Differences between 2.5L 2.3L?

fiveoh · 01-01-2010, 06:49 PM

What are the Differences between the 2.5 and 2.3 motor? I already know the cranks have different main journals and the 2.5l head flows better and have hydraulic roller cam. I also know that the blocks very with turbo, N/A, and distributor, and coil packs.

So what i really want to know is the difference in stroke, rod length, piston bore size, wrist pin location, andany other small details i might need.

I want this so i know what motor to start out with in my turbo ranger build.

jfive · 01-01-2010, 07:08 PM

As far as I know the difference is not the block. The Crank journals are not different on newer 2.3 and 2.5s. The Rod is longer and the stroke of the crank is longer. The piston height is different do to rod and stroke. Don't be confused about the rod adding to the stroke though, cause it all comes from the crank. Rod length changes the angle during rotation, and doesn't actually add any more stroke like you might think. The bore is the same as well. That why you can use a 2.3 crank rod and piston in a 2.5. Hope this clears up some misconseptions.

Oldmandan · 01-01-2010, 08:22 PM

Some of your ?'s can be answered here

http://www.therangerstation.com/tech...cylinders.html

Oldmandan · 01-01-2010, 08:26 PM

By the way, I have a 2.5L crank for sale if you decide to go that route...

fiveoh · 01-01-2010, 09:59 PM

what about rod length for the 2.3 and the 2.5. are they the same they just moved the wrist pin height higher in the 2.5 to compensate for the longer stroke?

jfive · 01-01-2010, 10:23 PM

the 2.3 has 5.205 inch rods and the 2.5 uses 5.5 inch rods. Not sure on this next part but It might be determined from the center of the crank journal to the center of the piston pin, but It might be the whole length of the rod. either way its a difference of .45 of an inch, or about 1 cm. the longer rod makes more torque I believe, but the placement of the piston pin needs to be moved to keep from exceeding the block. Also any 2.3 ranger after 88 is a roller cam too. the 91 to 93 mustang 2.3 is the same as the 89 to 94 ranger motor. the 2.5 head has a bigger combustion chamber, but I don't know that it really flows better than a 2.3 head just before it. From what I understand the old 2.0 ranger head flows really well and actually to well for the engine and thats why they went to a d shaped port over the round. They just filled in the bottom of the round port to make it flow less. Also with the rods the longer rod must keep the same angle as the shorter rod in the 2.3. See when the piston is half way up the rod is at max angle from being straight up and down, so with a longer rod the angle is less. With a longer stroke the shorter rod would have more angle on it and I think this would cause more force on the cylinder wall. This is all just my educated guess, but it make sense to me. I also believe that the longer rods start to come closer to the bottom of the cylinder wall and clearencing needs to be done, cause you can get longer rods than 5.5 inch ones.

blinkingsun · 01-02-2010, 01:56 PM

I've been looking into the difference as well. I have been seeing a few people swapping SVO rods and pistons into the 2.5 blocks.. I assume the difference between the two is the stroke of the crank, rod length and nothing else?

smashed96gt · 01-02-2010, 04:40 PM

I'm sure there are minor differences in the blocks, such as distributor hole and oil drain boss.

But the main difference between the 2.3 and 2.5 is the crank, rods, and pistons. If you wated to run the SVO rods and pistons in a 2.5 you would have to swap in a small journal 2.3 crank as well.

fiveoh · 01-02-2010, 05:39 PM

you saying the rod journals are different sizes between the 2.3l crank with smaller main journals and the 2.5l crank?

smashed96gt · 01-02-2010, 06:05 PM

No the journals in the SVO are larger than the 2.3 and 2.5 in the Ranger. The journal size changed in 88 or 89 I believe.

01-01-2010, 06:49 PM	#1
fiveoh New Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Userid: 937 Posts: 9	Differences between 2.5L 2.3L? What are the Differences between the 2.5 and 2.3 motor? I already know the cranks have different main journals and the 2.5l head flows better and have hydraulic roller cam. I also know that the blocks very with turbo, N/A, and distributor, and coil packs. So what i really want to know is the difference in stroke, rod length, piston bore size, wrist pin location, andany other small details i might need. I want this so i know what motor to start out with in my turbo ranger build.

01-01-2010, 07:08 PM	#2
jfive The Patient Ninja Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Minot, North Dakota Userid: 878 Posts: 4,224 My location Awards Showcase Total Awards: 1	As far as I know the difference is not the block. The Crank journals are not different on newer 2.3 and 2.5s. The Rod is longer and the stroke of the crank is longer. The piston height is different do to rod and stroke. Don't be confused about the rod adding to the stroke though, cause it all comes from the crank. Rod length changes the angle during rotation, and doesn't actually add any more stroke like you might think. The bore is the same as well. That why you can use a 2.3 crank rod and piston in a 2.5. Hope this clears up some misconseptions. __________________ 2010 Jeep compass 2.4 vvt 4x4 1979 Ford F150 400m with edelbrock intake carb and cam. Heads ported. 1984 Ford Ranger 2.3 one barrel. 5speed. long box waiting for 351w, turbo. 1995 Ford F250 302 5speed. 2003 Dodge 2500 cummins 75hp inj, chip, air dogg II pump, cold air intake.

