1 2
Pete. (l33t FS)
Pete. (l33t FS) GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
11/2/20 12:37 p.m.
1SlowVW said:

Can you bolt an old single plug head to a 2.5 duratec bottom end ? 

The duratec is a completely different engine family from the lima.  Absolutely nothing interchanges or can be made to work.  Aluminum vs iron, chain vs. belt, coolant circulation, everything.  Have not measured, but bore centers appear wildly different.

 

The 2.5 from a Ranger was a Lima engine, not a Duratec.  The only Duratecs that found their way into Rangers were some 2.3s late in the production run.

STM317
STM317 UberDork
11/2/20 12:51 p.m.
Pete. (l33t FS) said:  The only Duratecs that found their way into Rangers were some 2.3s late in the production run.

If by "late in the production run" you mean the last decade they were made, then yes. Duratecs were a mid-year change in 01 model year.

Pete. (l33t FS)
Pete. (l33t FS) GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
11/2/20 12:53 p.m.

In reply to STM317 :

I thought they stopped making them in '03ish.

STM317
STM317 UberDork
11/2/20 1:10 p.m.

In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :

That generation Ranger went through 2012 model year and you could get the Duratec throughout as far as I know.

 

Also, sorry for getting off topic of screaming N/A Limas

jimbbski
jimbbski SuperDork
11/2/20 1:47 p.m.

Just to confuse the issue further, some "backyard" tuners have adapted a certain model Volvo TC 4V head to the 2.3L block. Almost all of these builds make use of a turbo since its the cyl. head that holds back the 2.3L Lima. This is also why there is an aftermarket aluminum head made by Esslingler and was sold by Ford Motorsport. It's the head pictured in an earlier post/video. 

And the 2.0L EAO is not a failure as a performance engine. With a simple mod to the cam towers you can spin that motor to 9K  You just need better rods and forged pistons but you can still use a stock crank! 

A  version of this engine using the 4V TC head will make 220-230 easy HP NA and after a couple of seasons of road racing will make the same or a bit more when dynoed. Stick a turbo on it as Ford did and  get 250 HP off the showroom floor and when  tuned for racing make over 500 HP still using  all OEM parts!

Saron81
Saron81 HalfDork
11/2/20 2:01 p.m.

The Cosworth YB head works on the Pinto/Lima block too if we're doing head swaps... they can make pretty good NA power too. 

Saw a few Folvo swaps back in my Merkur days done by a gentleman in NYC. They ran strong! 

einy (Forum Supporter)
einy (Forum Supporter) Dork
11/2/20 7:27 p.m.

Like the video, except the continual pronunciation of Lima as lee-ma instead of lime-ah by that one dude.

1SlowVW
1SlowVW HalfDork
11/3/20 7:09 p.m.

In reply to Streetwiseguy :

Mr. Streetwise I tried to PM you. Please let me know if it went through. 

Pete. (l33t FS)
Pete. (l33t FS) GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
11/3/20 7:26 p.m.
einy (Forum Supporter) said:

Like the video, except the continual pronunciation of Lima as lee-ma instead of lime-ah by that one dude.

Really?  Wow, I'm glad I didn't watch any videos.

 

Wait until they find out how Vienna, Ohio is pronounced!  Or Medina for that matter.  (Hint: Lima, Medina, and Vienna all have a long I when referring to a city in Ohio, and Lima engines are named after the city in Ohio where they were made)

akylekoz
akylekoz SuperDork
11/4/20 5:41 a.m.

I'll just leave this here.  I run a 2.3 and 2.5 Lima in a Lemons Mustang, the 2.5 is stroked with main journal spacers to use a 2.5 rotating assembly in a 2.3 block.  2.5 blocks have no dizzy provision.

EFI lower intake is about the best intake, put carb of choice on top.

I have a round port Offy intake if anyone needs it.  Also have an Esslinger head with turbo cam that I need to get ported and try out, these are NLA.

