are there any performance differences between a 2.3 from a 75 pinto and a 2.3 from a 75 mustang 2?
None that I'm aware of, same engine put in different cars.
Since you're a Demo guy in Iowa, would you have any spare Pinto parts that you would sell?
i do but basically front suspension and i'm not sure how straight it is i know my spindles are still good, and the rack and pin, but they won't be available til next spring... i'm looking at buying a few more wagons so when i get them i'll let you know..
hey guys got another question for ya. what are the advantages of putting a roller head from a pre 93 ranger on a 78 2.3? a guy has said to do this for better performance. i was just curious how much if any...thanks guys..
Quote from: demoiowa89r on September 06, 2008, 10:43:39 PM
hey guys got another question for ya. what are the advantages of putting a roller head from a pre 93 ranger on a 78 2.3? a guy has said to do this for better performance. i was just curious how much if any...thanks guys..
Was the SELLER of that item(S) telling you it was a "performance upgrade"?
Neither the head or the factory roller cam for the 2.3 are "performance parts", however the cam does reduce friction. This reduction in friction is not a driver noticeable thing, but it might be detected on a track or dyno.
The best 'gain' you get from the roller is significantly reduced likelyhood of the cam failing.
You don't need the head as the cam with fit the Pinto 2.3 head.
Bill
That rocker roller head is higher performance and you will have a lot of fun with intake because those are larger `D' port. I use the large 2 bore carb and fabricate my own intake man.. Fred :)
will the older intake fit on that head. how do you get a 2bbl rochester to fit on the intake? is there a certain adapter i would have to get?
A rodchester? A 1 in spacer and the 350 cfm 2300 holly bolts rite on.
oooic. will 2300 holley fit on and efi intake? also are there any other things i would have to do to make the head fit on the block?
That would be a ton of work.It bolts rite on the carb manifold though.The pattern for the EGR plate is the same as the carb base.You just need a one in spacer for a plenum top,Bout it.
Doc.
thanks for the help.. i'm building a new derby engine over the winter and i want a little bit better engine. the one i have now doesn't have the power i need and loses a ton when it gets hot... i hope this stuff helps it out..
Quote from: Fred Morgan on September 07, 2008, 01:46:02 PM
That rocker roller head is higher performance and you will have a lot of fun with intake because those are larger `D' port. I use the large 2 bore carb and fabricate my own intake man.. Fred :)
None of the 3 "Ranger" heads that I pulled the roller cams out of were "D" ports. IIRC: Even the earlier "Ranger" head was a round port.
One more time:
Quote from: 77turbopinto on September 07, 2008, 08:18:38 AM
.....Neither the head or the factory roller cam for the 2.3 are "performance parts".....
Quote from: demoiowa89r on September 08, 2008, 12:45:31 AM
will the older intake fit on that head. how do you get a 2bbl rochester to fit on the intake? is there a certain adapter i would have to get?
The "roller head" is an 8 plug head and has its own intake bolt pattern so a stock Pinto intake will not 'direct-bolt' to it.
Quote from: earthquake on September 08, 2008, 01:53:47 AM
A rodchester? A 1 in spacer and the 350 cfm 2300 holly bolts rite on.
Earthquake is talking about the stock Pinto intake, not any EFI one.
Quote from: demoiowa89r on September 08, 2008, 01:56:17 AM
oooic. will 2300 holley fit on and efi intake? also are there any other things i would have to do to make the head fit on the block?
Not the EFI intake. The head will bolt right to the block; no problem. Unless you do lots of modifications, you will not be able to use any other intake or accessory brackets except those made for the 8 plug head.
Quote from: earthquake on September 08, 2008, 02:07:59 AM
That would be a ton of work.It bolts rite on the carb manifold though.The pattern for the EGR plate is the same as the carb base.You just need a one in spacer for a plenum top,Bout it.
Doc.
Yes, swapping manifolds would be work. Again, as he mentioned about "bolts rite on", Earthquake is talking about the stock 2.3 Pinto intake, not any EFI one.
