Have seen some run down around Hickory thought i mite like to build one...
Printable View
Have seen some run down around Hickory thought i mite like to build one...
why bother? are you talking 2.0 pinto or 2.0 ranger or 2.0 Duratec or what?
well where we run you have to run a 2300... stock length rods untouched crank other than the usual machining you can run crower rods etc but stock length.The track P and Gs and it cant be anything bigger than that .60 0ver max.. Ok that being said would you benefit from the stroke of the 2.5 crank and also with the small bore you will pass the p and g gauge so would it be worth it or not givin the rules we have to go by. What I here is a 2.0 pinto block with a 2.5 crank using the bearing spacers etc....
stock length rods on all 2.3 engines EXCEPT 95/96 are 5.2"...stock length rods for the 2.5 crank are 5.4"..so right there you would be illegal.
Furhtermore,without EXTENSIVE and EXPENSIVE work you will not get the 2.5 crank into the old german 2.0 block.
I no that the rods would be illegal but if all the track checked was the p and g it wouldnt matter.... And i thought that a 2.0 was the same block as a 2.3 just the only difference was the bore size and if so then all you would have to do is use the bearing spacers to get down to the smaller journal size..and get a 5.2 or 5.7 rod for it and a piston made with the right compression height and there you have it... right or wrong ....has anybody tried this and if so am i close to the the right train of thought....
Doing some quick math in my head with the bore of the 2.0 and the stroke of the 2.5 you would get just under 200cc increase. so you would have a 2.2 liter for all practical argument. Then you have the smaller bore that is a decrease in power and you also will have more valve shrouding with the smaller bore.
You would be better off with the 2.3 to start, be legal and faster, in my opinion anyway. Unless your thinking of calling it a 2.0 and really having a 2.2, or cheating in other words.
use a 22r toyota crank with 2.0 ranger block and you'll have 2300 with forged crank. toss in some crower rods and je pistons and you'll have one stout bottom end with loads of torque off the corner.
Right ... what im trying to get to is would it be worth doing the combination for the torque ... we race 2300 and nothing more this car that is dominating at our track went to tech got p and gd and pumped a 134ci so i no that is what he is is probably doing at least thats what i think hes doin and he is a hand full off the corner which carries him down the straights....its being done down at hickory motor speedway i n. c. just read their rules for the 4 cyl. class .....
WE RUN A 2.5 ENGINE, ITS A SMALL JOURNAL BLOCK CASTING ON BLOCK E89, 5.7 RODS, J&E 30 OVER PISTONS, CRANK OUT OF A 1999 RANGER 2.5 ENGINE. WE HAVE BEEN P&Ged ALOT AND NEVER DQed. JUST BUILT ONE FOR OUR PINTO AND BUILDING ANOTHER AS WE SPEAK FOR A BACK UP. WE DID RUN A 2.3 WITH 5.7 RODS AND 30 OVER WIESCO PISTONS, WE NOTICED A BIG HP DIFFERENCE IN THE 2.3 AND THE 2.5 WITH THE SAME HEAD ON BOTH. 535 CAM FROM RACER WALSH. IF YOU HAVE A SMALL JOURNAL BLOCK GOT TO A FORD DEALER OR A PARTS HOUSE AND ORDER A 2.5 CRANK AND PUT IT TOGETHER, GO TO ESSLINGERS WEB SITE AND THEY HAVE A DYNO SHEET ON THE 2.3 VS THE 2.5. IF IT WAS ME I WOULD BUILD A 2.5 AND KICK THAT CARS A$$.
I thought of that to but if p and gd I would not pass because it would be to big for our rules which is a 2300 max of .60 overbore...Just thought that with that combination would have the benefits of the 2.5 torque and still pass the tech p and g..
The bigger the bore and smaller stroke will create more HP than a small bore and longer crank if the displacement, intake and exhaust are kept about equal. The longer stroke will also not RPM as quickly and will not hit as high of an RPM before getting terminal. SO in short, larger bore smaller crank is better all the way around than a small bore and larger crank.
but torque is king. you can have all the hp in the world but someone with more torque will pull you out of the hole and on a tight track, torque rules.
I will take a 2.3 crank lightened to the extreme any day over a stock 2.5 crank..
I agree with pobort we have a stop and go track and that guy sure does get it going in a hurry so thats why i would want the torque ....
im getting inthe 200's on torque out of a 2300! whats ur head rule? its about combos! ur going backwards with a 2.5 there out dated now!
big bore small stroke lots of rpms will spank him!!
Run the german 2.0 and gear down. come out of the corner at 6500!!!
I would think that if a smaller motor is out pulling everyone there is much more than just a 2.5 crank in a 2.0 block. He may have a better head and cam with a bottom end that can take more RPM. even if your making the same power more gear will out accelerate everytime.
I think that if the guy is pulling everyone, he's got a better chassis setup so he can go thru the corner faster.
