Mikuni carb'd 2.3 questions. Inputs and opinions wanted.

[YungICY]

First of all this is going to be really vague because I'm just kinda thinking out loud here but if you have input or advice I'd love to here it.



I have an 85 ranger with a 2.3 fi motor that needs to be rebuilt. My best option is to buy another motor and spend a few months rebuilding it then swap it in over a weekend cuz this is my daily driver.



That being said, I want more power. 75ish hp with a 3.08 rear end and way bigger tires isn't quite cutting it haha.



I'm thinking about doing something like this..



87 fi 2.3 (the scrap yard has that one) converted to carb with 4 Mikuni 38mm carbs



Mildly port and shave the head



Stage 1 cam



Better flowing header



Duraspark ignition



I would like to be at or above 125hp. Is that doable with this setup (and again I know its vague). And is the Mikuni setup a good idea or am I better off with just an autolite 2100 (I mostly just want the Mikunis cuz they would look real purdy). And also, not factoring in the cost of the motor and the carbs is this doable within a $1000 budget?



Oh and I also have access to several mustang NA 2.3s. Is there any advantage to using one of these over the ranger 2.3 or visa versa?



Thanks for your advice/input.

-Cory





Sent from my Windows Phone 8 using Tapatalk

 

[Mikel89us]

The 2.3 is for all intents, pretty much identical through the years. Even the 2.3t used the same exact motor with forged pistons, instead of cast.

The 4 carb setup would be really cool. But if you're gonna do that, I suggest more than a stage 1 cam. As for a rebuild and carb conversion, if you have access to a machine shop and can do it yourself, 1000 might be doable. If not then no, it will take some pretty extensive.

 

[Kenneth S]

If you want to run a IR setup (once carb per cylinder) get a intake that uses dual Dellorto, or Weber carbs (if you have power brake booster it maybe in the way). My old 72 Pinto with dual 45mm DCOE side draft Weber carbs.

 

[RonD]

Yes, I would agree, the $1,000 budget would be tight.

Also, a daily driver needs to be reliable, 4 carbs is not that, especially put together on a budget.

Higher compression, porting and more aggressive cam won't hurt reliability, I would rethink the fuel delivery system though.

4 cylinder - 4 carb setup is the unreliable version of sequential fuel injection.
If you can control the computer for a sequential EFI setup you would be much better off with that as far as reliability, but that's the problem, costs $$ to do a stand alone EFI system.

 

[Road Angels]

$ 1000 wont cut it, cam and kit will eat up half of that. the 38 grears have to go, 4 carbs are just as reliable as one, used webers on my on my 2002 bmw for years no problems same as my bikes its just getting set up is a bitch and cost bucks, stage 1.1 bo port cam will give you more horse power in the useable range at 3k to 5k rpm, as the cam goes up in stage also does the usable rpm range, so pulling big tires with a stage 3 cam is a waste cause you will lose your low end power, its a trade off, skip the header and use a ported stock exhaust manifold and a d port head, stock efi on the 87 is very reliable but may need to have some parts replaced due to age

 

[YungICY]

Thanks for all the input guys.



I agree on the rear end. I hate it so much. You lost me on the stage 3 cam part. Were you sayin a stage 3+bigger tires=stock? If so I follow.



Which years had the d port heads?


Sent from my Windows Phone 8 using Tapatalk

 

[Kenneth S]

Get the 87 2.3 and do a good rebuild, bore it .030" over, a little port work, oversize valves, a 89-94 ford Ranger roller cam, and roller followers, and mill the head some to raise the compression some. With todays pump gas (92 octane) 9.5:1 compression would be as high as I'd dare go. The stock efi should be able to run it ok. While 4 single carbs may look cool they will take some tinkering to get it to run good, once they are tuned they usually stay good. Back in 1987 when I bought the dual 45 DCOE carb setup, the intake, and carbs alone were $500.00 (I'd hate to see what they cost now). The 3.08 rear gear is a killer, I'm running a 3.73 gear with 26" tall tires, in my carbed 86 2.3, and I'm pretty happy with it, it performs better than a stocker while still getting good gas mileage. Unless you have some decent $$ to play with you need to find a compromise between engine, gearing, and tire size.

 

[YungICY]

Thanks for the reply Kenneth. Thanks for the info on the cam. I wouldn't have thought of that one. I think that's exactly what I'm going to do with the exception of going to an autolite 2100.



My tires are 29.5" and I was thinkin about going to the 3.73 or maybe the 4.10. I just have to wait for the salvage yard to get one in.



With the setup exactly like you said with a compression of 9:1 and the autolite instead of FI what is a guesstimate of hp on a that setup?


Sent from my Windows Phone 8 using Tapatalk

 

[Kenneth S]

I would put it at around 125hp range (I tend to go on the low side on hp estimations). If you are running a manual trans with overdrive I'd go with at the least 4.10's with a 29.5" tire. It will be sluggish with 3.73's with a 29.5" tire.

 

[ricardo93]

http://www.therangerstation.com/tech_library/gearandtirechart.html

This helped me out last night to decide what to run

 

[YungICY]

Cool cool. Sounds like I have a plan. Thanks everybody.



Yeah I checked that chart out a few weeks ago. If I remember right in currently at like a 2.66 gear, and I need somewhere around 3.73 to be stock. So 4.10 it is.


Sent from my Windows Phone 8 using Tapatalk

 

[logman7777]

I would put it at around 125hp range (I tend to go on the low side on hp estimations). If you are running a manual trans with overdrive I'd go with at the least 4.10's with a 29.5" tire. It will be sluggish with 3.73's with a 29.5" tire.

Agreed! I have 29.5 inch tires on my 5 speed 2.3 with a 3.73 and if they werent such a steal ($100 for 4 almost new Michelin LT's) I would change em back for 28 inch or less. They really kill the get up and go.