• 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.

Put 2.3 EFI intake on 2.0?


I've ran mismatched heads and ports before with little noticeable effects on performance or fuel economy (with a carburetor)...I'm sure it could have been better but it wasn't like I was stopping for fuel every few blocks or so starved for HP that I had to drive in the slow lane.

The $600 I spent on the head was due to a fine tuning for performance including a $200 cam that had a slightly longer opening than the stock version, planing the mating surface of the head, and a "3-way valve job". The improvements in the performance were astonishing to me and would have been closing in on amazing if I had swapped the bottom end.

Typically a head ran around $100 back then and even though I did feel I was overcharged for the work I had done, it was worth it to not have to downshift from OD on the highway when climbing even a small hill. At the time I was commuting and doing an average of 120 miles a day plus weekend running around so the less I had to shift and the faster I got to highway speed was a priority.

What I would suggest is to make impressions of the actual opening of the intake and overlay that on the head to see if there will be obvious problems with the injectors spraying into obstructions that you may be able to reduce with a bit of porting.

There is quite a bit of material around the edges that can be removed before compromising the integrity of the walls. Exactly how much I'm not exactly sure but maybe someone who has gone too far can elaborate on.

Those prices you list are way lower than around this area and if it was my dime I'd pick up what I needed and have enough to splurge on a bit of testing and rework on the head.

Going back to my original questioning of the viability of the project...but it is all worth while considering your initial goals to improve things...I wouldn't want to sound negative because I'd do it all again in a heartbeat...lol.
 
My truck is an 85 EFI 2.3, with California emissions. The IAC is mounted to the air cleaner box, with a tube twinned to the air intake for the MAF airflow. There is a 90 degree elbow on the side of the throttle body where the tube is clamped. The air feed is a large diameter rubber/fabric tube. It has no bellows or corrugations like the later models.
Given that it is a MAP, the airflow is not known, and engine fuel feed is calculated, table based, from what I have read. Will 300cc make that much of a difference? Will the aim of the injectors matter that much? Can the O2 sensor modify the fuel flow to counter the reduced volume of air(14%-ish) to make it proper ratio? There is a limit to trim levels, and I don't know, but it might.

To add to what Mark noted, see this link for the rest of the images:

http://therangerstation.com/forums/showthread.php?t=175035&page=2

The pictures are not separated, but there are more than one, FWIW.

Personally, I would not be so quick to condemn the boneyard engines. I would investigate a bit more. Sometimes the condition of the rest of the vehicle will indicate whether it had been taken care of or was running on smoke & mirrors.
It seems it would be worth toting a battery & jumper cables, along with a compression tester and spark plug wrench, and checking the compression on those that appeared to not be covered head to toe with oil and grunge. Pulling the dipstick, looking at the oil, inspecting the top of the dipstick for evidence of former condensation, and the odor tell a lot. Putting a drop of oil on a white napkin/paper towel and letting it 'wick' will tell you how dirty the oil actually is. As the oil spreads, the entrained junk will leave a stain.
The ones that are discarded may just have A4LD transmissions (overdrive) that were just too much moolah to put into an old truck, the engine being fine. The Lima will go 300k miles(not kilometers, that would be about 483,000km) if tended to reasonably. It takes a lot of abuse to make one bad.
If you really could have gotten a turbo-bird, that would have bolted in nicely, but I guess the RCMP would be on your tailgate. (but they might not be able to catch you?)
tom
 
I've ran mismatched heads and ports before with little noticeable effects on performance or fuel economy (with a carburetor)...I'm sure it could have been better but it wasn't like I was stopping for fuel every few blocks or so starved for HP that I had to drive in the slow lane.

Yes, carburetor...that's the problem (or the non-problem, in that case). Since the fuel atomization takes place at the carb, then all the vacuum action of the cylinders is pulling pre-mixed air and fuel through the mismatched port. Whatever it can get, it gets, and as you've noted you got a working result.