Bill
89 and older are the round port. 8 plug head 90 + D port. Use the ex. side plugs with 74 2.3 mustang dist. with points. Fred
Quote from: Fred Morgan on September 08, 2008, 09:57:17 AM
89 and older are the round port. 8 plug head 90 + D port. Use the ex. side plugs with 74 2.3 mustang dist. with points. Fred
86 to 88 are round port, the 8 plug heads have their own port shape, not round, not oval, and not 'D' shaped.
BTW: You claim the "roller head is higher performance"; Why??
Bill
Bill a little larger intake. I dont know if valves are diferent. But I do know from driving stock 2.3 74 and driving the 71 with 94 ranger + 5spd. there is big aceleration diference and top speed. Fred :)
Then there were other issues with the stock head/cam.
I choose and run the early heads due to the oval port.
I like the ranger cam because it is a roller and shouldnt wipe a lobe.
The roller head is a dual plug and the stock pinto intake isnt compatible with that head.
If you look at the specs on the stock roller cam... it is actually a very mild cam.
It makes decent lower end power but runs out of steam up top.
Jim
Quote from: Fred Morgan on September 08, 2008, 02:43:59 PM
Bill a little larger intake. I dont know if valves are diferent. But I do know from driving stock 2.3 74 and driving the 71 with 94 ranger + 5spd. there is big aceleration diference and top speed. Fred :)
What tranny did the 74 have (A/T or M/T, if the latter: what gears)? What rear axle gears did each have? These things will make a big difference, maybe more than what an intake alone would do. Valves are the same. Also, IIRC: There is better than a 300lb difference between the two cars, the 71 being the lighter.
Bill
I've learned From my own experience trying to run a carb on an 8 plug head that a pinto intake will not fit onto the head at all.
The intake runners will come out at the spark plug holes. You could do what I did and make a metal plate to cover the plug holes but even then I had to drill and tap 4 holes to hold the intake on because NONE of the 8 plug intake bolt holes line up with an older intake. the intake is only held with 4 bolts (maybe you can come up with a better design).
its just not worth the time. For starters the #1 and 4 cylinders will only have about a half inch opening for air flow (unless you port the hell out of it). My car runs but won't idle because It leaks like crazy.
Your better off getting a D port 4 plug head. Or doing what Fred did and make your own intake. (I don't have the skill myself)
The Head Fred is referring to is has the Heart shaped combustion chambers and is much more efficient than the old oval and none fuel injection D Port heads, even when your not using the extra set of spark plugs...
the Early D port head is better for low end flow due to the reduce port area and the Flat base reduces Fuel from puddling in the ports. So in day to day driving the D port will out perform the old Oval port will out flow the modern heads at WOT.
I do like the Intake Fred has worked up. I haven't see enough of that!
The 2.3L head is a wimp on the Exhaust side even with port work and over sized valves we had seen more damage done than gains. But for all the 2.3L heads you can cut the valve guide back in the pocket 1/2 a inch to open up the exhaust port.
And idea we took from the RHO sold in the early 90's.
FrankBoss
Go to the last pages of the online "Racer Walsh" catalog and read all about the different heads and intakes made for 2300's.
I had the 94 ranger eng. in a 73 runabout that had 1.6 + 4spd. after that 1 crashed I instaled in 71 that had a 1.6 + 4spd. after that 1 crashed, it is sitting on floor waiting for me to make a 78 hatch look like a 73 hatch. Fred :accident: hate that when that happens
Quote from: Fred Morgan on September 08, 2008, 06:11:31 PM
I had the 94 ranger eng. in a 73 runabout that had 1.6 + 4spd. after that 1 crashed I instaled in 71 that had a 1.6 + 4spd. after that 1 crashed, it is sitting on floor waiting for me to make a 78 hatch look like a 73 hatch. Fred :accident: hate that when that happens
So your telling me you don't know what the rear axle gears were between the cars?
Bill
Thats right did not know and did not care. Fred :)
Quote from: Fred Morgan on September 08, 2008, 07:35:33 PM
Thats right did not know and did not care. Fred :)
Am I to understand that you were giving advice on that head being a 'performance part' when you don't know the details about the cars you put it in?? Good way to waste other peoples time and money.
IMHO: The perfomance gains you felt were
not due to the head you used, as the 8 plug head is well known for being one of the worst flowing ones (stock). Based on what you stated, your 'gains' were most likely due to different gearing in the tranny and/or rear axle, or the engine being in better condition.