Boport was very helpful for one of our builds.  Check your valve length/recess in the head with a bigger cam.  We ended up with shorter valve guides to accommodate our valve lift.

 Discussion Starter • #1 • 

From Technical Ford’s 2.0/2.3/2.5 litre engine family guide - THE H.A.M.B..
No problems if it has to be deleted for it being copied and pasted. Nice info though and props to the person who took the time and posted it.

Ford’s 2.0/2.3/2.5 litre engine family

These motors are commonly referred to as either the Lima or simply the 2.X OHC (Over Head Cam) engines. They started life based on the German designed 2.0 EAO Sport motors that were first introduced to this country in the Mercury Capri’s from the early 70’s. They share nothing with the 2.3-2.5 litre HSC motors that were offered in the passenger car line from ’84-’91. Initially the 2.3 was supposed to be designed so that the 2.0 EAO parts would interchange, but due to different manufacturing processes it was not feasable) according to Ford, a couple of easy ways to tell if you have a 2.0L EAO engine, or a 2.0/2.3/2/5L lima engine is that the 2.0 EAO engine has 10 valve cover bolts while the Lima engine has only 8 valve cover bolts, and the distributor is in front of the number 1 intake port on the EAO engine, while the distributor is under the number 1 intake port on the Lima engine. The 2.3 first debuted in the 1974 Pinto using a progressive 2Bbl Webber/Holley carb and a points distributor. In ’75 they were upgraded to a Duraspark ignition system. They remained unchanged until about ’81 when the intake ports were changed from an oval to a D shape (flat floor). The 2.0/2.3 litre versions that were offered in Rangers starting in ’83 used a different head having four evenly spaced round holes of equal size. A 2.0 litre 1-bbl carbed version was offered in Rangers from ’83-’85, and in ’87-’88 with a 2-bbl in some parts of the US, Canada and Mexico. EFI was added to the engines in ’85. In 89 Rangers (91 in Mustangs) the 2.3 was changed to a DIS (Distributorless Ignition System) ignition utilizing a new 8-plug head. This head had larger evenly spaced D-shaped intake ports and was used until the end of production of the 2.5 in ‘01. The 2.5 litre version was only offered from ‘98 To ’01, when the engine was replaced by a 2.3 litre DOHC Duratec based engine.

In ’79-‘81 a high compression drawthru carb’ed turbo version of the 2.3 was offered. In ’83-‘88 a lower compression EFI turbo version was offered in T-birds, Cougars, Mustang SVOs and Merkur XR4Ti’s (through ’89).

Some of the changes to the motor over the years were:
Rear main seal changed from a two piece to a one piece design in ’86.
Roller cams were installed from ’88 on in Rangers and ’91 on in Mustangs.
Crankshaft main journal sizes were reduced starting in ’88.
CPS (Cam Position Sensor) was added starting in ’95 (’94 in California). At this time Ford changed to a 104-pin computer (it was a 60-pin) and moved the DIS functions into the computer, previously the DIS system had a TFI module as a separate unit mounted on the front of the intake manifold.

Major engine specs are
.......................................2.0........ .2.3 Early....2.3 Late.....2.5
Bore...............................3.520........3. 780.........3.780......3.780
Stroke............................3.126........3.1 26.........3.126......3.401
Bore Spacing...................4.173........4.173...... ...4.173......4.173
Main Journal Dia..............2.3986......2.3986.......2.2055.. ....2.2055
Rod Journal Dia...............2.0468......2.0468.......2.0468. ....2.0468
Con. Rod Length..............5.2047......5.2047.......5.204 7.....5.457
Crank Center to deck.......8.368........8.368.........8.368......8 .368
Piston pin height...............1.583........1.583.........1. 583.....1.2105

