Ranger 2.3 bad engine

[wtn4x4]

I have a 93 2.3 with 260000 miles and one of the cylinders is bad. Three cylinders with even compression at 95 psi and one at <5 psi. The truck is not smoking which leads me to believe that it is all in the heads. I am trying to weigh my options here. I can replace the motor with a 2.3 out of a 94 with 115000 miles for 600 dollars or I can replace the motor with a 2.3 out of a 96 with 40,000 miles for 400. Unfortunately, because of the differences between the engines, I think that I would have to swap the ECU to accomodate for the crank to camshaft position sensor change. The other option is to rebuild the motor that I have now. This could either be a full rebuild or if the pistons look good I could just get the top end done.

What are your guys thoughts?

 

[Kenneth S]

With that many miles I'd rebuild the engine, if the cylinder head is the culprit for the low compression just redoing the head would be a band-aid fix (the rings are probably bad to), if you have another vehicle to drive have the engine thats in your truck rebuilt, or rebuild it yourself if you have the ability, if you don't have anything else to drive get an engine that's close to year model you have ($600.00 for an engine with 115000 miles on it way too much IMHO, $150.00 to $250.00 would be a good price for an engine with 115000 miles on it I'd look around some more if I were you) rebuild it then put it in, or just swap it out with a rebuild from a reputable rebuilder that will give you a good warranty along with it.

 

[wtn4x4]

I live in alaska so there are not near as many options as down in the states. I have the mechanical capability to tear the engine down. But after looking and comparing pricing of a quality reman to the price of rebuilding it myself completely it would make more sense to go reman.

My main question is can I swap in a 95-97 motor into my truck if i swap and re-pin the ecu for the cam postion sensor?

 

[Earl43P]

What is stopping you from using the dual purpose (93) crank sensor installed on the 96 engine, with the original 93 harness?

If I understand correctly, the 96 picked up a camshaft sensor whereas the 93 used the crank sensor for both signals.

It would seem simpler to just put everything from the 93 onto the 96 motor.

 

[Kenneth S]

From looking at wiring harnesses 93 and 94 year models have the 60 pin ecm, while in 95 and up year models they went to the 104 pin ecm, so I would imagine you would have to get a 94 - 93 2.3 to use you existing ecm. You really should do a leak down test on your existing engine to determine where the leaks are, if it's the valves a valve job will probably suffice, unless your loosing alot of compression past the piston rings.

You could also do a leak down test on the 94 2.3, if the 94 comes out alot better than what you have (which I imagine it would) just swap it out, also does the 94 come with a warranty if it's from a salvage yard? A leak down test will tell you alot more about the condition of an engine than a compression test, I don't do compression checks any more I just do a leak down test it's alot better test.

 

[Super95]

If it down on power, has a low cyl. Pull the head, if the cyl. walls arent trashed, cam&bearings look good, maybe just do a valve job,- new valves, recut seats, all new springs,ect. timing belt. After pulling the head you may decide a valve job is all you need, its worth a look if you want fast-cheap.
Sounds like a good price on those engines tho

 

[wtn4x4]

I will do a leak down on my truck to check it out and also I will pull the head. I will report back the findings of these.

Would it be possible to do what Earl said and leave the Camshaft positionsing sensor on the 96 off and run just the crank positioning sensor. I wonder because the heads are different is it possible?

 

[Kenneth S]

I will do a leak down on my truck to check it out and also I will pull the head. I will report back the findings of these.

Would it be possible to do what Earl said and leave the Camshaft positionsing sensor on the 96 off and run just the crank positioning sensor. I wonder because the heads are different is it possible?

If you use the 93 crankshaft position sensor on the 96 I don't see why not, if it were me I would put the two engines side by side and swap all the 93 sensor's to the 96 (just to be sure), and just ignore the 96 cam position sensor.

 

[Southern3.0]

Im with super95, pull the head and see what up in the motor. Might save money and the hassle of an swapping everything.

Ether way if you pull the head or swap motors take pics if you can, im pretty interested.

 

[Kenneth S]

With 260000 miles the piston rings are probably very tired, 95 psi is somewhat weak, 130 to 160 psi should be around normal.
You can also tell what shape the rings are in by putting a little motor oil in the cylinder and run a compression test if you don't have a leak down tester, with the oil in the cylinder the cylinder psi will go up substantially, and build up compression quicker.

 

[Super95]

Kenneth S is right about the oil trick for the test, with higher miles it probably has tired rings, i always do the oil trick to compensate for ring wear, and get another reading.
the 96 is a different block, head, has diff. oil pump, cam (cylinder I.D.) sensor, and has several diff. sensors, and diff. engine control,
if you do swap, use the 94, it will be identical, 95 later 2.3 make a little more power, but IMO wouldnt mess with the wiring.

 

[Kenneth S]

Kenneth S is right about the oil trick for the test, with higher miles it probably has tired rings, i always do the oil trick to compensate for ring wear, and get another reading.
the 96 is a different block, head, has diff. oil pump, cam (cylinder I.D.) sensor, and has several diff. sensors, and diff. engine control,
if you do swap, use the 94, it will be identical, 95 later 2.3 make a little more power, but IMO wouldnt mess with the wiring.

Why they have to change a good engine baffles me, looks like the 96 won't be an easy bolt in replacement, looks like the 94 is they way to go, but it's intresting that the 94 costs more, is older, and has more miles on it than the 96 does.