21 Guests, 2 Users
SpaceCowboy1979, 72DutchWagon

Author Topic: 2.3-2.0 compatibility question  (Read 7113 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ddewey78

  • Pinto Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
  • FeedBack: +0/-0
  • Another Pinto Driver

  • Total Badges: 2
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Fifth year Anniversary
2.3-2.0 compatibility question
« on: June 05, 2014, 12:11:58 AM »
First off, sorry for all the newbe questions, and thanks for the answers!! you guys rock! So, i think I read that a 2.0 intake will bolt on to a 2.3 block? is that true? also, does anyone make a 2.3 manifold that a 4bbl holley will bolt onto? THX!!

Offline 65ShelbyClone

  • Pinto Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 673
  • FeedBack: +139/-0

  • Total Badges: 7
    Badges: (View All)
    Fifth year Anniversary Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Mobile User Linux User Windows User
Re: 2.3-2.0 compatibility question
« Reply #1 on: June 05, 2014, 02:09:12 AM »
Offenhauser 4v intakes can still be found. Esslinger still offers a 2v intake. Although I hate to suggest it, the "square" '86+ EFI intakes can be used with some sort of adapter plate.
'72 Runabout - 2.3T, T5, MegaSquirt-II, 8", 5-lugs, big brakes.
'68 Mustang - Built roller 302, Toploader, 9", etc.

Offline amc49

  • PCCA VIP
  • Pinto Master
  • ***
  • Posts: 1256
  • FeedBack: +242/-1
  • Another Pinto Driver

  • Total Badges: 4
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Poll Voter Windows User 1000 Posts
Re: 2.3-2.0 compatibility question
« Reply #2 on: June 05, 2014, 08:08:51 AM »
The Ford OEM 2.0 manifold to 2.3 head requires an adapter plate which is no longer available.

Offline 74 PintoWagon

  • Pinto Sr. Master
  • ******
  • Posts: 3105
  • FeedBack: +540/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Another Pinto Driver

  • Total Badges: 5
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Windows User 1000 Posts
Re: 2.3-2.0 compatibility question
« Reply #3 on: June 05, 2014, 09:02:33 AM »
Although I hate to suggest it, the "square" '86+ EFI intakes can be used with some sort of adapter plate.
What is wrong with the lower EFI intake???, all I hear is good stuff about them??..
Art
65 Falcon 2DR 200 IL6 with C4.

Offline dick1172762

  • Vintage Pinto Racer
  • PCCA Management Board
  • Pinto Sr. Master
  • ******
  • Posts: 2623
  • FeedBack: +362/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a llama!

  • Total Badges: 7
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Windows User 1000 Posts Tenth year Anniversary Fifth year Anniversary
Re: 2.3-2.0 compatibility question
« Reply #4 on: June 05, 2014, 09:26:41 AM »
What is wrong with the lower EFI intake???, all I hear is good stuff about them??..
    I SECOND THAT!
Its better to be a has-been, than a never was.

Offline 65ShelbyClone

  • Pinto Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 673
  • FeedBack: +139/-0

  • Total Badges: 7
    Badges: (View All)
    Fifth year Anniversary Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Mobile User Linux User Windows User
Re: 2.3-2.0 compatibility question
« Reply #5 on: June 05, 2014, 10:58:51 AM »
Because it's the most work and most of the 4v adaptations I have seen are shoddily done. Bolt-on 2v adapter plates are readily available, but not 4v, so it usually involves scabbing a junky aluminum carb spacer onto the lower intake and knife-edging the port entries, which is the wrong kind of leading edge to use for the kind of flow going through an intake manifold.
'72 Runabout - 2.3T, T5, MegaSquirt-II, 8", 5-lugs, big brakes.
'68 Mustang - Built roller 302, Toploader, 9", etc.

Offline 74 PintoWagon

  • Pinto Sr. Master
  • ******
  • Posts: 3105
  • FeedBack: +540/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Another Pinto Driver

  • Total Badges: 5
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Windows User 1000 Posts
Re: 2.3-2.0 compatibility question
« Reply #6 on: June 05, 2014, 12:47:40 PM »
Why would you try and adapt a junky spacer to the intake??, you make one to match properly..
Art
65 Falcon 2DR 200 IL6 with C4.