Differences between major engine parts are as follows:
Blocks-
2.0 is an underbored 2.3, with the exception of the bore the blocks are identical to all 2.3’s (note the ranger 2.0 block can not be bored out to accept a 2.3 pistons).
’75-’88 2.3’s are interchangeable.
’89-’94 same as ’83-’88 2.3’s but have a smaller main journal saddle, the oil pan seal
surface was changed in ‘87 to eliminate the 4 piece seal and holes were added in the front to bolt on the DIS’s crank trigger assembly.
’95-‘01 similar to the ’89-‘95’s but a Cam Position Sensor was added behind the aux sprocket, the hole for the distributor was eliminated and the oil pump was moved in place of the aux. shaft itself.
Turbo blocks are identical to the ’83-’88 Ranger blocks but have an additional boss w/ a hole threaded in the pass. side about ½ way back that provides a place to drain the lubricating oil back into the engine from the turbo.

Cranks-
2.0 and early 2.3 Lima cranks are identical.
Late 2.3 Lima cranks have smaller main journals.
2.5 Lima cranks are identical to 2.3 Lima except they have a longer stroke.
Rods-
2.0 and 2.3 (including turbo) rods are identical up through at least ’94. In fact they still have the original D4 (’74) casting number on them.
Pistons-
The 2.0 pistons are unique and don’t interchange.
The 2.3 pistons are all the same excluding the turbo versions, which were forged. Low compression (8.0-1) in the ’83-‘88’s and high compression (9.0-1) in the ’79-‘81’s.
The 2.5 pistons are similar to the 2.3’s but have a different wrist pin height.

Heads-
All 2.0/2.3/2.5 heads will physically bolt in place of each other, they all have similar exhaust port shape and placement. All cams are interchangeable as long as they are used with the proper followers. Later model ('95 and newer) roller cam followers cannot be easily swapped onto an older head as the valve stem size was reduced in the newer heads and matching slot in the follower was reduced, the 83-88 2.0 carburated Ranger engine and 2.3 carburated Ranger engines have the same small round intake ports spaced evenly apart, they differ from each other in their valve sizes though.

There are several variations on the 2.3 heads though they break down into 4 distinct types:
1. Passenger car oval port heads-’74-’80 Mustang, Pinto, Fairmont, Bobcat, etc.
2. Passenger car D-port head-’81-’95? T-bird, Mustang, Etc.
3. Truck round port- ’83-’88 carburated Ranger
4. Truck D-port- ’89-’01 Ranger. The '89-'94's and '95-'01's have different combustion chambers and ports.
Do not make the intake ports larger on the 2.0 EAO, or 2.3 Lima with the oval ports as they are all ready too big for the size of the engine which is why in 1981 they went to the d-port intake port, on the 2.0 EAO you can actually fill the bottom of the intake port with a 1/4 inch of epoxy (or your favorite filler) making it a d-port, you will not lose any airflow (cfm) but you will drasticaly increase port velosity which = more power.

Roller Camshafts
'88-'94 Ranger Roller cam .215" lift at lobe. Lobe is .675 wide
Follower's roller diameter is .900"
'95-'01 Ranger Roller cam .215" lift at lobe. Lobe is .510 wide
Follower's roller diameter is .900"

Head gasket for turbo or any Lima engine (0-27psi)- Fel-pro #1035
Recommended Valve Seals (Good for N/A too)
Intake- E7ZZ-6571-A
Exhaust- E7ZZ-6571-B