Bill
OK boys Play Nice...
FrankBoss
Quote from: FCANON on September 08, 2008, 08:15:41 PM
OK boys Play Nice...
FrankBoss
From you??
Fine, from now on when I see miss-information given I will keep to myself and let other members suffer.
Bill
Any time I can help....:)
Yes From me...
FrankBoss
When we are being told the the Ranger roller is not a performance upgrade, are we comparing this to a stock "Pinto" cam or the higher lift, then the Pinto, Turbo Coupe cam??? I do read most of the comparisons are done with the TC but never with the older low lift Pinto.
Quote from: 77turbopinto on September 08, 2008, 08:12:43 PM
Am I to understand that you were giving advice on that head being a 'performance part' when you don't know the details about the cars you put it in?? Good way to waste other peoples time and money.
IMHO: The perfomance gains you felt were not due to the head you used, as the 8 plug head is well known for being one of the worst flowing ones (stock). Based on what you stated, your 'gains' were most likely due to different gearing in the tranny and/or rear axle, or the engine being in better condition.
Bill
Quote from Boport (turboford.net)
Head #12 Used from 19??-?? in the Ford Ranger. Referred to as the "Late" Dual plug head, Ford's last shot at a cast iron 8 valve 4 cylinder head to keep up with the high technology coming out of Japan. It was similar in design to the above dual plug head, however the intake ports and combustion chambers were redesigned once again slightly. The intake and exhaust valve stem size was decreased to 7mm for a lighter valvetrain mass. The spring and retainer size was decreased as well for the same purpose. This head also had a multi-angle valve job that was done fairly well IMO.. This combination netted the best factory airflow numbers of all the 2.3 heads I have tested, however the potential of a true high performance head is very limited in my opinion and the older designs of the head have much more power potential given the same amount of modification. unquote
Sounds like there is a stock vs. modified comparison that can be made here.
I would say that Boport should know a thing or 2 about 2.3 heads.
Quote from: CHEAPRACER on September 08, 2008, 11:15:12 PM
Quote from Boport (turboford.net)
Head #12 Used from 19??-?? in the Ford Ranger. Referred to as the "Late" Dual plug head, Ford's last shot at a cast iron 8 valve 4 cylinder head to keep up with the high technology coming out of Japan. It was similar in design to the above dual plug head, however the intake ports and combustion chambers were redesigned once again slightly. The intake and exhaust valve stem size was decreased to 7mm for a lighter valvetrain mass. The spring and retainer size was decreased as well for the same purpose. This head also had a multi-angle valve job that was done fairly well IMO.. This combination netted the best factory airflow numbers of all the 2.3 heads I have tested, however the potential of a true high performance head is very limited in my opinion and the older designs of the head have much more power potential given the same amount of modification. unquote
Sounds like there is a stock vs. modified comparison that can be made here.
Great quote from Bo, BUT what you posted was him talking about the 1995 head (the year they went to 7mm), and as I recall:
Quote from: Fred Morgan on September 08, 2008, 06:11:31 PM
I had the 94 ranger eng. in a 73 runabout that had 1.6 + 4spd. after that 1 crashed I instaled in 71 that had a 1.6 + 4spd. after that 1 crashed, it is sitting on floor waiting for me to make a 78 hatch look like a 73 hatch. Fred :accident: hate that when that happens
Fred was using the 1994.
I still sincerely DOUBT that anyone swapping to that head, and USEING LITTLE OR NO OTHER modifications to the engine will FEEL anything different. It might show up on a track or dyno as being 'better', but for whats involved in making it work for a carb. set-up, it would be better for someone looking for "performance" to spend the time and effort elsewhere.
I also have information from other engine people that have different opinions on what 2.3 head to use fully stock and what ones to use if they are to be modified, and that none of them were all that great to start with (sort of a 'what skunk smells the least' kind of a thing).
To make a blanket statement about a part being a "performance" one and NOT knowing why it is, or caring about those details is not very helpful. There is no doubt in my mind that Fred felt more power in the car(s) that he used that engine in, but to say the head did any part of that with ALL the other things that could have been factors and were different is irresponsible.
