Hello all. I am new to the Pinto scene. I am a hard core FoMoCo guy, but have had the more "traditional" muscle cars. I have acquired a 72 wagon with a 2.0 AT. The car barely made on the trailer under its own power. I got it home, checked firing order and then adjusted the valves. Now it runs "good," but still don't get out of it's own way. I struggles to get up to 60-65mph. Admittedly I did a rather quick valve adjustment, the carb probably needs some attention, as does timing. Realistically, what can I expect from the 2.0 power-wise? Reliability? Mileage?
My intentions are to install a turbocharger on the car. My question is- is the 2.0 worth doing this to. Or, should I look for a 2.3, or a Turbocoupe 2.3? I plan on keeping a 4popper in it for fuel mileage. I have sold my daily driver Honda so I can fly the blue oval again as a driver.
Any and all constructive input will be greatly appreciated
Thank you
Hello Redeless1,
Many things could be cAUSING the problems you have with the slo-poke 2.0.
Things to check.
1. remove the air-cleaner and have a buddy press the gas-pedal down to the floor.
Check down the carb with a flashlight and make sure
both barrels are "fully" opening.
The 2.0 is a real DOG untill you get that 2nd barrel open.
Try Mashing the pedal 1 time to see what you can get out of your engine.
The TURBO 2.0 would be a hard, as parts are scarce for these engines.
A -.030 head shave would be your best "STREET" performance upgrade.
BE SURE TO HAVE THE HEAD BOLTS SHORTENED!!!
A valve job should be done at this time.
A +.030 bore job &4new pistons would be the next step to making the HP you seek!!!
Simple things like New valve stem seals would also make a BIG difference, as oil contaminates the mixture.
I think everyone here knows that I prefer the 2.0 over the 2.3.
The 2.0 is a stout engine and will handle 400HP
Keep us posted on your progress!!!!
From Pintony
I obviously must do more homework on the carb. The idea of a 2bbl with 1bbl primary and 2ndbbl secondary is new to me. I now realize by the performance that the secondary is probably not working properly.
I must replace the water pump this weekend, and will be installing an electric fan to free up a little power. I also want an electronic ignition. My research shows the 2.0 and 2.3 distributor as the same in the "points years." It is my assumption that I can install a 2.3 dist and box- is this correct?
A .030 shave- does this adversely impact fuel economy? Need for premium fuel is likely. I find the prospect of doing performance modifications to a 4popper really interesting- it is new territory for me.
It is clear to me that the 2.0 is known for its performance potential- what with all the sanctioning bodies devoted to it and performance parts availability. I am just trying to find the simplest and most logical path to my vision for the car. As for the turbo- it would certainly be a custom job. I have a spare exhaust manifold that can be modified, a good used turbo, a Holley 2bbl, and a friend who is a fabricating wizard and turbo 5.0 Mustang drag racer (mid 8 second car.)
I just love the idea of a "mundane" looking Pinto wagon with a spooling up turbo spanking a V-8 car or some punks rice burning "not rod."
Sleepers rule! It takes more than a wing, a fart can muffler and a set of chrome rims to make a fast car.
Thanks for the advice!
72 Pinto 2 door wagon
71 Montego MX wagon/Cyclone wagon- 351C 4bbl, 4spd toploader, Detroit locker 9 w/3.89, buckets console, Cyclone dash and instrumentation, etc.
68 Cougar 351w 4spd 3.80 trac-lok, etc
89 Mustang, former Texas DPS, 5spd, 8.8 trac-lok, etc.
71 Torino GT 351C 4bbl
85 Crown Vic Georgia HP 351W 4bbl C-4, etc
I have checked the carb, the secondary is operating. Is there an adjustment to initiate it sooner- without taking the carb off? I am going to try another 2bbl to see if carb is the issue. Of course it depends if a Motorcraft 2bbl will bolt up, or any other "mainstream" carb.
The spark plugs were improperly gapped- about .010-.015 over, but still no power. I have valve stem seals coming, will add electric fan, and perform a more thorough valve adjustment. If that don't work I'll put it on the bottle until it grenades and put something else in it- ha.
Are these prone to cylinder head cracks? I have a constant, periodic "squeek" that I can't track down yet. Compression test tomorrow.
Maybe I am just expecting more from a vehicle that can't deliver. I haven't any other Pinto 2.0 to measure this against. My 93 2.2 Honda will walk all over this thing- what a drag.
This weekend will be my chance to really dig into this thing- I'll figure it out with some persistence and some guidance from this forum's knowledgeable.
Thanks
Welcome to the world of Pintos. I wouldn't try to get the secondary to open up sooner on the carb. It might actually run worse. The Pinto carb was licensed from Weber and therefore has a unique bolt pattern. A Holley or motorcraft will not fit on the stock manifold without an adapter.
As for the distributors the short version is the 2.3 will not got into the 2.0 without some machining of the dist shaft or the 2.0 block. I would suggest putting a Petronix electronic conversion in the stock dist, make sure the shaft bushings are not worn, use Bosch cap with the brass contacts and the cheapo black rotor. The Bosch rotor will not clear the Petronix.
From my experience 2.0 heads are pretty durable but if the motor overheats the head will crack on a valve seat. I don't run thermostats in any of my cars but I can get away with it living in SOCAL.
As far as which engine to use the 2.3 turbo makes more power, drives better, more parts availability, lots of people use them. But if you want something more nostalgic/vintage then the 2.0 turbo is the choice. There will be more fabrication, expense etc. The car won't run 10's or 11's but still be able to get into the 13's. That's not exactly a sled. Your friend that fabricates will be a great asset your project.
You've got a great list of Fords at the end of your post. I have a 71 Torino like yours I used to show before I got my 71 Pinto. And a 71 Motego wagon, what a totally cool car. Most people hate the 70 and 71 Cyclone "W" front end, I love em. That is a rare car. I don't recall ever seeing a 70 of 71 Montego wagon in 30+ years I've been into Fords.
Bob
I love the 70 71 Montego, Cyclone front end. You just don't see them, and I like the "obscure" car.
As for the distributor- I find it odd that there was this type of design change, as the points distributors are the same for a 2.0 and 2.3.
I want to try and keep the 2.0 in the car. As you said, the nostalgia factor is a nice factor. But in the end the naturally aspirated power(or lack of as the case currently is)will be the deciding factor. I will be exploring a grocery list of possible problems this weekend.
Thanks
You are right- distributor is different. Sorry to doubt, but I like to investigate. The parts site I was originally looking at has their part numbers wrong.
Hello Redeless1,
The .030 head shave will improve MPG!!
Many 2.0-2.3 builders will say .060 shavebut that requires better fuel.
From Pintony
Quote from: Pintony on April 27, 2007, 10:06:52 AM
Hello Redeless1,
The .030 head shave will improve MPG!!
Many 2.0-2.3 builders will say .060 shavebut that requires better fuel.
From Pintony
that's true about .060 and it knocks back the cam timing a bit too
I adulation the 70 71 Montego, Cyclone foreground end. Based aswell in my acquaintance 2.0 active are appealing abiding but if the motor overheats the arch will able on a valve seat.
_________________
Refrigerator filter (http://www.filter-outlet.com)