With port injection, the fuel is being shot in pretty much after the air encounters a bunch of turbulence right at the port on the head...assuming the injector isn't facing a steel wall. I don't understand the complex physics and engineering involved enough to just look at it and say "yep it'll go". Logically, the air velocity inside the port on the head will be higher than in the manifold runner because of the reduction in size. So maybe it will work well.

That performance you described sounds like an ideal situation for a daily that needs to hit the highway. I'm rather fortunate in that my daily commute isn't even long enough to hit operating temperature, but my work is in an area that is not bike, walking, or public transit-friendly. It's part of why I can afford commuting in 4000lbs 302-powered cars when I'm not in the Ranger.

What I would suggest is to make impressions of the actual opening of the intake and overlay that on the head to see if there will be obvious problems with the injectors spraying into obstructions that you may be able to reduce with a bit of porting.

There is quite a bit of material around the edges that can be removed before compromising the integrity of the walls. Exactly how much I'm not exactly sure but maybe someone who has gone too far can elaborate on.

My intent is to take the 2.0 gasket as a template of what the 2.0 head looks like, put it up against the 2.3 EFI intake aligned with the bolt holes, and take straight-on photos so I (we) can figure out where the injectors are pointing.

Logically, they should be aiming right at the intake valve, and since the intake valve is in the same spot in all the heads (smaller on the 2.0, but still in the same spot...), maybe no issue. But the ports are so much bigger on the oval port heads that I really don't want to assume here.

Hogging out metal to make the ports match better would absolutely solve the problem of port alignment, no question. But if I'm taking a cylinder head off to port it out, it's not going to be for a Frankenstein engine with blowby. That's the whole problem here. The goal is to have the information all worked out, and a concrete, viable plan ready to go before moving on it, to minimize the time and "figuring it out" that has to go into it when it's time to move on it. Talk and research doesn't cost me anything tangible. Hands-on work costs me real effort, and money buying the parts. Hence all the discussion before I even think of buying an intake. Plus there are none available at the moment, so there's that part too.

Those prices you list are way lower than around this area and if it was my dime I'd pick up what I needed and have enough to splurge on a bit of testing and rework on the head.

If you want to salivate over car part prices...Parts Galore & Ryan's Pick-a-Part are the local offerings I frequent. Inventory on the latter is out of date, almost all of the listed Rangers are missing.

viability

My threshold for viability here is simply "if I slap this mess together, will it run well enough to DD, understanding that highway driving is less than 10% of the km I put on a vehicle but does need to be possible?"

If there is no solution that can be assembled out of parts that exist without alteration, the project immediately crosses the line of viability to the point where it isn't. I don't mind pulling parts off 12 different donor vehicles to get the right match of pieces to make a bolt-together solution, but as soon as actual alterations (e.g. irreversibly cutting out material) happen...that's a line I don't want to cross.

The next challenge is still going to be the crank position sensor mounting, so if you happen to have any info or pictures that show how that mounts to the engine, this doesn't seem to be something people take a lot of photos of...

My truck is an 85 EFI 2.3, with California emissions. The IAC is mounted to the air cleaner box, with a tube twinned to the air intake for the MAF airflow. There is a 90 degree elbow on the side of the throttle body where the tube is clamped. The air feed is a large diameter rubber/fabric tube. It has no bellows or corrugations like the later models.

Ah! That explains why this looks so...weird: https://i.imgur.com/QhnxtBs.jpg, and I found it in this thread.

If you can take any photos that illustrate it better (perhaps what the air cleaner box looks like/how the IAC works) I'd be very appreciative.

Does the upper bolt to the lower with the same (or approximately the same) 4-hole, square-ish pattern seen on newer years also? If so, then an upper intake off a truck with the "normal" IAC setup may be able to mate with that lower intake.

Need 85-87 (Ranger) lower intake because coolant passage in the middle. But upper intake and throttle body maybe can come from something like...a 93? In which case the entire MAF intake ducting and air cleaner can be used as-is.

