2.8l to 2.3l

[poppe]

hi i have a 1985 ford ranger with the 2.8l in it its a 5 spd. i just bought a 1986 mustang 5 spd with a 2.3l in it i was wondering if anybody new everything i would need for the swap ex: can i use the same trans, computer? thry are both carbureted. thanks

 

[Kenneth S]

The bell housing bolt pattern on a 2.8 is different than the 2.3, the mustang uses a cable operated clutch to the rangers hydraulic operated clutch, the computers are more than likely different

You can swap in the t-5 that's behind the 2.3 (although the shifter would be further back). You would probably have to fab a new trans mount, and have the drive shaft redone.
You could get a aftermarket hydraulic slave cylinder to operate the clutch for the t-5. You would have to adapt the line to the slave cylinder, and fab a bracket for the slave cylinder.
You would be better off switching the computer and it's wiring harness.

Is their any problems with the 2.8 that's in the truck now or is this just an idea your kicking around. I had a pinto with a 2.8 and a 4 speed, ran great and the gas mileage was close to my 88 ranger with the 2.3 and 5 speed. The 2.8's are great engines, stay away from the later 2.9's, 3.0's, etc.

 

[mhughes165]

The bell housing bolt pattern on a 2.8 is different than the 2.3, the mustang uses a cable operated clutch to the rangers hydraulic operated clutch, the computers are more than likely different

You can swap in the t-5 that's behind the 2.3 (although the shifter would be further back). You would probably have to fab a new trans mount, and have the drive shaft redone.
You could get a aftermarket hydraulic slave cylinder to operate the clutch for the t-5. You would have to adapt the line to the slave cylinder, and fab a bracket for the slave cylinder.
You would be better off switching the computer and it's wiring harness.

Is their any problems with the 2.8 that's in the truck now or is this just an idea your kicking around. I had a pinto with a 2.8 and a 4 speed, ran great and the gas mileage was close to my 88 ranger with the 2.3 and 5 speed. The 2.8's are great engines, stay away from the later 2.9's, 3.0's, etc.

the later 2.9's and 3.0 are awesome engines aswell, if u dont think so u havent worked on enough rangers.....

and if ur 2.8 and ur 2.3 got aobut the same mileage, then there was seriously something wrong with the 2.3 truck

u can use the motor, wiring harness and ECU from the 2.3, if its FI u will need the entire fuel system from a fuel injected ranger, u would also want the trans from a 2wd ranger 4cyl, it can be done, but is alot of work.......

 

[Mark_88]

My suggestion would be to get a M5OD transmission from a Ranger 2.3 or Mazda 2300 (auto or standard your choice) and use the mustang engine with that...if you can find an auto with the floor shifter it would be easier to do the swap too...

As for the carbed system...the wiring on the Mustangs is different from Rangers so you might not be able to use that without cutting and splicing wires and connectors...probably best to get a 2.0 or 2.3 Ranger wiring system...

Aside from that...you may need to also change the carb and distributor if you can't find a match for the wiring...

Overall, it's a pretty easy conversion...I swapped out a 2.9 FI motor for a 2.3 carbed motor...but it was already setup in my other Ranger so I didn't have to find or mix and match parts...

 

[Kenneth S]

the later 2.9's and 3.0 are awesome engines aswell, if u dont think so u havent worked on enough rangers.....

and if ur 2.8 and ur 2.3 got aobut the same mileage, then there was seriously something wrong with the 2.3 truck

My pinto with the 2.8 with a carburator, and my 88 ranger 2.3 with a carb (previous owner screwed all the ecm wiring up beyond repair, I don't know why, and I don't care, I got the truck for free) the 2.8 and the 2.3 get 22 mpg city, 26 mpg hwy, you just have to know how to tune carbed setups.
All the 2.9-3.0's I've worked on (the early ones atleast) have had cracked heads. DART used to make a 2.9-3.0 head that adressed the cracking problem.