2.3/2.5 stroker with turbo?

[zekew64]

All right...some opinions would be helpful.

I've read all the threads about putting 2.5 internals into a 2.3, the basic issue being about the longer stroke of the 2.5 internals.

My idea is to use a 2.5 lower block with a 2.3 head; not sure on valves/clearances. However, what I really want to try and make is, in essence, a 2.5 turbo motor--using a 2.3 turbo motor as a basis.

However, the other way I thought about going is to use a 2.3 turbocoupe motor or an SVO Mustang motor with 2.5 internals.

As I do want to use a turbo, I know that forged internals are a must.

So, what I want to know is, would either the 2.5 lower with the 2.3 head combo or the 2.5 internals in a 2.3 block work? Nothing on the upper end would change, save for the valvetrain.

 

[UrbanRedneckKid]

If I were to build such an engine..
I would buy a forged rotating assembly and turbo cam kit, from Esslinger.
Then send both blocks to the machine shop and let the machinist choose. Send the 2.5 head off to the head shop, it flows better to begin with, but have it fully ported and polished, the biggest valves possible installed.

Sure the price adds up, but if done right, and on 114 octane with a fmic, you could easily pull 600-700hp.

With the compression down to 8-10, and the boost regulated to 10-20psi, it could be a dependable street engine.

Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk 2

 

[scotts90ranger]

the blocks are nearly identical other than a couple extra holes in the turbo block for oil return and such (the main bearings are larger on a turbo block too, but so are all '88 and older 2.3L's), pretty much no difference between your block and a 2.5L block, and similar head setup. The main/only difference between a standard 2.3L and a turbo 2.3L are the forged pistons in the turbo block which are what make the compression ratio 8:1 from 9.2:1 and are just stronger than the cast pistons, which are stronger than the hyperutectic pistons in the 2.5L... I think the rods are a little weaker on a 2.5L too but I don't remember.

 

[Mark_88]

Isn't it the 88 and newer 2.3 engines that had the larger journals? I recently looked into doing the 2.5 crank swap and the guy told me to get a later model *(88+) 2.3 and the internals and he'd do it for me...

He also told me that the pistons on the 2.5 were actually smaller but I recall seeing they were the same as the 2.3...

Still looking into this for my short block...want to just do the 2.5 internals and keep the carb though...

 

[scotts90ranger]

it's the other way around, the newer ones are small journal which is actually better... less friction

the 2.5L pistons are the same size as a 2.3, the pin location is just different, same bore, longer stroke.

 

[zekew64]

All right...I have a better idea now, about how to build a respectable motor with a turbo running 10 PSI for a boost. I found this on turborangerforum.com, from a user called jfive:

"The cheap way of making a good bottom end is using a 2.3 crank, 89 up, and factory cast rods, and forged pistons. You should be able to have this for around 300.00 including bearings and rings. 2.5 rods are probubly fine for that amount of power, and you just need a set of pistons rings, and bearings. I think weisco has the cheapest pistons for a 2.5 that are forged. You could go either way, personally I would try to get some .020 pistons and build the 2.5 and do a small amount of boost to get to your goal. Like 10psi."

Having found this, he gave no indication of block, head, intake, or exhaust.

What I'm thinking is to use an 88 TC block, the '95-'97 head/intake, and a '94 exhaust.

My question is, should I go with the 2.3 head/intake, or the 2.5 head/intake? I'm thinking the 2.3 head/intake, as I've heard it flows better than the 2.5 head/intake.

What do you all think thus far? Is this a good build to pursue?

 

[zekew64]

Oh, and here's the other thing...what do you all think of running a cat-back exhaust? I know that LMCTruck.com has one; has anyone tried that one from them, and if so, opinions on how it performed?

 

[Mark_88]

it's the other way around, the newer ones are small journal which is actually better... less friction

the 2.5L pistons are the same size as a 2.3, the pin location is just different, same bore, longer stroke.

Ah, OK...thanks for the clarification...

All right...I have a better idea now, about how to build a respectable motor with a turbo running 10 PSI for a boost. I found this on turborangerforum.com, from a user called jfive:

"The cheap way of making a good bottom end is using a 2.3 crank, 89 up, and factory cast rods, and forged pistons. You should be able to have this for around 300.00 including bearings and rings. 2.5 rods are probubly fine for that amount of power, and you just need a set of pistons rings, and bearings. I think weisco has the cheapest pistons for a 2.5 that are forged. You could go either way, personally I would try to get some .020 pistons and build the 2.5 and do a small amount of boost to get to your goal. Like 10psi."

Having found this, he gave no indication of block, head, intake, or exhaust.

What I'm thinking is to use an 88 TC block, the '95-'97 head/intake, and a '94 exhaust.

My question is, should I go with the 2.3 head/intake, or the 2.5 head/intake? I'm thinking the 2.3 head/intake, as I've heard it flows better than the 2.5 head/intake.

What do you all think thus far? Is this a good build to pursue?

Only thing I can think of...the turbo requires a special exhaust for mounting it...you can't use a newer shorty type header with that configuration...the turbo exhaust manifold has a special outlet designed specifically for that application...

 

[4b316]

The 95+ heads are a little different.none of your coil bracket/alternator brackets bolt up to it and if you use the 95+ bracket,you run into a problem routeing the bottom rad hose.Neither of these problem are not undoable but something to consider.They make a nice turbo manifold,on ebay all the time,a nice piece.

