3 hours ago in News
We're at the St. Petersburg Grand Prix.
I'm sorry I started the thread.
Marjorie Suddard wrote: Why don't you both prove some maturity and consideration for others, stop posting on this thread, and make it clear that no bannage needs to happen here? Really. Just walk away. Margie
Seriously, don't make her build another patio with your sorry butts.
Yeah, now that she knows about earth augers and lime you better be careful.
Margie runs Bartertown.
that pic of the humongous or whatever is hilarious.
Being turbo, a 2.3T would have to drink premium, right?
Not really. Some of the cars got octane switches. SVOs did, and I think 87-88 Turbo Coupes did too. The switch would toggle between 2 different timing tables as well as alter the maximum boost level. In the 'regular' fuel setting, it allowed 'only' 10 psi (it's a 8.0:1 compression motor). When you'd flip the switch, it would allow up to 15 psi, I think.
There is also a knock sensor in the intake manifold, so if you had the switch on premium while running 87 octane, the sensor would hear the pinging and pull the timing.
If there had been laptops out when these cars came out, people would have had a field day tuning them. I have a good friend who's really good with the factory computers. He's found that there are ways to adjust the sensitivity of the knock sensor and adjust how much timing it takes out when activated. You can also adjust the boost curve in the computer, too.
The stock computer is pretty good, though you have to really learn it well to work with it. We've converted them to run Mass Air meters instead of the Vane air meters. We just got one running on 95 lb/hr injectors, which are 3 times the size of the factory injectors. We got my Pinto to put down 286 hp & 360 ft/lbs. with just a set of injectors, a good frontmount I/C and a little headwork. Stock cam, stock turbo, stock shortblock. That thing was a fun car alright.
MikeSVO wrote: If there had been laptops out when these cars came out, people would have had a field day tuning them.
Don't we have laptops today though?
There's a multitude of tuning options for the stock PCM's available today, that didn't exist in the past. Of course, there's also all the after-market PCM's, from Megasquirt up to the high dollar commercial brands, whatever your budget allows.
What's also a bonus with this engine is that is soldiered on in N/A form through 2001, providing "later generation" parts that bolt on. I'm currently running my turbo engine with the 2.5 "stroker" crank, DIS ignition, and the stock PCM from the '93 Mustang, which is MAF rather than VAM. Some people are using the OBD2 PCM which arrived in 1995 on the Ranger. All of this stuff is readily available for pennies on the dollar at the junkyard, as the donors are in that 10-20 year-old range - the sweet spot for car retirement.
This is a question for the ford experts. What is the difference between the 1971 pinto 2.0 engine and the pinto 2.3? Is it better, not as good, or about the same. I see parts for both on Racer Walsh,etc..
ltdcsc wrote: This is a question for the ford experts. What is the difference between the 1971 pinto 2.0 engine and the pinto 2.3? Is it better, not as good, or about the same. I see parts for both on Racer Walsh,etc..
Okey doke, hang on.
The 'base' motor for the Pinto and Capri was the 'Kent' 1600cc pushrod motor. It came in the Cortina and a whole bunch of other English Fords. A version of this was used in the Fiesta as well. Good motor, basis for the Formula Ford. It's also known as the 'English' motor. But, it's not the motor you are thinking of.
The 1971 and later Pinto 2.0 is known as the 'German' engine because it was built in, well, Germany. Duh. It was also used in the Mercury Capri. That engine has mechanical valve adjustment and the rockers and cam are lubricated through a tube with holes that's bolted to the side of the cam towers. It's used in a lot of Formula Fords along with the 1600. It's been out of production since, IIRC, 1975 (at least it wasn't offered in the States after that time).
The 2.3 is the 'Lima' engine, built in Lima. Ohio. That one has hydraulic valve lash adjusters and the cam and valve gear are lubed through a hollow camshaft. There's no tube along the cam towers and the cam itself has holes drilled in the lobes. It overlapped the 2.0 German motor for 1974, again IIRC. It was the basis for the T Bird and SVO turbo motors. There is a 2.0 version of it which came in some Ranger pickups.
The 2.0 and 2.3 Lima engines have all kinds of swappability between them for parts, but they share absolutely nothing with the 'German' motor. Well, they use the same oil filter. BTW: do not confuse the Lima OHC engine with the 2.3 HSC pushrod motor used in the Tempo. That thing was/is a complete turd.
The German motor is a solid piece. Since it's been out of production so long, the supply of bits and pieces is drying up. The Lima 2.3 was in production including a 2.5 version, again IIRC, in various versions through the late '90's and possibly beyond for the Ranger pickup. There was a two plug per cylinder version, all kinds of stuff. There's a lot more goodies available for it.
Does the 1600cc from a late '70s Fiesta share a bellhousing pattern with a 2.3L Lima?
RossD wrote: Does the 1600cc from a late '70s Fiesta share a bellhousing pattern with a 2.3L Lima?
Dude, this thread is gone. Just walk away, start a new thread. Just walk away. It's gone...
i had a 93 ranger with the 2.3. the odo rolled over 3 times on the original engine. i put a 5.0 TB on it and ran 2.5inch exaust .
I am apparently fighting the hard fight here, cuz I am building a Fox mustang to handle well, and a 2.3 Lima for big N/A power. I am hoping for around 275 horsepower within the SCCA's Prepared rules.
Sometimes we like to canoe past a few old posts, just for fun.
22 hours ago in Articles
Unravel the mysteries of racing slicks with tire expert Bob Woodman.
2 days ago in News
We had a great time at this year's event and want to share some of the sights with you.
Also get your instant access to the digital edition of Grassroots Motorsports Magazine!Learn More