Offline 65ShelbyClone

  • Pinto Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 673
  • FeedBack: +139/-0

  • Total Badges: 7
    Badges: (View All)
    Fifth year Anniversary Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Mobile User Linux User Windows User
Re: 2.3-2.0 compatibility question
« Reply #7 on: June 05, 2014, 03:34:00 PM »
I wouldn't, but lots of people seem to think it's acceptable. Those people also do this:

http://honda-tech.com/showthread.php?t=2208405&page=3

http://forums.club4ag.com/zerothread?id=20412

Just ignore the conversation and look at the pictures.
'72 Runabout - 2.3T, T5, MegaSquirt-II, 8", 5-lugs, big brakes.
'68 Mustang - Built roller 302, Toploader, 9", etc.

Offline amc49

  • PCCA VIP
  • Pinto Master
  • ***
  • Posts: 1256
  • FeedBack: +242/-1
  • Another Pinto Driver

  • Total Badges: 4
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Poll Voter Windows User 1000 Posts
Re: 2.3-2.0 compatibility question
« Reply #8 on: June 05, 2014, 04:17:03 PM »
As Christopher Walken would say........... ...'Wowie wow, wow wow........... .........I never cease to be amazed at how defective the human gene pool can get.

Running exhaust inside the car??????

I too threw a 4 bbl. adapter up on top of an EFI lower and thirty seconds later it was no, non, no, no............ .......no. Kinda silly anyway, the engines just really can't use a 4 bbl., the 4 bbl. used is artificially super small so not really one anyway. These run better with 2 bbl. to me, even in race configuration. I think the Offy 4 bbl. app flat sucks myself and the cleanest one out there. The double split level just messes up the intake port more.

On the EFI, most want to cheap out on the spacer height and then you end up butchering the lower a lot more in compensation trying to create a plenum to only make manifold in effect flatter, then the outboard ports lose power from the instant sudden turn there with no time to do it. The manifold was designed to be dry not wet and why they turned port hard like that.

Offline 74 PintoWagon

  • Pinto Sr. Master
  • ******
  • Posts: 3105
  • FeedBack: +540/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Another Pinto Driver

  • Total Badges: 5
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Windows User 1000 Posts
Re: 2.3-2.0 compatibility question
« Reply #9 on: June 05, 2014, 05:37:27 PM »
I wouldn't, but lots of people seem to think it's acceptable. Those people also do this:

http://honda-tech.com/showthread.php?t=2208405&page=3

http://forums.club4ag.com/zerothread?id=20412

Just ignore the conversation and look at the pictures.
Ok gotcha, I've always maintained that some people shouldn't own tools let alone work on stuff.. ::) ::)
Art
65 Falcon 2DR 200 IL6 with C4.

Offline ddewey78

  • Pinto Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
  • FeedBack: +0/-0
  • Another Pinto Driver

  • Total Badges: 2
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Fifth year Anniversary
Re: 2.3-2.0 compatibility question
« Reply #10 on: June 06, 2014, 12:12:39 AM »
Damn, im a retard, I meant 2.0 head on a 2.3 block!! guess i oughta proof read a bit better! But the info on intakes is great. I have a 380 holley, thats why i was curious about the intake. And another silly question, whats 2v and 4v refer to? So you guys seem super knowledgeable, so hopefully you can tell me if the heads interchange, ive had a ton of work done, so that would be awesome if they do

Offline amc49

  • PCCA VIP
  • Pinto Master
  • ***
  • Posts: 1256
  • FeedBack: +242/-1
  • Another Pinto Driver

  • Total Badges: 4
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Poll Voter Windows User 1000 Posts
Re: 2.3-2.0 compatibility question
« Reply #11 on: June 06, 2014, 04:41:54 AM »
Not in my world they don't. I prefer the 4 cam towers to 3 any day. There are cam bearing durability issues.

2v or 4v is same as 2 bbl. or 4 bbl. Or 2 venturi or 2 barrel barb.


Offline dick1172762

  • Vintage Pinto Racer
  • PCCA Management Board
  • Pinto Sr. Master
  • ******
  • Posts: 2623
  • FeedBack: +362/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a llama!

  • Total Badges: 7
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Windows User 1000 Posts Tenth year Anniversary Fifth year Anniversary
Re: 2.3-2.0 compatibility question
« Reply #12 on: June 06, 2014, 10:53:17 AM »
The ONLY thing that will interchange between the 2.0 and the 2.3 engine is the oil filter! The RANGER 2.0 head will fit on the 2.3 block as the 2.0 (Ranger) and the 2.3 (Ranger) use the same block. The 2.0 (Ranger) has a smaller bore and all else is the same on the block. The 2.0 made across the pond is an entirely different motor from the 2.0 Ranger.
Its better to be a has-been, than a never was.

