pulled the front, rear and middle main caps and did not see a thrust main. Would love it if you could have an engine parts diagrams to see whats what. Maybe I missed it. Would also be happy to contribute what I had to switch out for the conversion. Thank you.
 


Top