Used a ranger 2.0 block with bearing spacers. Ranger 2.5 crank,crower 5.5 rods and set of wiseco pistons for the 2.0 for 5.7 rods cut the blocks deck .085 to get the piston .010 out of block. Used a stock dia valve head with solid roller cam. Block would have to be fly cut for 1.89 intake valve. Motor does not make as good low end tork as 2.3 on bottom end but pulls pretty hard mid range. Not a stop and go motor pretty good on tracks with long corners. Raced 1 pound per cc won a few races with it one race at 2300lbs.
It can be done ..but like in one of the post..alot of work..but it will fly....thats where you use it in the lb per cc thing ..there was one ran at bowman gray and it was bad fast..
It is my understanding that the Ranger 2.0 block is an under bored 2.3 meaning that you could go from around 2200cc or so to 2550 with a 2.5 crank. We had a .030 over 2295cc that was bad to the bone. King's crankshaft will cut whatever stroke billet you want. They are a little pricey but good stuff. Robertms
2.0 / 2.3 / 2.5 Specifications
2.0L (1983 - 1988)
Displacement 122 CID
Type Single Over Head Cam
Bore x Stroke 3.52 x 3.13 inches
Compression Ratio 9.0:1
Fuel System Carburetor
Fuel Pressure 5 - 7 psi
Horsepower 73hp @ 4000 RPM (1983 - 1986)
80hp @ 4200 RPM (1987 - 1988)
Torque 107 @ 2400 RPM (1983 - 1986)
106 @ 2600 RPM (1987 - 1988)
Oil Pressure 40 - 60 PSI @ 2000 RPM
Tune Up
Spark Plug AWSF-52C
Spark Plug Gap 0.044 inch
Ignition Timing 6 degrees BTDC (1984 is 8 deg.)
Firing Order 1-3-4-2
Distributor Rotation Clockwise
Capacities
Oil Capacity With Filter Change 5 quarts
Cooling System 6.5 quarts
Torque Specifications
Cylinder Head Torque in 2 steps [1st (50 - 60 ft-lbs), 2nd (80 - 90 ft-lbs)]
Main Bearing Bolts Torque in 2 steps [1st (50 - 60 ft-lbs), 2nd (80 - 90 ft-lbs)]
Rod Bearing Bolts Torque in 2 steps [1st (25 - 30 ft-lbs), 2nd (30 - 36 ft-lbs)]
Crankshaft Pulley Bolts 100 - 120 ft-lbs
Flywheel to Crankshaft Bolts 56 - 64 ft-lbs
Intake Manifold Torque in 2 steps [1st (5 - 7 ft-lbs), 2nd (14 - 21 ft-lbs)]
Exhaust Manifold Torque in 2 steps [1st (5 - 7 ft-lbs), 2nd (16 - 23 ft-lbs)]
2.3L (1989 - 1997)
Displacement 140 CID
Type Single Over Head Cam
Bore x Stroke 3.780 x 3.126 inches
Compression Ratio 9.0:1 (1983 - 1988)
9.2:1 (1990 - 1993)
9.4:1 (1994 - 1997)
Fuel System Carburetor (1983 - 1984)
Multipot Fuel Injection (MFI) (1985 - 1997)
Fuel Pressure 5 - 7 psi (1983 - 1984)
30 - 40 psi (1985 - 1997)
Horsepower 79hp @ 3800 RPM (1983 - 1985) Manual
82hp @ 4200 RPM (1983 - 1985) Auto
90hp @ 4000 RPM (1986 - 1988)
100hp @ 4600 RPM (1989 - 1995)
112hp @ 4800 RPM (1996 - 1997)
Torque 124 @ 2200 RPM (1983 - 1985) Manual
126 @ 2200 RPM (1983 - 1985) Auto
130 @ 1800 RPM (1986 - 1988)
133 @ 2600 RPM (1989 - 1995)
135 @ 2400 RPM (1996 - 1997)
Oil Pressure 40 - 60 psi @ 2000 RPM
Tune Up
Spark Plug AWSF-44C (1984 - 1990)
AWSR-32PP (1993 - 1995)
AWSR-32F (1996 - 1997)
Spark Plug Gap 0.044
Ignition Timing 10 degrees BTDC
Firing Order 1-3-4-2
Distributor Rotation Clockwise
Capacities
Oil Capacity With Filter Change 5 Quarts
Cooling System (Quarts) W/AC- 7.2 / W/O AC 6.5
Torque Specifications
Cylinder Head Torque in 2 steps [1st (50 - 60 ft-lbs), 2nd (80 - 90 ft-lbs)] (1989 - 1995)
51 ft-lbs (1996 - 1997)
Main Bearing Bolts Torque in 2 steps [1st (50 - 60 ft-lbs), 2nd (80 - 90 ft-lbs)]
Rod Bearing Bolts Torque in 2 steps [1st (25 - 30 ft-lbs), 2nd (30 - 36 ft-lbs)]
Crankshaft Pulley Bolts 100 - 120 ft-lbs
Flywheel to Crankshaft Bolts 56 - 64 ft-lbs
Intake Manifold Torque in 2 steps [1st (5 - 7 ft-lbs), 2nd (14 - 21 ft-lbs)]
Exhaust Manifold Torque in 2 steps [1st (5 - 7 ft-lbs), 2nd (16 - 23 ft-lbs)]
2.5L MFI (1998 - 2001)
Displacement 152 CID
Type Single Over Head Cam
Bore x Stroke 3.780 x 3.401 inches
Compression Ratio 9.1:1
Fuel System MFI (Multiport Fuel Injection)
Fuel Pressure 56 - 72 psi
Horsepower 117hp @ 4500 RPM (1998 - 1999)
119hp @ 5000 RPM (2000 - 2001)
Torque 149ft-lbs @ 2500 RPM (1998 - 1999)
146ft-lbs. @ 3000 RPM (2000 - 2001)
Oil Pressure 40 - 60 psi @ 2000 RPM
Tune Up
Spark Plug SP-432
Spark Plug Gap 0.044 inch
Firing Order 1-3-4-2
Capacities