Offline 65ShelbyClone

  • Pinto Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 673
  • FeedBack: +139/-0

  • Total Badges: 7
    Badges: (View All)
    Fifth year Anniversary Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Mobile User Linux User Windows User
Re: 2.3-2.0 compatibility question
« Reply #13 on: June 06, 2014, 05:52:58 PM »
In addition, the "Pinto 2.0" as it is called both here and abroad is the 2.0 EAO platform. Very common in Europe and evolved into quite a racing platform due in large part to Cosworth.

The 2.3/2.5 and Ranger 2.0 is known as the "Lima" platform after its main manufacturing plant in Lima, Ohio. The only purpose-built DOHC heads for it were some protoypes that Ford's Special Vehicle Operations were developing for what would have been the '87 Mustang SVO. The plug was pulled on the entire operation and nothing ever came of it. SVO reemerged later as the Special Vehicles Team( SVT) that we know today, but high-performance factory Lima development died in '86. The '87 Thunderbird Turbo Coupe got some SVO-esque parts like the intercooler, more boost, more power, and a faster ECU, but even it only lasted through '88. Ironically, the turbo era of F1 racing also died at the end of '88.

Nothing is a direct interchange between the EAO and Lima designs, BTW.
'72 Runabout - 2.3T, T5, MegaSquirt-II, 8", 5-lugs, big brakes.
'68 Mustang - Built roller 302, Toploader, 9", etc.

Offline amc49

  • PCCA VIP
  • Pinto Master
  • ***
  • Posts: 1256
  • FeedBack: +242/-1
  • Another Pinto Driver

  • Total Badges: 4
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Poll Voter Windows User 1000 Posts
Re: 2.3-2.0 compatibility question
« Reply #14 on: June 07, 2014, 03:53:23 PM »
In looking at research on this I was rapidly coming to the same conclusion. Many say all parts interchange but they are confusing the Ranger 2.0 with the EAO.

I ran across a couple of referrals that stated at first the Lima design was to have made most all subsequent parts in 2.3 fit the EAO but 'tooling design and configuration differences' between Europe and the US prevented it.

I wonder what that meant?

Is the EAO motor metric fasteners or SAE?

I wonder if Ford US was trying to 'go their own way' there, and rebuffed the other design. Engineer group pride has stuffed way more than one design out there. Whoever came up with the wonky 2.3 head should be shot, prevailing US design at the time was much better than that. They were doing fine until they came to intake ports, like a drunk designed those. 4 totally different intake ports? A flow bench guy's nightmare.

The 2.0 EAO head no better, one of the flattest intake ports on earth, horrible.

Offline 65ShelbyClone

  • Pinto Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 673
  • FeedBack: +139/-0

  • Total Badges: 7
    Badges: (View All)
    Fifth year Anniversary Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Mobile User Linux User Windows User
Re: 2.3-2.0 compatibility question
« Reply #15 on: June 07, 2014, 07:59:51 PM »
Things could have gone in such a very different direction...

'72 Runabout - 2.3T, T5, MegaSquirt-II, 8", 5-lugs, big brakes.
'68 Mustang - Built roller 302, Toploader, 9", etc.

Offline amc49

  • PCCA VIP
  • Pinto Master
  • ***
  • Posts: 1256
  • FeedBack: +242/-1
  • Another Pinto Driver

  • Total Badges: 4
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Poll Voter Windows User 1000 Posts
Re: 2.3-2.0 compatibility question
« Reply #16 on: June 08, 2014, 10:17:34 PM »
Yeah, that would have been sweet......... ......

Offline russosborne

  • PCCA Charter Member
  • Pinto Master
  • *
  • Posts: 2351
  • FeedBack: +47/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Another Pinto Driver

  • Total Badges: 5
    Badges: (View All)
    Poll Voter Mobile User Topic Starter Signature 1000 Posts
Re: 2.3-2.0 compatibility question
« Reply #17 on: July 08, 2014, 01:55:54 AM »
Sorry to be late to the party, but since it was brought up here, and I have been asked about doing it, I have to ask.
What is the advantage to using the EFI intake over a regular carb intake?
I will be running a 2bbl carb, unless I get really rich and can afford a full EFI system.

