Replacing a 2.0carbed with a 2.3FI longblock

[builtbyme]

I Have already read the 2.0/2.3 sticky and this left me with more questions than answers. Oh, I have also tried the search function to no avail, given the fact that it does not recognise 2.0 as a valid search term.

What issues should I expect?

The original engine is a 2.0 Carbed in an '88 2wd Ranger with 5spd.
The replacement is an '87 2.3 FI 2wd 5spd Ranger with clutch still hanging.

I was going to replace the whole thing until the topic of the 2.0 carbed ECM came up. Given the fact that there are so many variables in selecting the right computer, I didn't want to drop the cash for an '87 unit and have it be incorrect.
Now I think I want to just use the longblock and just replace the FI intake and exhaust with the 2.0 carbed stuff. I would probably need to rejet the carb as well, I would assume. Will the FI head work? If not, will the 2.0 head work on the 2.3's larger cylinders?

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks

Jim McCracken
NOOB

 

[Dave R]

I Have already read the 2.0/2.3 sticky and this left me with more questions than answers.

Feel free to make some suggestions for improvements to the sticky. I wrote it as a guide and I have no problems with improving/clarifying it.

Will the FI head work?

Yes, and no. It'll fit but you'll have a horrible port mismatch on the intake side.

If not, will the 2.0 head work on the 2.3's larger cylinders?

Yes, the 2.0 head will fit the 2.3 block just fine.

Another option is, if you can find an older pre-'83(ish) Mustang you can grab the intake, carb and air cleaner from that for use on the '87 FI head. you might have to drill and tap one hole for the intake (upper left as viewed from the side).

 

[builtbyme]

Thanks Dave.

No disrespect about the sticky, in fact it contains loads of info.
It just seems that parts interchangability for the 2.0 is not high on most peoples list, not just here but on the WWW as well. I didn't want the barage of "READ THE STICKYS" or "USE THE SEARCH FUNCTION" that are accompanied with a new member's first post on most message boards.

Other input is still greatly appriciated.

I look forward to participating and will surely give any info I come accross or help that I will inherently pick-up from this swap for other members to use, be it good or bad.

Jim McCracken

 

[builtbyme]

Yes, and no. It'll fit but you'll have a horrible port mismatch on the intake side.

Can this be resolved via some creative porting and polishing?

Yes, the 2.0 head will fit the 2.3 block just fine.

If the 2.0 head is used on the 2.3 block, which head gasket should be used? I would assume the 2.0 due to the matching ports and runners of the head itself.

 

[Dave R]

Can this be resolved via some creative porting and polishing?

It would take some extremely creative porting. It's been a while since I've seen a 2.0 head/intake but I don't think you could open up a 2.0 intake nearly enough without breaking through the walls.

If the 2.0 head is used on the 2.3 block, which head gasket should be used? I would assume the 2.0 due to the matching ports and runners of the head itself.

Use the 2.3 head gasket. The 2.0 gasket has a smaller hole for the cylinder bore and may actually protrude into the cylinder.

We have a user on here, by the name of Mark, that has done quite a bit of mixing and matching of 2.0/2.3 components. Unfortunately, I can't remember his username. Hopefully he'll see this and post some of his findings.

Edit:
Found Mark <--clicky

Again, if you have a suggestion for changing/improving the sticky feel free to post it. It's been a while since I've reviewed it, I can probably add more.

 

[briansz]

Don't forget about the lack of a fuel pump hole on a lot of the FI blocks. I'm not well versed in the 2.0. But If you don't have an electric pump now, chances are you will after installing that block. My '87 2.3t has the hole covered with a blockoff plate. My '88 2.3 n/a block doesn't even have the hole for the mechanical fuel pump cam. I guess it could be created, but more work than I care to do.....

Brian

 

[Dave R]

My '88 2.3 n/a block doesn't even have the hole for the mechanical fuel pump cam. I guess it could be created, but more work than I care to do.....

It's not difficult, you just have to drill/punch a hole in the block. The metal is extremely thin in that area. Some of the blocks have the pump mounting bolt holes tapped some didn't, never could find any rhyme or reason to it.

 

[briansz]

Hmm, interesting. My 88 EFI bottom end (in the truck now) has the two tapped holes, just no hole in the block for the mechanical pump arm. In a dozen or so 2.3's, I've seen them all different ways too. Guess it would not be hard to create a hole using the gasket as a pattern, I am just getting lazy in my old age (mid 30's)!

Brian

 

[Dave R]

I am just getting lazy in my old age (mid 30's)!

Wait a few more years and then start complaining. I keep telling my wife that I don't want to sit around and watch TV with her since I only have X number of years left to get my projects done before I die, I have no time to waste.

For some odd reason she doesn't take that real well. I'm guessing, no sense of humour.

 

[Mark_88]

Hmmm, thought I heard my name mentioned...

I used the 89 Mustang head on my 2.3 short block...but I had used the same head on the 2.0 and it worked well...when I went with the 2.3 (FI) I had to add an electronic fuel pump with the carb.

I did not go with the FI as of yet simply because of the extra feedback line and, of course, the wiring and all the other items under the hood. For the extra 10 or 15 hp that it gives and the added fuel economy it is still a serious consideration for me.

Also used the 93 shorty header but you will need to reroute the EGR pipe to work with that manifold. It is a lighter and more efficient exhaust than the 2.0. If you're going FI then you can use the old exhaust manifold.

Also added a carb/intake from a 78 mustang (2 bbl) that worked out way better than the 2.0 setup...

Anything specific I might be able to help with let me know...but the above is pretty much the engine I have now...the 78 mustang intake is a good match for the oval port heads...

 

[Mark_88]

Wait a few more years and then start complaining. I keep telling my wife that I don't want to sit around and watch TV with her since I only have X number of years left to get my projects done before I die, I have no time to waste.

For some odd reason she doesn't take that real well. I'm guessing, no sense of humour.

Good to see you got married...last time I read she was just your fiancé...looks like you've settled into somewhat of a 'comfortable' situation...

Congrats, btw...

 

[Dave R]

Thanks Mark.

Marriage has it's good days and bad, but overall I think it was worth it.

 

[Mark_88]

Yes, I'm sure it is after all...never been there and not really sure I'd take that step...been single longer than I've owned my Ranger...