Given that it is a MAP, the airflow is not known, and engine fuel feed is calculated, table based, from what I have read. Will 300cc make that much of a difference? Will the aim of the injectors matter that much? Can the O2 sensor modify the fuel flow to counter the reduced volume of air(14%-ish) to make it proper ratio? There is a limit to trim levels, and I don't know, but it might.

The details are all kind of "squishy" unfortunately. How much can Speed Density (MAP) compensate for in displacement? I dunno.
How much of an airflow restriction does the 2.0 have vs the 2.3? I dunno.
Is there a "linear" way to apply less fuel per displacement? I dunno.

I do know that I'm expecting it to be a bit rich (300cc displacement worth of fuel rich, which is not much) in all conditions when the computer is in open loop. The O2 is ignored (completely?) until it goes into closed loop. Once the O2 comes into the picture, the computer "should" be able to cut back on fuel because it sees that the exhaust is rich. The problem is that if the computer knows it is dumping too little fuel for the fuel map table for a "2.3", it might get upset that it has to put that much less fuel in. I'm not sure what "upset" is or could be though. Might be as simple as a lean code, or a rich code, or alternating between the two of them and still running OK...

Since my commute is typically open loop conditions, if it's "a little rich" all the time that it's in open loop, then it's going to be "a little rich" most of the time I drive it...

These concerns are why I see MAF as being more or less required. The system will add fuel to match the actual, measured, amount of air going into the engine. And I think mix-and-matching parts can probably get me there.

To add to what Mark noted, see this link for the rest of the images:

http://therangerstation.com/forums/showthread.php?t=175035&page=2

The pictures are not separated, but there are more than one, FWIW.

It is very, very too bad that the 88 Turbocoupe head is a twin plug head. The runners on that intake would very closely match the ports on the 2.0 head (eyeballing it). But, twin plug, so no giant coolant passage, and different bolt pattern.

Personally, I would not be so quick to condemn the boneyard engines. I would investigate a bit more. Sometimes the condition of the rest of the vehicle will indicate whether it had been taken care of or was running on smoke & mirrors.
It seems it would be worth toting a battery & jumper cables, along with a compression tester and spark plug wrench, and checking the compression on those that appeared to not be covered head to toe with oil and grunge. Pulling the dipstick, looking at the oil, inspecting the top of the dipstick for evidence of former condensation, and the odor tell a lot. Putting a drop of oil on a white napkin/paper towel and letting it 'wick' will tell you how dirty the oil actually is. As the oil spreads, the entrained junk will leave a stain.
The ones that are discarded may just have A4LD transmissions (overdrive) that were just too much moolah to put into an old truck, the engine being fine. The Lima will go 300k miles(not kilometers, that would be about 483,000km) if tended to reasonably. It takes a lot of abuse to make one bad.
If you really could have gotten a turbo-bird, that would have bolted in nicely, but I guess the RCMP would be on your tailgate. (but they might not be able to catch you?)
tom

I've done things like checking dipsticks, but the oil is drained (via hole punched in the pan, no less), and typically the dipstick is dry by the time I get my hands on them. There's a 93 2.3 that I looked at, but the coolant reservoir looks like coffee and rad cap looks brown and crusty. OTOH, the oil cap looked absolutely perfect, no milkshake.

Pulling an engine, transporting it across the border, then trying to investigate if it's any good at home is a big pain (or I perceive it to be one anyway). 45 days to exchange it if it's "bad" is reasonable and generous given the pricing, but it also puts a rush on the project. Plus, it's very annoying that the only vehicle I have which can reasonably transport an engine is the same vehicle the engine has to go in. If everything seems to check out on an engine stand, then I throw it in the truck and find out it has rod knock, I have to un-swap the engine (and un-swap the EFI fuel sender, and un-swap the fuel lines, and drain the coolant, and all that) to be able to take the engine back. Big frustration.