Cylinder Head Flow Numbers provided by Bo at Boport Racing Heads, (he is also vendor for 2.3 stuff)
D=d-port / T-D= turbo d-port / L-dual= 97-01 dual plug /
E-dual= 88-96 dual plug / Ess-D= Esslinger ported d-port/
inches D T-D Oval Round L-dual E-dual Ess-D ported ARCA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
.050"---27.55--27.8---28.6---31.0---30.0---27.3---28.1---33.2---33.7
.100"---48.9---54.5---55.9---59.0---58.0---54.9---51.4---65.6---61.3
.150"---61.8---75.4---78.9---77.7---86.7---78.3---76.7--106.5---91.6
.200"---75.2--100.6--100.3--101.6--110.7---96.1--105.5--138.8--122.0
.250"---88.0--120.7--122.3--122.0--130.3--109.4--132.3--169.3--149.8
.300"--101.6--132.3--136.8--135.5--143.3--120.4--156.3--196.5--175.8
.350"--116.5--140.1--146.6--142.7--153.1--128.4--177.7--218.6--198.5
.400"--131.0--144.0--150.5--145.3--158.9--132.3--190.7--234.8--218.6
.450"--144.0--149.2--153.1--145.9--164.1--134.9--199.8--247.1--236.1
.500"--151.8--154.4--156.9--149.2--166.8--136.8--205.6--250.4--252.3
.550"--158.2--159.5--156.3--150.5--168.8--138.8--210.1---------265.9
.600"--163.4--160.8--156.3--151.8--170.2--140.1--214.7---------275.0
.650"----------------------------------------------206.9---------283.1
.700"----------------------------------------------207.6---------290.2

Performance parts vendors.
Home
Welcome to Esslinger Engineering
Forums.
Stinger Performance Forum - Home
TurboFord.net
Boport Racing Heads (Powered by CubeCart)

GCrites80s
GCrites80s HalfDork
11/4/20 12:07 p.m.
einy (Forum Supporter) said:

Like the video, except the continual pronunciation of Lima as lee-ma instead of lime-ah by that one dude.

I was sitting there like, "Do they think the engines were made in Peru?"

Pete. (l33t FS)
Pete. (l33t FS) GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
11/4/20 3:05 p.m.

In reply to akylekoz :

Thanks a lot!!! 

I always wondered WTF Ford, why you make two similar engines.  But then they also made the 351W and 351C at the same time, and then the 351W and 351M, and at one point made a 427, 428, and 429...

ITPinto
ITPinto New Reader
2/13/24 11:21 a.m.
Streetwiseguy said:

I just can't get past the way they ran in Pintos.  I'm sure they are lovely, but it's a bit like how I don't drink tequila anymore, since a Saturday in 1981... 

Oh I know, horrible little cars, no performance, run awful, no performance or Sport application at all. winkyes

Pete. (l33t FS)
Pete. (l33t FS) GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
2/13/24 2:23 p.m.

BTW, the 2.3 has the same bore as the Chevy 4.8/5.3.

11GTCS
11GTCS SuperDork
2/13/24 6:43 p.m.
1SlowVW said:

And at its current point in the restoration.

 

Since this got bumped and I somehow missed it the first time around, did you ever get the engine together and into the boat?  Sure looks like a cool project.

Nockenwelle
Nockenwelle Reader
2/14/24 11:30 a.m.

Well, this is timely. I have recently acquired an 84 Ranger 4x4 with a bone-stock Lima. Ran when parked 15 years ago scenario. This weekend, I'll be picking up a complete SVO 2.3 from a Fox, supposedly a mild build with JE pistons. Need turbo mostly because altitude, but it will also be nice to far exceed merge velocity at on-ramps with aplomb. Plan is to build this right so it's dependable, gets respectable mileage, handles snowy winters well, and has entertainment value to spare. Megasquirt. 

I've done plenty of builds and swaps, but never a Lima or a Ranger. What do I need to know or plan for? Besides the obvious plumbing and engine management, are the big pieces just a weekend bolt-in? Any external components different between the two? FEAD, starter, oil pan etc.

DeadSkunk  (Warren)
DeadSkunk (Warren) UltimaDork
2/14/24 12:24 p.m.
 

 

Wait until they find out how Vienna, Ohio is pronounced!  Or Medina for that matter.  (Hint: Lima, Medina, and Vienna all have a long I when referring to a city in Ohio, and Lima engines are named after the city in Ohio where they were made)

You mean it's not pronounced Oh-hee-oh ? TIL something new..........wink

 

1 2

You'll need to log in to post.

Our Preferred Partners
rQ2mTzLRSnakfnrqTEnbQw9DRuYyLGbf4lbarwA5yXT7xiIjbimoUoUThWQfvmT1