ranger 2.3 to 2.5 engine swap

[bob]

Can anyone tell me what the difference is between a 1995 2.3 and a 1998 2.5? The wrecking yard says they are not interchangeable. Can anyone tell me what the difference may be, and if it's possible to make the switch? Will I have to change the computer and the wiring harness? Any help would be appreciated

 

[Beanmachine7000]

Your '95 would be OBD I and the '98 would be OBD II... Major change in wiring, to the point of being almost impossible (at least to the point of not worth the effort)... The 2.5 is just a stroked 2.3... Both great engines... I'd look for a '95 and newer 2.3 if I were you... It would be way easier swap...

 

[ILLEGALCONCEPTS]

95 should be OBDII, mine is.

Check the forum, I think Hardwareman just did this IIRC

James

 

[Hardwareman]

Yeah, you're right James.

I just did this swap about 6 months ago or so and it's turned out great! Like stated above however, you must make sure your 95 is OBDII. Mine is like ILLEGAL's is. I just used the block however because there are subtle changes when Ford introduced the 2.5 in 98.

1. The intake manifold has a coolant line running into it from the block where the temp sensor is on the 2.3. Use the 2.3 intake and put the temp sensor into the 2.5 block!

2. The 2.5 comes with a heavy cast iron exhaust manifold and the 02 sensor is installed in it as well. Use the 2.3 tubular header (beter anyways) and call it done.

Other then that the swap's pretty simple. You will need to use the 2.3 motor mounts cause the crossmembers switched. In 98 the 2.5 also utilized an "in-tank" fuel pressure regulator, which is why it's important for you to use your complete intake from the 2.3. The FPR is in the fuel rail there. Here's some pics:

[/IMG]

[/IMG]

[/IMG]

[/IMG]

[/IMG]

In the last pic is where I used "a lot newer" transmission and the tailshaft did not have the VSS in the newer one so I had to replace it with my older tailshaft. If you have any more questions just post them up here and I'll try to help. Later




Allen

 

[skyy_4life]

is there any way of just taking a 2.5l crank and head and using it on 2.3l without changing computers? because id love to just do that and would power increase by much at all?

 

[Hardwareman]

Hey Bob, I got your Pm. I've been terribly busy this week so I'll try to give you a call by this weekend. Sorry.





Allen

 

[Meangreenranger]

Hey hardware I have a 1997 ford ranger with 2.3. Is it just and intake manifold swap from 2.3 to 2.5 and the oem factory header what else would I need to swap in the 2.5 will it work with the oem 2.3 computer and factory wiring. I wanna swap in the 2.5 for little more power can I put factory 2.3 rods and high compression pistons for 2.3 for better power.

 

[Mark_88]

Allen (hardwareman) hasn't been on for a few years...but I can answer your questions...

If you want to swap in a 2.5 it can be done using the 97 intake/exhaust/computer and wiring.

According to the link below the 2.3 motor mounts will work.

I bought the 96 Ranger from the guy who swapped the 98 2.5 ... he did have problems with the oil pan...

You can read his post here...this is the truck I bought from him...it ran and worked fine...I never got to drive it after the body swap but I did drive it before that...smooth and powerful...

http://www.therangerstation.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26428&highlight=tylerh

 

[Meangreenranger]

Do you know if I can just use the original 2.5L oil pan and the oil pick up tube. The suspension on the 98 is totally differant. Is there room on the 1997 chassis it's twin beam suspension.

 

[Mark_88]

I don't know specifically.

According to Allen (hardwareman) it worked on his 95...and tylerh said he had to change his because he cracked the one on the 2.5 so he tried to put on the 2.3 oil pan and ran into problems.

Search for tylerh and hardwareman and read through their other posts on their build...several posts available...


But I've read in more than one forum that this is a direct swap with no mods on the older frames or suspension parts...maybe I missed something but it doesn't hurt to check other sources.

 

[Meangreenranger]

I have one more question do you think I can replace the 97 exhaust manifold with either Hedman Header 89370 for 84-88 2.3 liter efi or Pacesetter Header for 84-92 ranger 2.3 liter efi with minor mods like bung for 02 and bung for the stock EGR system for it's 50 state legal and would it give the motor more horsepower and better mileage per gallon and it would have a high low cat and a glass pack shortly after the cat and the out by the front of the back tire.