My preference for a full engine swap is to buy a whole donor vehicle where I can see it running. But I'm not paying more than $500 for said vehicle, so the chances of that happening are slim. I'm only considering the "can't see it running" test dyno engine on the basis that it should be in excellent condition.

Most of the junked trucks I see have no body damage, and manual trans. Hard to say why they end up there. If there were an easy way to check how worn a clutch is, that would be wonderful. But I also try to avoid being underneath junkyard cars any longer than I have to be.
 
Last edited:
"It is very, very too bad that the 88 Turbocoupe head is a twin plug head."

Just a quick note...the Turbocoupe heads were 4 plug...and are really not much different from the other heads except maybe the oil passage is open on the back end so a line can run to the turbocharger...

There may also be a difference in the valves and the head dish in the combustion area..but I'm not sure about that even...

So the turbocoupe heads can be used if you find one...
 
"It is very, very too bad that the 88 Turbocoupe head is a twin plug head."

Just a quick note...the Turbocoupe heads were 4 plug...and are really not much different from the other heads except maybe the oil passage is open on the back end so a line can run to the turbocharger...

There may also be a difference in the valves and the head dish in the combustion area..but I'm not sure about that even...

So the turbocoupe heads can be used if you find one...

I just looked at the pic again. I was looking at the exhaust side. D'oh.

Yes, intake side looks like it would work (has the coolant passage, and has the ports to match the blue gasket I did the picture comparison with). Which is a further kick in the gut that I didn't raid that 88 Turbocoupe when it was available.

I read somewhere that using a 2.3 head on a 2.0 reduces the compression ratio? I also thought I read somewhere that because the 2.3 head has bigger valves and 2.0 has narrower bore than 2.3, they'd interfere with the cylinder walls of the 2.0. Not sure in what context I found those tidbits anymore, but both have been in the back of my mind.
 
Yes, the CR is reduced somewhat but you can compensate by machining the head if you wanted to bring it up...and I remember one guy on here claiming that a .040 (or was it .004) shave would do wonders to improve power in both engine configurations (2.0 and 2.3).

I didn't shave the 2.3 head I put on and maybe the longer duration of the intake put more fuel in to offset the CR but I never bothered to look beyond whether it worked better...which it did by a long shot.
 
Well, I mean, as long as (unmodified) it bolts on with valve clearance and would still have a high enough CR to run...that still jives with the whole idea of a hodge-podged solution that isn't "very good" but still "does the job". But I can't imagine the already very weak 2.0 with a lower CR would be very highway-friendly.

But I also have no idea how bad my 2.0 is vs one that's in good health, and I also have no idea how much of how bad my 2.0 is can be blamed on the carb vs the blowby. There's virtually no way to figure it out, either.

Crankshaft position sensor: now you will understand why I'm confused.

All information I can find suggests that (using 1993 as the example year), the CKP is a round cylindrical sensor that mounts in a "tube" which is integral to the "front engine cover". I did not realize these engines even had such a cover, but hey, you learn something new every day. The "tube" is aimed such that the sensor points at notches on the crankshaft pulley. This is how the computer knows the engine speed and...

Based on my knowledge of other EEC-IV vehicles, I am guessing...on a non-Cam-Position-Sensor engine, it also learns when cyl 1 is TDC based on a different spaced pulse (different size tooth or gap on the pulley) and uses this info to fire the injectors in time. Sound right?

Diagram 1 link - the CKP in relation to the front cover Edit: this was later determined to be re: EEC-V. It is not accurate for EEC-IV.
Diagram 2 link - the front cover in relation to the block (upside down)

Problem 1: look up a crank position sensor for a 1993 Ranger 2.3. You will find this:
Pic 1, Pic 2

Problem 2: it is unclear if the "front engine cover" of a ~1993 2.3 can bolt on directly to the 2.0 block. It isn't even clear to me if this cover exists on the 2.0 block.

So...what gives?

