1969 2.3 ??

[pedal2themetal45]

Hi all
I'm looking at a 69 2.3 to put in my ranger. only has 80,000 on the clock and I can hear it run still in the car...
I just want to know if any one knows how much Hp and TQ the 69's had.
Thanks
tim

 

[Wicked_Sludge]

i cant answer your question directly...however, when the 2.3 was introduced to the ranger in '83 it was rated for a whopping 79HP with 124ft-lbs of torque. i can only image a '69 would be lower than that

 

[Gotta_gofast]

lol, true that. You'd be better off cutting a hole in your floorpan, mounting some bicycle pedals there and running a chain to a second sprocket on your rear axle.

2.3L engines are easy to come by in junkyards. I would check that route.

 

[pedal2themetal45]

yea I know it shows the 80s to be gutless but in the 2.3 family post it shows a 74 as (('74......HP..102@5200..Tq..122@3200 )) So I was hoping the 69's were like that because it is before the smog crap.
Tim

 

[Wicked_Sludge]

the ranger 2.3 isnt rated that low because of smog crap. its tuned to run like a truck engine. notice that an '83 2.3 from a ranger makes 2 more ft-lbs of torque, but more importantly, it makes it a full 1,000RPM lower than a pinto 2.3.

ford did right in sacrificing a few top-end ponies for the much-needed bottom end grunt.

 

[Bill G]

What kind of car is it in? I don't think the Lima engine was made until 74. I doubt it would be a direct bolt in.

 

[shadetree]

No 2.3 litre 4 cylinder in 1969.The engines used in the Falcons and the like were 144 ci/2.3 litre, but were inline six cylinder engines. The OHC 2.3 Lima wasn't introduced until the 70's.shady

 

[pedal2themetal45]

OH duh I haddent thought of that shadetree... but your probrubly right...
Thanks every body..
tim