 

[Mark_88]

Well, hypothetically, they should bolt on...problem is they are not necessarily designed for the later heads in terms of performance and you should probably contact the manufacturer directly for their input.

I've heard of people using them on the later engines but there are issues with back pressure and whatnot that need to be addressed either via tuning or head work...and a better cam.

You are getting into a potential conflict or "power struggle" that many people find themselves in with these engines. Having gone through it myself and having been warned about it but went ahead and wasted quite a bit of money I would say...it is possible to get more out of them...but how much do you want to spend...and for what purpose other than "it's mine and I can do what I want with it"?

Your original idea of going with the 2.5 is probably your best option if available. There is minimal work involved if everything fits and no oil pan mods are needed. Stick with the 2.3 shorty header or use the 2.5 header if it doesn't involve changing everything else in the exhaust.

The 1996 and later heads were the best "stock" design for maximum power without modifications. The modifications will add up quickly and engine builders love people like us that want it and don't care how much it costs.

After investing $600+ on one head and cam build and then having it crack on me within a few months of use was heart and bank breaking for me...but I loved every second of it...

Maybe you have deeper pockets than I did when I took on my project but it will eventually sap them dry too if you get sucked into the power/performance game.

So...I don't mind answering what questions I'm familiar with but I always ad the caveat because someone else tried to warn me of my folly...

 

[Meangreenranger]

This next year I wanna go to the scrap yard and look for the stock cam from 88-94 2.3 it has a higher lift and put new lifters and possible a valve spring upgrade I wanna see if I can use ford 96-up 3.8/4.2 valve springs and they make better retainers for the 3.8/4.2 and use the oem keepers and possibly little bigger valves for some more power. I'm gonna keep the stock 2.3 shorty oem header, do you think I can get like 150 horsepower out of the 2.3 or should I do a 2.5 swap and start from there?

 

[Mark_88]

I read on here and other mustang 2.3 forums that 150 to 170 HP without too much invested is quite possible and probably stretching the limits of the engine in that format.

There was a guy on here recently (probably still here but he got into a pissing match with another member and haven't seen him since) who was the first to my knowledge that mentioned shaving the head to increase the compression ratio and accordingly increase the potential HP. But that would also have to be complimented with the valve and cam work you are looking into.

His recommendation was shaving .004 off the head to give the best for this engine potential but I would suggest researching and pricing the cost of the machine work. This, apparently and understandably, is the hidden cost of the mod.

I am not familiar with the best cam numbers but I had a shop install a "mild" racing cam that was more than the stock (roller cam) and increased duration of the valve opening. Along with the home P&P that I did myself (without knowing too much about how to do it properly other than what I'd read) there was "significant" power increase without taking it to have the numbers tested to otherwise confirm.

It just felt like it was alive and I rarely had to shift out of fifth gear going up hills like I had before the work was done.

I would guesstimate that I was hitting close to 110 hp with a wonky bottom end (2.0 at that) and a carburetor so your 97 with the stock numbers could easily hit 150 with the right work. Prior to the work I was probably around 75 to 80 hp...that was a stock 2.0 with some slight mods that I did prior to the head work.

I've seen many builds over the years and some were absolutely jaw dropping raw power with a carb and a good build...

Rear gears will also improve the takeoff but hinder fuel economy on the highway...

 

[tomw]

Two quick notes.. Re: shaving the head for higher compression, I think it would be more than .004", more like .040", but that's a guess. You likely have to run higher octane fuel 100% of the time, or at least when you want to use the increase.
You might affect the 'non-interference' design, such that when the cam belt goes toothless, or just loses a few, you might have piston:valve interference as the valves would be that much closer to the piston tops. If you look, I think there are clearance notches in the pistons already so the valves are pretty close w/o cutting the head.
Shaving the head to reduce combustion chamber size and increase effective compression ratio is a good and simple way to increase power. I think the term is 'decking', but don't bet the farm.
tom