Who runs a 2.0 with a 2.5 crank and how does it run

[Robertms]

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

[ATOYOTA]

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

[fordracer83]

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.

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?

[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.

[fordracer83]

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

[84Dave]

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-

[fordracer83]

Thanks 84 dave but that's above my pay grade to understand ...lol can you explain more on a common folk level ....

[84Dave]

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-