This is of course working on the assumption that I'd be going MAF with (E)DIS and therefore require this sensor to be in the picture.


--

As for the closely related issue of the crank pulley/trigger wheel/whatever it is, I can't seem to find any photos where someone has shown the trigger wheel setup for the 4-banger.

The pulley seems to be this guy (pic here) but I don't see any teeth/notches, and it also does not have the right centre bore to go on the crank, so there is a piece missing here. I can't find any reference to a harmonic balancer even being sold for these engines. Is the trigger wheel for the CKP integral with the balancer that goes behind the pulley, or are these separate pieces?

Found this diagram, cropped it down to the relevant area (pic here), but I don't see the boss for the CKP in the "cover", nor do I see the pulley and balancer being 2 pieces, so...yeah, I dunno.
 
Last edited:
I can only say what I know from my own experience with the 2.5. On the 2.5 there is no CKP but in order to work with the 96 2.3 ignition and timing the previous owner had to mount the CKP onto the front of the 2.3 and it was successful. Just drill and tap two holes being careful to seal it well becuase there is an oil galley right behind where the drilling needs to be done.

Others have done and commented on this and there is a long thread about it on here...this is one of the threads...there are many actually...

http://www.therangerstation.com/forums/showthread.php?t=174463&highlight=Crank+Position+Sensor

the engine cover is just a plastic shield that seems to be missing from your engine. It does not actually house the CKP but the wire does run along it and down to where it attaches to the block.

I think I remember seeing a diagram and brief explanation on the online manual so that might be worth a look for you. They usually don't go into operation details but show how to remove them. I don't know off hand whether the 93 is the same as the 96 but they seem to be similar. They use a tone ring on the pulley to pick up the signal that determines where the engine is in terms of timing and the information is processed via the ECM...

I can check the manual later if needed but I'm due for some leg up time that I've been putting off...:)
 
Edited extensively (yeah, I'm bad for that):

Using the word "drill" as a search keyword does help! Sometimes you need to know what to search for before you can search for it...

The diagram I showed above seems to refer to newer engines than the ones I would be looking at. The cylindrical sensor is the EEC-V one (confirmed on RockAuto by looking up a 96 2.3 CKP). The sensor I pictured in my earlier post for a 93 is the EEC-IV one. It bolts to a bracket, the bracket bolts to the block, the balancer assembly includes the tone ring/stator/reluctor (whatever buzz word we want to use for it), and as long as the bracket is mounted to the block in the right spot, it should all play nice together. Drill the holes, tap them, and done. Awkward to do in the truck, but with accurate measurements, seems doable.

Not sure why I didn't watch this earlier, but this vid shows a reasonably comprehensive breakdown of the crank position sensor on a 93: https://www.powernationtv.com/two-minute-tech/2min-246/ford-lima-2-3l-breakdown

If I want to cut down on wasted space under the intake where the distributor lives, I should try to get my hands on the (94 Cali-only?) dummy distributor that the cam position sensor lives on.

You're being immensely helpful here, I appreciate it a lot. Timeframe on this is not a rush by any means but the sooner I have all the info, the more ready I will be if the right parts donor vehicles show up in a yard.

Current parts list is now looking like:
  • 85-87 Ranger 2.3 EFI lower intake complete with injectors, rail, any sensors attached to it
  • Upper intake including TB, IAC, vacuum tree, sensors, etc. Unclear at this point if must match same year as above comes from or if there's some flexibility (re: IAC specifics, re: Tom's remarks about 85 EFI setup)
  • New intake gaskets for the above
  • 93-94 Ranger 2.3 intake tube, air cleaner, MAF
  • 93-94 Ranger 2.3 manual trans engine harness, ECM, sensors (sensors can come off whatever, EEC-IV generally used the same ones over time)
  • 89?-94 Ranger 2.3 crank balancer/tone ring/pulley assembly
  • 89?-94 Ranger 2.3 crank position sensor bracket, bolts, and exact measurements/reference photos for mounting point
  • 89?-94 Ranger 2.3 ignition module, coilpacks, brackets for coilpacks, wires (well, half of them)
  • 85-88 EFI fuel sending unit with pigtail (or more if possible), any engine
  • A normal, single, EFI high pressure in-tank pump to mount in the above
  • If salvageable, fuel lines off a 2.3 EFI truck, or universal
  • EVTM for the harness donor truck

That would mean the outstanding to-do list is...