Thanks,
Russ
In Glendale, Arizona

RIP Casey, Mallory, Abby, and Sadie. We miss you.

79 Pinto ESS fully caged fun car. In progress. 8inch 4.10 gears. 351C and a T5 waiting to go in.
74 Pinto Wagon.  To be or Not to be a Pinchero, that is the question.

Offline 65ShelbyClone

  • Pinto Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 673
  • FeedBack: +139/-0

  • Total Badges: 7
    Badges: (View All)
    Fifth year Anniversary Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Mobile User Linux User Windows User
Re: 2.3-2.0 compatibility question
« Reply #18 on: July 08, 2014, 11:09:12 AM »
What is the advantage to using the EFI intake over a regular carb intake?
I will be running a 2bbl carb, unless I get really rich and can afford a full EFI system.

They're easier to find and you could use it for an EFI conversion later. That's all I can think of.
'72 Runabout - 2.3T, T5, MegaSquirt-II, 8", 5-lugs, big brakes.
'68 Mustang - Built roller 302, Toploader, 9", etc.

Offline amc49

  • PCCA VIP
  • Pinto Master
  • ***
  • Posts: 1256
  • FeedBack: +242/-1
  • Another Pinto Driver

  • Total Badges: 4
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Poll Voter Windows User 1000 Posts
Re: 2.3-2.0 compatibility question
« Reply #19 on: July 08, 2014, 08:01:15 PM »
The EFI one flows more than the stock 2.3 which is a piece of junk. Not much difference on a dead stock motor though. But if you plan on any other carb than the stock Motorcraft or Holley 5200, the stock intake becomes the bottleneck as soon as you go to a bigger carb. The EFI one also lightyears ahead in even distribution to all cylinders. Problem is, most will put an adapter on it that is too low, (the one inch thick one) to clear hood, you need at least two inch thick there to not crowd the EFI one with more distribution troubles caused by carb too close to runner tops to distribute right. The EFI also needs a bit of port work done in the top to make it work even better, but easily done by those that do that stuff, why the dirt track guys love that intake.

A chunk of non bolt-on work but worth it once you start modding the motor. I ran a 2.0 intake with adapter plate on a stock 2.3 with a Hooker header and some light porting in the valve pockets, that engine easily ran away from a dead stocker. I think the EFI manifold would work even better properly sorted out, the 2.0 intake was not matched to 2.3 head port angle at all, yet still stomped the crap out of the stock intake which is THAT bad. The 2.3 suffers horribly from oddball length runners and even worse by cramped design and extremely hard right angle turns with no turning space to do them, engines hate that stuff. It flows maybe 20-30 cfm more than carb, once carb is modded then the intake manifold is the strangler there.

Offline jeremysdad

  • Pinto Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 405
  • FeedBack: +83/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Restoring a Daily Driver

  • Total Badges: 4
    Badges: (View All)
    Fifth year Anniversary Topic Starter Poll Voter Windows User
Re: 2.3-2.0 compatibility question
« Reply #20 on: July 22, 2014, 03:21:03 AM »
In looking at research on this I was rapidly coming to the same conclusion. Many say all parts interchange but they are confusing the Ranger 2.0 with the EAO.

I ran across a couple of referrals that stated at first the Lima design was to have made most all subsequent parts in 2.3 fit the EAO but 'tooling design and configuration differences' between Europe and the US prevented it.

I wonder what that meant?

Is the EAO motor metric fasteners or SAE?

I wonder if Ford US was trying to 'go their own way' there, and rebuffed the other design. Engineer group pride has stuffed way more than one design out there. Whoever came up with the wonky 2.3 head should be shot, prevailing US design at the time was much better than that. They were doing fine until they came to intake ports, like a drunk designed those. 4 totally different intake ports? A flow bench guy's nightmare.

The 2.0 EAO head no better, one of the flattest intake ports on earth, horrible.

EAO is ALL metric fasteners. I have nothing more to say, in the interest of remaining friends. :) lol

And yes, Ford had 2 2.0's...the EAO, and the Lima. I assume (probably wrong as usual, per the Old Lady lol), but the best my American brain can come up with is European Automotive Organization. Maybe like a Ford Mafia? lol

I will furthermore add that that stupid unwanted Lima 2.0 will misguide you on your search for parts!!! :)