128 Guests, 2 Users
Wittsend, The Whistler

Author Topic: question about 2.3 blocks.  (Read 1306 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline David Lee

  • Pinto Member
  • **
  • Posts: 13
  • FeedBack: +6/-0
  • Another Pinto Driver

  • Total Badges: 1
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter
question about 2.3 blocks.
« on: January 20, 2018, 02:18:45 AM »
what 2.3 blocks are compatible with the blocks used in pintos. from what year to what year

Thanks

Online Wittsend

  • Pinto Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2038
  • FeedBack: +239/-0

  • Total Badges: 8
    Badges: (View All)
    Tenth year Anniversary Mobile User Topic Starter Poll Voter 1000 Posts Linux User Windows User Fifth year Anniversary
Re: question about 2.3 blocks.
« Reply #1 on: January 20, 2018, 12:27:05 PM »
I'm no expert but I believe the blocks are all rather similar as it regards motor mounts, trans pattern etc.. The turbo blocks are the same with the exception for having an oil drainback hole tapped in. The area I would be looking to for a difference is the when they went away from a distributor to a different ignition triggering/remote coil method. Those block might not allow a distributor to be used.

Sorry I can't add more the only 2.3 I've dealt with is the one from my '88 Turbo Coupe. Hopefully others will chime in.

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: question about 2.3 blocks.
« Reply #2 on: January 20, 2018, 12:52:57 PM »
Go to   http://www.4m.net/archive/index.php/f-24.html   for more 2.3L information than you'll ever need on this earth.    Also try http://www.4m.net   for the 2.3L racing web site. Look under mini stock. ENJOY.
Its better to be a has-been, than a never was.

Offline 65ShelbyClone

  • Pinto Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 671
  • FeedBack: +28/-0

  • Total Badges: 7
    Badges: (View All)
    Fifth year Anniversary Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Mobile User Linux User Windows User
Re: question about 2.3 blocks.
« Reply #3 on: May 04, 2018, 11:14:09 AM »
Last I looked, the crowd at 4m was still utterly convinced that an early roller cam and 1.8 ratio followers would yield a cheap hipo cam setup. They're also racers and racers don't give out good information that the competition can use. So yeah, I'd be telling everyone to put a Ranger cam in their 14:1 race engine too.

what 2.3 blocks are compatible with the blocks used in pintos. from what year to what year.

For the engine block by itself, '74-'87.
'72 Runabout - 2.3T, T5, MegaSquirt-II, 8", 5-lugs, big brakes.
'68 Mustang - Built roller 302, Toploader, 9", etc.

Online Wittsend

  • Pinto Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2038
  • FeedBack: +239/-0

  • Total Badges: 8
    Badges: (View All)
    Tenth year Anniversary Mobile User Topic Starter Poll Voter 1000 Posts Linux User Windows User Fifth year Anniversary
Re: question about 2.3 blocks.
« Reply #4 on: May 05, 2018, 01:40:16 PM »
Yes, the Ranger roller rocker debate rages on.  We discussed it here in depth a while back.  My conclusion is this:

1. The valve stem, cam and lifter (pivot point) are all in the same location with either rocker. So, the only thing that gets changed is the location of the roller.

2. IF..., we can assume the the roller in the earlier design has the roller centered over the centerline of the cam then a rocker with a greater ratio HAS to have its roller offset from directly below the cam and produce less lift for he same given cam.  To better illustrate if the early design had peak lift with the cam nose at 6 O'Clock the offset roller would encounter the the cam nose peak at say..., 4 or 5 O'Clock and, not move the valve as far.

3. Therefore,  I'd assume it is like a dog chasing its tail. Yes, a greater ratio rocker should produce more lift IF the cam was producing full lift at the 6 O'Clock position. But since it is not it is doubtful the ratio difference compensates.

I would be curious to know WHY Ford chose to make the changes. Again, assuming the early roller rocker was centered over the cam centerline I'd think moving the roller would induce more side load.

Offline 65ShelbyClone

  • Pinto Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 671
  • FeedBack: +28/-0

  • Total Badges: 7
    Badges: (View All)
    Fifth year Anniversary Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Mobile User Linux User Windows User
Re: question about 2.3 blocks.
« Reply #5 on: May 11, 2018, 08:46:51 PM »
The valve stem, cam and lifter (pivot point) are all in the same location with either rocker. So, the only thing that gets changed is the location of the roller.

That's just it. Slider followers have a variable ratio because the contact point moves across the follower pad. Rollers technically have a constant ratio because the angle of contact always goes through the center of the roller's axle. The angle of force varies, but the point where it transfers motion to the follower does not.
'72 Runabout - 2.3T, T5, MegaSquirt-II, 8", 5-lugs, big brakes.
'68 Mustang - Built roller 302, Toploader, 9", etc.