  • Continue getting opinions on airflow and atomization concerns RE: EFI manifold on 2.0 head
  • Verify injector aim compared to 2.0 head
  • Confirm (photos?) if 85-87 upper intake +TB will work if combined with 94 zip tube and MAF (re: Tom's remarks on 85 EFI)
  • Confirm I did not hallucinate the threaded plug on my exhaust manifold, and verify it has O2 sensor thread (if not, would need to get O2 bung welded in)
  • Figure out how PCV is going to work...note that I have a 2.3T valve cover I'd be using since my steel one is warped and leaks badly.
  • Figure out how EGR is going to work (yes, I'd rather have it operational). The carb EGR tube will not be viable as-is but maybe can be bent into the right shape as it's quite long.

I did find this argument against mismatched intake/head combos:
...If you have the 4 plug oval head now, you don't want to use the intake on a 4 plug d port, because it will pool fuel by the port and cause bad mileage, poor idke and low end torque, and high end hp.
Using an oval port intake on a D-port head creates a similar restriction in the intake (the bottom half of the port is restricted creating a "cavity" for air turbulence...and maybe fuel), but not as dramatic as the oval or D port intake vs a round port head.

So that's another "I dunno". With port fuel injection I'm not sure how much opportunity really exists for fuel to pool anywhere. It should pretty much go right in the valve.

Searching for this type of thing is challenging. Lotsa, lotsa, lotsa people have asked questions surrounding carb swapping their EFI trucks, and almost everyone asking about doing the reverse swapped the whole engine or at least the head.
 
Last edited:
Excellent find on that video!!!

Brought back memories...lol

Mikel89us was the guy who posted about shaving the head to improve power...was on here quite a bit for a while then disappeared....but, then again...after 17 years I've seen many good people come and go...but their posts have been preserved so much wisdom in the archives...I'm not sure if he was referring to FI or carbed porting there because I think he was running a carb at some point...but FI definitely is better and less chance for pooling.

If you swap in the shorty header that was found on the 93+ engines some of them actually have a bung and a connector for the EGR pipe...and I had one from a 93 Mazda B2300 (same engine) on my 2.0 that had that....but they moved them around at some point but I had what I needed so I didn't look anywhere else.

You can fab an EGR pipe if needed but best to try to get as close to the original config as possible. I made one out of copper that did what it had to do...even though it had more leaks than a strainer...it was more for show but I could have made it air tight so the fumes would have been pulled in instead of dispersed into my air intake for the heater box...nearly gassed myself a few times.

EDIT: Meant to also mention the shorty header is a direct bolt in and mates perfectly wih the cat on the 2.0 so no messing with configuring the exhaust.

I think you've made some important progress with your needs list and its starting to look like a step or two away from implementation...:icon_thumby:
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately the thread does not mention what type of fuel management was being used. However the OP in that thread had an 86 2.3 EFI 4x4 truck, based on other threads he posted (referred to replacing the injectors and various sensors). So the thread was a question about EFI intakes, but we don't know if Mikel89us' response was specific to EFI intakes...

As best I can tell the EGR pipe is the same diameter and has the same fittings between my carb setup and EFI stuff. The tube is shaped differently due to where the EGR valve is located on the carb manifold. With some careful manhandling (an oxymoron maybe), the same tube could probably be used. The EGR tube threaded hole on the manifold seems to be in the same spot across various years, but the fitting the tube attaches to may be at different angles (not a huge deal). If the EGR has to be blocked off for a period of time while figuring this stuff out post-swap, that isn't really the end of the world. Plus my EGR tube is packed solid with carbon and hasn't flowed any exhaust in many years so that would require some effort (might be why the truck always failed NOx, eh?).