01-01-2010, 08:22 PM	#3
Oldmandan TRF Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Anaheim, CA Userid: 663 Posts: 965 My location	Some of your ?'s can be answered here http://www.therangerstation.com/tech...cylinders.html __________________ 97 2.3L - 90mm MAF, 5.0 TB, 60lb. injectors, Walbro 255, HY35, Tial 44 WG, Alum Timing gears, 1/2 fill, Diamond Dished Std Volvo 8v(530) head- Ported, Bronze guides, 48/40mm SS valves. If you lend someone $20.00 and never see that person again, it was probably worth it. Last edited by Oldmandan; 01-01-2010 at 08:25 PM..

01-01-2010, 08:26 PM	#4
Oldmandan TRF Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Anaheim, CA Userid: 663 Posts: 965 My location	By the way, I have a 2.5L crank for sale if you decide to go that route... __________________ 97 2.3L - 90mm MAF, 5.0 TB, 60lb. injectors, Walbro 255, HY35, Tial 44 WG, Alum Timing gears, 1/2 fill, Diamond Dished Std Volvo 8v(530) head- Ported, Bronze guides, 48/40mm SS valves. If you lend someone $20.00 and never see that person again, it was probably worth it.

01-01-2010, 10:23 PM	#6
jfive The Patient Ninja Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Minot, North Dakota Userid: 878 Posts: 4,224 My location Awards Showcase Total Awards: 1	the 2.3 has 5.205 inch rods and the 2.5 uses 5.5 inch rods. Not sure on this next part but It might be determined from the center of the crank journal to the center of the piston pin, but It might be the whole length of the rod. either way its a difference of .45 of an inch, or about 1 cm. the longer rod makes more torque I believe, but the placement of the piston pin needs to be moved to keep from exceeding the block. Also any 2.3 ranger after 88 is a roller cam too. the 91 to 93 mustang 2.3 is the same as the 89 to 94 ranger motor. the 2.5 head has a bigger combustion chamber, but I don't know that it really flows better than a 2.3 head just before it. From what I understand the old 2.0 ranger head flows really well and actually to well for the engine and thats why they went to a d shaped port over the round. They just filled in the bottom of the round port to make it flow less. Also with the rods the longer rod must keep the same angle as the shorter rod in the 2.3. See when the piston is half way up the rod is at max angle from being straight up and down, so with a longer rod the angle is less. With a longer stroke the shorter rod would have more angle on it and I think this would cause more force on the cylinder wall. This is all just my educated guess, but it make sense to me. I also believe that the longer rods start to come closer to the bottom of the cylinder wall and clearencing needs to be done, cause you can get longer rods than 5.5 inch ones. __________________ 2010 Jeep compass 2.4 vvt 4x4 1979 Ford F150 400m with edelbrock intake carb and cam. Heads ported. 1984 Ford Ranger 2.3 one barrel. 5speed. long box waiting for 351w, turbo. 1995 Ford F250 302 5speed. 2003 Dodge 2500 cummins 75hp inj, chip, air dogg II pump, cold air intake. Last edited by jfive; 01-01-2010 at 10:29 PM..

01-01-2010, 09:59 PM	#5
fiveoh New Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Userid: 937 Posts: 9	what about rod length for the 2.3 and the 2.5. are they the same they just moved the wrist pin height higher in the 2.5 to compensate for the longer stroke?

01-02-2010, 01:56 PM	#7
blinkingsun TRF Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Userid: 935 Posts: 173	I've been looking into the difference as well. I have been seeing a few people swapping SVO rods and pistons into the 2.5 blocks.. I assume the difference between the two is the stroke of the crank, rod length and nothing else?

01-02-2010, 04:40 PM	#8
smashed96gt TRF Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Middletown, DE Userid: 745 Posts: 245	I'm sure there are minor differences in the blocks, such as distributor hole and oil drain boss. But the main difference between the 2.3 and 2.5 is the crank, rods, and pistons. If you wated to run the SVO rods and pistons in a 2.5 you would have to swap in a small journal 2.3 crank as well.

01-02-2010, 05:39 PM	#9
fiveoh New Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Userid: 937 Posts: 9	you saying the rod journals are different sizes between the 2.3l crank with smaller main journals and the 2.5l crank? __________________ 99 ford ranger 2.5L soon to be Turbo charged 87 Mustang N/A with explorer heads, cobra intake, NO PORTING best ET 11.29 119 mph

01-02-2010, 06:05 PM	#10
smashed96gt TRF Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Middletown, DE Userid: 745 Posts: 245	No the journals in the SVO are larger than the 2.3 and 2.5 in the Ranger. The journal size changed in 88 or 89 I believe.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode