Auto Zone has them for your 2.0 and 2.3 engine. Mail order only. Part Number 84000. Fits both 2.0 and 2.3 engines.
Thanks for the parts availability post. Just a clarification from looking at the Autozone web site. The 2.0 engine that the 84000 tensioner fits is the Ranger Lima engine made in USA and not the Pinto 2.0 engine which was made in Germany.
I installed this timing belt tensioner on an 86 T bird 2.3 engine that is a factory Turbo engine. That engine is installed in my '72 Pinto.. Looks and works like all the others in the 2.0 and 2.3 engines. Complete ready to install right out of the box.. UPC number is 0 33687 45527 7.. Jerry...
The point Old Kayaker is making is that, yes the tension purchased fits the 2.3 (Lima engine) it was installled in, and it also fits the 2.0 (Lima engine) that was used in the Ranger. But it is not the correct tensioner for the German made 2.0 (EAO engine) that came in the 1971-1974 Pinto. That 2.0 is a different engine.
Because the statements were made: "Looks and works like all others in the 2.0 and 2.3 engines" "Autozone has them for your 2.0 and 2.3 engine." "Fits both 2.0 and 2.3 engines.", It might have cause people to believe that stated tensioner (for the Lima engine) would work in the Pinto (EAO) 2.0 engine but in fact it won't. It is a common mistake and frankly what is out there on the internet often implies the Pinto 2.3 is just a larger version of the Pinto 2.0 engine which is not accurate.
this is the part number needed for the pinto 2.0 from auto zone #9010. I got one and it fits and works great on my 2.0.
oh, for got that they are $39.99 but worth every penny!!
Even though we call them tensioners (they do that) because the tension becomes fixed they are basically idlers. And in that regard it is an adaptable part with a little fabrication. So, if the part ever becomes unobtanium I'm sure it came be replicated.
Timing belt side note: My son inherited his grandmother's 1996 Mazda Protege. The good news it only had 40,000 miles. The bad news, the timing belt was 23 years old. Surprisingly the belt was still supple and was void of any cracks. Prudence still required we replace it. Even though the new Gates belt we received from Rock Auto came in a box the packaging seemed rather old. I inquired of Gates and they said the code indicated it was 12 years old. We returned it and they shipped us another..., without a box. In the end we decided that an unused 12 year old belt was better than a 23 year old belt with 40,000 miles.
I mention this because I wonder as the years go by if the timing belts available for older engines will only be NOS (New Old Stock) and as aged rubber parts, questionable.
Quote from: vegasjerry921 on December 08, 2018, 10:14:42 AM
Auto Zone has them for your 2.0 and 2.3 engine. Mail order only. Part Number 84000. Fits both 2.0 and 2.3 engines.
I have used both Auto Zone part numbers and they are the same part. Can't tell them apart. I installed one (9010)in my '72 Pinto 2.0 German engine and in an '86 T Bird 2.3 Turbo engine. (#84000). Jerry..
The 2.0 tensioner and the 2.3 tensioner look very similar. And they may be interchangeable (great if it works properly). However I do notice a few differences:
The 2.0 tensioner appears to have a longer adjustment slot and the spring tension pin looks roughly centered between bolt hole and the slot.
The 2.3 tensioner appears to have a smaller slot and the spring tension pin is offset to the right of the bolt hole.
There is also some difference in the edge of the metal near the bolt hole (straight on the 2.0 and inward radiused on the 2.3). The slot size may not be an issue (and a file can elongate it) but the tension pin location seems like a potential problem (perhaps it can be relocated). The 2.0 image is referenced from Burton and the 2.3 from Rock Auto.
Quote from: pintoman1 on December 09, 2018, 07:12:54 PM
this is the part number needed for the pinto 2.0 from auto zone #9010. I got one and it fits and works great on my 2.0.
This is correct, DURALAST #9010 for 2000cc "Pinto" European design EAC engine used up to early 1974. The later 2.3 and it's 2.0 variant are different and the idler does not cross over. When doing a search you will often get the 2.3 version which will not work. I hope this helps someone trying to figure this out.