Exhaust is the bane of my existence, if I can avoid touching it, I certainly will. The list of "might as wells" that starts to happen when you touch exhaust fasteners gets longer and longer, such as "why didn't you swap the head?"

OTOH it would be easier (IMHO) to just swap the manifold/header than to deal with putting in an O2 bung. It'll come down to what I find when I get eyes on my manifold again. Aftermarket (OE-spec) replacements for the 2.0 do have what appear to be plugged O2 holes, because they spec the same one through 1992. Just wish I could see my engine bay from my desk at work.

Yeah, I'm pleased with the progress here. There's way too much involved to just take it apart and "do it", the planning and discussion is essential, and helping.
 
Last edited:
When I rebuilt my 2.0 I had that "exhaust bolt" dread and saw them snapping one by one and my cost going up exponentially...but to my surprise they all came out easily. I learned later that the previous owner of the 2.0 truck had removed them at some point so they were not rusted and ready to self destruct.

But the other point is if you are going to remove the engine it needs to be done...so really a matter of what way you turn. If you are not using the old head then it won't matter if they break off in the process.

I went to Ford and purchased an entire set of new exhaust manifold bolts and they were not too expensive. It saved more in the subsequent removals in terms of skinned knuckles and "exhausting" my repertoire of expletives.

The tube for the EGR may be brittle at this point. Mine twisted nicely into a pretzel before I realized what was going on...the nut had seized onto the tube so when I broke the nut free the tube just followed the natural path of most resistance...which set me on a convoluted path of frustration that ended with the copper version.

I could have used conduit or a more heat resistant pipe but I was not too familiar with what materials were most suitable to that application. Copper just seemed easiest and it came in the right size. Although the heat might be too much for it and lead to premature failure where it gets hottest at the manifold connection.
 
Had a thought. The thought basically was..."what would the D port intake look like mated to the round port head?"

A little more fiddling with GIMP, and we have the attached image. Obviously, these comparisons are not perfect. They're subject to image distortion and the exact dimensions/proportions are slightly skewed. But it provides a visual estimation of how stuff would go together.

I think [D-port vs round port] works out a lot better than [oval port vs round port]. If I understand correctly, the 85-87 Ranger EFI heads+intakes probably are D-port anyway...

Summit Racing's blog addressed the topic of mismatched intakes and heads here: http://www.onallcylinders.com/2014/...-rectangular-port-intake-big-oval-port-heads/
Different application, but the theory should work out similarly.
Their conclusion? A "small" difference in port reduction at the head, they've guesstimated 1/8", should not affect things negatively. A difference of 1/4" or larger would probably require some adjustment or re-thinking.

Accordingly I'm not too worried about #2 and #3. But #1 and #4, the difference is huge. But since the head can only suck in as much air as can fit through the valve and that port anyway...well, I can talk myself into and out of this on that basis a hundred times.
 

Attachments

  • Dport-vs-oval-vs-round.png
    Dport-vs-oval-vs-round.png
    369.2 KB · Views: 205
Last edited:
Okie dokie. More findings/whatever.

I realized the best way to compare engine pics is probably Copart, the auction site for write-offs. I was able to find 1987, 89, 90, 91, 93 and 94 examples with the 2.3 and an engine bay photo.

From this link here on TRS: http://www.therangerstation.com/tech_library/4cylinders.html
Head Variations:

There are several variations on the 2.3 heads though they break down into (4) distinct types:

1) Passenger car oval port heads - 1974 - 1980 Mustang, Pinto, Fairmont, Bobcat, etc.

2) Passenger car D-port head - 1981 - 1995? T-bird, Mustang, Etc.

