Turbo Ranger Forums  

Go Back   Turbo Ranger Forums > Under the Hood > Lima General discussion
Googlemap ME
Register FAQ VB Image Host Members List Award Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-01-2010, 07:49 PM   #1
fiveoh
New Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Userid: 937
Posts: 9
Default 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.
fiveoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2010, 08:08 PM   #2
jfive
The Patient Ninja
 
jfive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Tri Cities Washington
Userid: 878
Default

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.
__________________
2007 F350 6.0 KR SCT tuner from innovative diesel!
2005 Mercury Mariner 3.0 duratec awd.
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.
jfive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2010, 09:22 PM   #3
Oldmandan
TRF Senior Member
 
Oldmandan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Anaheim, CA
Userid: 663
Posts: 1,004
Default

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 09:25 PM..
Oldmandan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2010, 09:26 PM   #4
Oldmandan
TRF Senior Member
 
Oldmandan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Anaheim, CA
Userid: 663
Posts: 1,004
Default

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.
Oldmandan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2010, 10:59 PM   #5
fiveoh
New Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Userid: 937
Posts: 9
Default

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?
fiveoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2010, 11:23 PM   #6
jfive
The Patient Ninja
 
jfive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Tri Cities Washington
Userid: 878
Default

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.
__________________
2007 F350 6.0 KR SCT tuner from innovative diesel!
2005 Mercury Mariner 3.0 duratec awd.
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.

Last edited by jfive; 01-01-2010 at 11:29 PM..
jfive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2010, 02:56 PM   #7
blinkingsun
TRF Member
 
blinkingsun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Userid: 935
Posts: 173
Default

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?
blinkingsun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2010, 05:40 PM   #8
smashed96gt
TRF Member
 
smashed96gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Middletown, DE
Userid: 745
Posts: 245
Default

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.
smashed96gt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2010, 06:39 PM   #9
fiveoh
New Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Userid: 937
Posts: 9
Default

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
fiveoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2010, 07:05 PM   #10
smashed96gt
TRF Member
 
smashed96gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Middletown, DE
Userid: 745
Posts: 245
Default

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.
smashed96gt is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Turbo Ranger Forums