Bill
One thing to keep in mind when using the dual plug head on a carbed application.
None of your induction parts are going to bolt onto it.
So... if you really want to use it, if or if it doesnt make more power not being touched on here, you will need a custom intake manifold.
Making a proper carbed intake is more than going "here is some pipe and here is the carb... TADA!!!
Its a lot harder to make a good carb intake than it is to make an EFI intake that works.
You have to look at fuel distribution, fuel suspension, and port velocities.
Do it wrong and you have fuel puddling, was rich cyls, way lean cyls, and possibly a blown engine.
So in the end the "cheap performance upgrade"... and the early twin plug heads are not... ends up costing a LOT more for it to work properly, than MANY other avenues that are proven to work well.
And as a side note... if you use the dual plug head in an EFI application you have work to do also... because the intake manifold was designed to make good tq and hp up to around 4500 rpm.
Nice for a pick up truck... not so much if you want performance.
Jim
On another note guys, he wants to build this engine for a derby car. You don't really want a killer cam and an engine that will turn 9 grand unless you run alcohol. For gas you need a stock or near stock cam and low compression so it will restart when the temp is pegged and you can hear the pistons sliding up and down the bores!! I think someone was trying to pawn off a roller by telling him it was bolt on performance. 'Taint so.
Does Performance = High RPM? Yes No ..not really!!!
I no where you guys are coming from on the post but to use the word in general you need to describe the driving habits and the goal of the user... then you can have a direction of performance needs...EX:A daily driver that needs performance doesn't need to sling 9k to have performance...
Just trying to make the dialog productive for new people that might not be in the know.
With out being a tool...
FrankBoss
whoa.. sorry about starting a fight with my question. but you guys answered my question and then some. from what i take it will give a little bit on the bottom end which im looking for and the roller cam with give it a little bit more durability.. thats kinda what i'm looking for.now is there anything that i can do to help reduce the power loss when it get hot.. i'm talking about 215-250.
Cooling the oil is a very big step...If you can find a old ford truck..some of the 400M's had Oil bypass behind the filter for a oil cooler. I think it was a towing package deal...
any ways it will go right on the 2.3 Lima and uses the FL1A oil filter.
Take the filter off with a LARGE wrench remove the center bolt and keep the bolt the bypass housing will come off ...then you can put a oil cooler on your 2.3 cheap...
Doing the same on my Daughters pinto...
No Need for apologies..welcome to the Pinto Family
FrankBoss
That same cooler is found on the 2.3 turbo.
I may have 1 or 2 laying around.
I always take them off and run a seperate stand alone air/oil cooler.
It works better and I dont have 250 degree oil heating up my 180 degree coolant ;)
I will see if I can find one of them if you are interested.
Jim
Not to Disagree with you but what I have on my three Turbo motors are water cooled oil adapters... the one off the 400M is a stand alone oil only cooler...
If yours is different Jim please share what car you got them off of...Lots of Member can use these on Tow vehicles to race cars..as long as you have room and a FL1A filter.
My TC motors are 88 and 87. and I have a Merkur motor Unknown vintage other than it was a XR4TI...
Keep On Rockin
FrankBoss
The ones I am talking about are the ones that sandwich between the oil filter and the block... with coolant lines going to them.
There is not really enough surface area on them to effectively make much difference in oil temp, but there is enough to make a difference in coolant temp. Oil retains heat a LOT better than water/coolant.
On my turbo engines I remove the oil/water cooler, and I also remove the water lines to the turbocharger.
The water/oil cooler makes more strain on the cooling system, and the water lines to the turbo do next to nothing.
I run my engines a bit harder than most and have experienced no loss in durability, and the engines are easier to make run cool.
For towing or a performance application, an air/oil cooler works amazingly well.
Jim
i would run one, but some derbies either dont allow them or they have to be in a practically bullet proof box....if i ran it in the engine capartment i'm affraid it would get smashed and might risk catching on fire... would putting in a extra1/2 quart to a full quart help.. i know some guys do it to there sbc's but they are built to the hilt. also would thicker oil work?
Honestly... I would run the thickest cheap synth oil I could find at the stock level.
Jim
thanks everyone for your help. i'm lost when it comes to ford's..