Welcome Visitor! Please take a few seconds and 2.0 engine is result of tax laws in certain countries. By only changing the cores on block/pistons & rings, Ford avoided equivalent of gas guzzler tax while using the same engine manufacturing line.
2.3 OHC dates from '74; the 2.3 HSV is '84. Making me misty about all the 2.3s I turned into boat anchors, replacing them with v-8s in Mustang IIs in my misspent youth.
Historically, I would have swore that long stroke made more torque. Then Hot-Rod did the test; and proved that it was the heads/cam that made the difference. If everything else says same; all that matters is the cubic inches. Only replacements for displacement are boost and/or cubic $$$
Have to agree, for an inline, OHC makes most sense assuming you have height for a slightly taller engine (and Ranger does). For a "v" engine, cost of 2 cam and cam drive can make argument for OHV.
So, to answer OP question - most parts should swap, but... Given Ford's propensity to make subtle changes; your combination might not work...
Don
2.3 OHC dates from '74; the 2.3 HSV is '84. Making me misty about all the 2.3s I turned into boat anchors, replacing them with v-8s in Mustang IIs in my misspent youth.
Historically, I would have swore that long stroke made more torque. Then Hot-Rod did the test; and proved that it was the heads/cam that made the difference. If everything else says same; all that matters is the cubic inches. Only replacements for displacement are boost and/or cubic $$$
Have to agree, for an inline, OHC makes most sense assuming you have height for a slightly taller engine (and Ranger does). For a "v" engine, cost of 2 cam and cam drive can make argument for OHV.
So, to answer OP question - most parts should swap, but... Given Ford's propensity to make subtle changes; your combination might not work...
Don