Oil Capacity With Filter Change 5 Quarts
Cooling System (Quarts) W/AC- 7.2 / W/O AC 6.5
Torque Specifications
Cylinder Head 51 ft-lbs
Main Bearing Bolts 75 - 85 ft-lbs
Rod Bearing Bolts 30 - 36 ft-lbs
Crankshaft Pulley Bolts 103 - 133 ft-lbs
Flywheel to Crankshaft Bolts 56 - 64 ft-lbs
Intake Manifold 19 - 28 ft-lbs
Exhaust Manifold 14 - 21 ft-lbs
2.0 / 2.3 / 2.5 Firing Orders
2.0L and 1983 - 1988 2.3L Engines
Firing Order: 1-3-4-2
Distributor Rotation: Clockwise
1989–97 2.3L and 1998-01 2.5L Engines
Firing Order: 1–3–4–2
Distributorless
This is what we were thinking this guy is doing but is not suppose to do per our rules... What rpm were you turning and would gear make it any better of corner?Quote:
Originally Posted by go11go
I ran a 3.08 rear gear with a 2.14 2nd motor turned around 8600 that was on a large 3/8 mile track. With stock rod journal dia. would hate to turn it any harder than that.
On starts 2.3 jumped it out of the hole but it would run them back down about mid staight. Not so bad if I was the pole car I started the race at a faster pace. was using a .560 solid roller designed for torque off the corners. If your getting pulled off the corners I don't think this is what he is using. My 2.3 made a lot better low end with this head. As others have posted research cam shafts I also recommend playing with pipe length off the header and header tube dia. back pressure makes a big difference where the power range is. My car is a mustang and the 3" pipe runs to where the back seats would have been. Using through the fire wall header.
So guys FYI after awhile since this post was started and the same car wearing us out he was finally protested and was found to have a lightened crank ultra lite rods and the superlite pistons all which are illegal for our rules so question answered thanks for the replys
Always keeping in mind............... that instantaneously, an internal combustion engine with a rotating crankshaft produces ZERO HP. HP is strictly a math function of TQ working through time. And time = RPM.
-Dave-
Thanks 84 dave but that's above my pay grade to understand ...lol can you explain more on a common folk level ....
racer83........... OK, I'll try to keep it as simple as my demented mind can understand. Here's the math formula: HP = TQ x RPM
----------
5252
The horsepower thing began with the findings of a Scottish engineer named James Watt(1736-1819). He needed a math term for power that would help him market his newly modified steam engines. It made sense to him to describe the power level as "horsepower'. Because, at the time, that was the only other 'engine' he was competing with..... a HORSE. And it was a BIG horse! Something like our modern-day Clydesdale. Watt discovered that a decent average of work accomplished by a harnessed horse of his day was moving 33,000# of weight 1-foot in 1-minute. Now...... where did the '5252' in the above formula come from? Consider a rotating crankshaft. Whether it be Watt's steam engine or a modern-day race engine. There is obviously 360 degrees in a circle. A single rotation of any crankshaft. Then consider that 180-degrees of a circle is = to 'pi'(3.1416). So a complete circle is '2pi'(6.2832). And further...... divide the 33,000# mentioned by 6.2832. The rounded answer is 5252, as indicated in the above formula. The answer is also 'work accomplished' by one rotation of a crankshaft tugging on 33,000#. And a bit further......... use some math, and transpose the '5252' in the above formula to the left side of the formula. The new formula is now HP x 5252 = TQ x RPM. Are you still with me? OK..... look at the new formula in the line above and substitute 5252 for RPM. WALLA!....... the formula now stipulates that HP = TQ must be EQUAL at 5252 rpm if the formula is equal on both the left & right sides! And if you've looked at a graph from an engine run on any engine or chassis dyno, you'll observe that, sho' 'nuff, HP = TQ @ 5252 rpm! So Mr.Watt must have gotten his experiments for HP pretty close to correct! Wish I had discovered all the above! My retirement $$$ would be much greater!! -Dave-