3) Truck round port - 1983 - 1985 Ranger

4) Truck D-port - 1989 - 2001 Ranger. The 1989 - 1994's and 1995 - 2001's have different combustion chambers and ports. It is thought that the newer head is better designed.

If I understand correctly, the D port intake gasket I compared above is for the "passenger car D-port head", not the "truck D-port". Correct?

I don't think that information is complete, though. Mix-and-matching info from various sources would have me believe any carb 2.0 or 2.3 has the round ports, even up to 88, but an EFI 2.3 in the same years has oval or D-port heads (which it is, is unclear). The problem here is that none of the comparison pics that show all the head ports really answer the "missing details" here. What is the overall list of vehicles that have the head that matches the black gasket in my image above?

If that is truly only found on cars, then my intake actually needs to come from a 2.3 car, not a Ranger (to get the best port matching, as per comparison image I made).

I found that among Rangers, MAF examples began at year 1990. It is not possible to buy a MAF for a 1989, so it seems MAF began at 90. I had found this info previously but thought it was California-only. Seems maybe it's not that specific. I found both MAF and SD 90 and 91s, and the trucks weren't in CA. Maybe they are CA vehicles that roamed around a bit, but...still, it means earlier MAF donor trucks are out there.

I'm not sure if throttle bodies (or at least their size) are the same between the cars and the trucks, RockAuto does not list an actual throttle body, so application info is lacking. But, if they are the same, or "the same enough", I could use the passenger car D-port intake assembly (lower, upper, throttle body) in combination with the truck (90-94) air intake tube, air cleaner, and MAF...combined with the truck (90-94) harness and ECM.

The answer is also "yes" that there is a hex-head (looks like a giant bolt) plug threaded into my exhaust manifold, pointing down towards the ground, right before the flange to the cat (right where the O2 sensor would go on an EFI truck). It's very rusty but I bet if I tried to turn it with the manifold hot from a good hard highway run, it would probably break free, just like a stubborn O2 sensor.

Checking out the "94" dyno test engine tomorrow (re: whole engine swap option). Will be sure to take a whole bunch of photos assuming it is in fact a Lima (if for some reason it's a newer Duratec, I'll be irritated).
 
Last edited:
Part of the problem with answering that question (list of parts that match the gasket) is that unless you have the gasket part number matching it to a head and model that used that part can only come from an intricate knowledge of those engines...and, unfortunately, I for one don't have that information.

I usually went by the part number...and I will say that I have used the Mustang Head twice on my Ranger and it worked fine...but I knew the exact model and year of the vehicle so getting the gasket was a simple matter.

So...you might find the part numbers from each Lima engine for the gasket and simply cross refernce them on sites like Rock auto that has that feature. You will see a link or option to click on some sites that says something like "other vehicles that use this part".

I had always meant to document what engines used what parts and I think just before my "medical issue" three years ago I was chatting with a bunch of guys and we were discussing putting together such a compilation of information...but I had other matters that needed more attention and I found the 2.5 engine and was embroiled in my own build project.

If you haven't seen the sticky at the top of this thread then you might want to go through that...it does have a great deal of information but not necessarily specifics about gaskets...it does or did list what engines used the D, oval, and O ports...and maybe search on the name Kenneth S as he put a bunch of posts up about compatible intakes, carbs, and other stuff...haven't seen him around but I've seen his name on other Ford sites...he even posted a copy of the stick on another forum...and added to it.

http://www.therangerstation.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9
 

Sponsored Ad


Sponsored Ad

TRS Events

Member & Vendor Upgrades

For a small yearly donation, you can support this forum and receive a 'Supporting Member' banner, or become a 'Supporting Vendor' and promote your products here. Click the banner to find out how.

Recently Featured

Want to see your truck here? Share your photos and details in the forum.

Ranger Adventure Video

TRS Merchandise

Follow TRS On Instagram

TRS Sponsors


Sponsored Ad


Sponsored Ad


Amazon Deals

Sponsored Ad

Back
Top