 

[zekew64]

So what if I kept the '91 setup?

Basically, the alternator and the coil bracket was set up on the driver side. However, when I tore down the motor I'm currently using to check it out before rebuilding it, I noticed that the location of the coil bracket was both rusted and had heat damage, due to the high heat it was subjected to, being near the radiator.

The other thing is, on the '91 setup, the belt had to be manually tightened (something I detest doing, as I always either tighten the belt too much or not enough). I like the '92 setup, as it has the auto tensioner.

However, I would think that if I could somehow keep the auto tensioner, then I could (in theory) use the '95+ heads. How is the belt pulley set up on the '95+ heads? I would think that the better flow would be better for a turbo-style setup.

 

[4b316]

You would have to also fab up a alt mount anyways with the 95+as they push the belt out further and the pulley doesn't line up with the 95- stuff.I,m pretty sure you can use all the 91-94 stuff on the front of your motor,look at your head,does it have the bolt holes in the upper right corner?I think they do and the 91-94 coil bracket should hook right there.If it were me,and I was building it for the street,I would get a 94 engine block,use the 2.5 rotating stuff and use the 94 head.It does flow well,not quite the numbers of the 95+ but still better than a lot and you could do a little porting.I would even run the stock 2.5 pistons with a little fatter head gasket to decrease the compression a little.Quite a few guys just run this set up over at mustang

 

[zekew64]

You would have to also fab up a alt mount anyways with the 95+as they push the belt out further and the pulley doesn't line up with the 95- stuff.I,m pretty sure you can use all the 91-94 stuff on the front of your motor,look at your head,does it have the bolt holes in the upper right corner?I think they do and the 91-94 coil bracket should hook right there.If it were me,and I was building it for the street,I would get a 94 engine block,use the 2.5 rotating stuff and use the 94 head.It does flow well,not quite the numbers of the 95+ but still better than a lot and you could do a little porting.I would even run the stock 2.5 pistons with a little fatter head gasket to decrease the compression a little.Quite a few guys just run this set up over at mustang

I'm slightly confused. What do you mean the bolt holes on the "upper right corner?" Looking at the head, from the front of the truck, is it on the intake side (driver side) or exhaust side (passenger side)?

I say this because I'm running a '92 head on my current motor, and it has a combo bracket that has the auto tensioner and the alternator bracket bolted with three bolts on the block, and one bolt in the head on the passenger side (exhaust side). This is also where the coil bracket for both coils are mounted as well (exhaust side, on the head).

However, I am running a '91 block currently, as the original block took a crap and I didn't have the time or the money to simply replace the broken rod bearing that went at the time. In essence, I swapped out the '92 lower end and kept the '92 upper end (head, manifolds, intake). I say this because, I'm thinking, if I could find a way to cool the ignition coils, I could theoretically mount the coil bracket on the lower right of the block (driver side) as the '91 setup had it mounted. All I would have to do is acquire two sets of plug wires, and run the longest wires out of both boxes to reach the plugs, which would solve that problem.

Thoughts on this?

 

[Mikel89us]

The factory rods are Forged in all 2.3/2.5 engines. You can NOT use 2.3 rods with a 2.5 crank and 2.5 piston. you need the 2.5 rods they are 5.4 inches long, 2.3 rods are 5.2" long. I just want to make sure you arent making a huge mistake on this one.

Also the 2.5 head flows better, but its because of a valvetrain change, they use the same cam, but the lifters are closer to the cam on the 2.5 giving it a better rocker arm ratio, and more lift. The ports are slightly different too but not much.

All right...I have a better idea now, about how to build a respectable motor with a turbo running 10 PSI for a boost. I found this on turborangerforum.com, from a user called jfive:

"The cheap way of making a good bottom end is using a 2.3 crank, 89 up, and factory cast rods, and forged pistons. You should be able to have this for around 300.00 including bearings and rings. 2.5 rods are probubly fine for that amount of power, and you just need a set of pistons rings, and bearings. I think weisco has the cheapest pistons for a 2.5 that are forged. You could go either way, personally I would try to get some .020 pistons and build the 2.5 and do a small amount of boost to get to your goal. Like 10psi."

Having found this, he gave no indication of block, head, intake, or exhaust.

What I'm thinking is to use an 88 TC block, the '95-'97 head/intake, and a '94 exhaust.

My question is, should I go with the 2.3 head/intake, or the 2.5 head/intake? I'm thinking the 2.3 head/intake, as I've heard it flows better than the 2.5 head/intake.

What do you all think thus far? Is this a good build to pursue?

 

[FordKid]

Just a kid here and trying to learn so don't laugh too hard at me.

Can you use the longer 2.5 rods with the 2.3 block and 2.5 heads?

Would the longer rods move the piston farther up in the head squeezing more air into the "dome"?

Still new to engines but willing to ask stupid questions to learn.

Thanks

 

[Mark_88]

Well, not really a stupid question, but one that probably requires more explanation of the engine workings than you bargained for...

The short answer is "No, you don't want to do it that way"...at least not without finding out more about why it is not recommended or how it could be used by modifying the head...

I don't know enough about the specs on the engine to fully answer anything more than the basic question about using the rods and head from a 2.5 so that the piston rides above the top of the block...

Typically, the longer rod requires a different crankshaft and the end result is that the piston can move further down the cylinder so that the oil and compression rings can fall out and end up in your oil pan if you don't use special ring retaining oil that costs way more than the other stuff. Just kidding...