2.3 4 cyl into BII?

[plymouthrock]

Hey all new to the site, found it on off road adventures mag old iron article. my first vehicle was a 71 bronco, I have never owned a bronco II but always like them because they look like miniature dodge ramchargers which I own 3 of. ( dont be too hard on me, they do look alike) Im thinking about a bronco II for and economical trail toy/driver and I dont want to be like everyone else and drive a wrangler. I was curious about the 2.3 and why ford never offered it in the BII. Ive owned 2 rangers with the 2.3 and 5 speeds and they were very reliable and economical. seems there have been issues with the 2.8 and 2.9 so I was just curious. great site! thanks!

 

[mp3deviant721]

Well, for starters, the BII is heavy. And the 2.3 motor only makes about 100hp depending on what year you are looking at. It probably would be underpowered and slow. That's probably the reason why the 2.3 never made it into the BII.

You could swap one in yourself however, the BII is Ranger based, so you could go to the junkyard and get everything you need to complete a swap. Otherwise, I would recommend a 4.0 swap. Almost everybody who buys a BII does this swap or the 5.0 swap.

 

[disciplerocks]

Agreed. The 2.9 was too small for the B2 to begin with. Don't make it worse.

 

[plymouthrock]

good point about the 4.0 swap, that would gain alot more power. I thought about the weight issue too but when I checked the weights a 4x4 bronco II weighs 3385 pounds and a 2wd extended cab ranger weighs 3193 pounds and there are alot of those running around with 2.3's and I dont think a couple hundred pounds will make a difference. I guess the newer rangers went to what a 2.5? I was just wondering if it would be a fairly straightforward swap. is the 4.0 an easy swap? from everything Ive read the 2.8 and 2.9 were just not very good engines, is this true?

 

[Bronco_Chuck]

good point about the 4.0 swap, that would gain alot more power. I thought about the weight issue too but when I checked the weights a 4x4 bronco II weighs 3385 pounds and a 2wd extended cab ranger weighs 3193 pounds and there are alot of those running around with 2.3's and I dont think a couple hundred pounds will make a difference. I guess the newer rangers went to what a 2.5? I was just wondering if it would be a fairly straightforward swap. is the 4.0 an easy swap? from everything Ive read the 2.8 and 2.9 were just not very good engines, is this true?

That really depends on who you ask. Sure the 2.9 has issues with the heads cracking and the lifters ticking but all in all they are normally rather reliable and economical engines. (at least both of mine have been) That being said its not a race car so dont expect to get anywhere very fast. As far as the 2.8 I have only owned one and until it spun a main bearing it was always reliable. But it wasn't economical by any standards. (about 7mpg highway)

 

[chrwilkins30]

They are known for some problems, but every engine has its problems. My 2.9 personally hasn't had a engine problem. Just keep up with maintenance and they will last.

 

[Surrey]

1989-90 B2s had new heads from the factory, that greatly alleviated the cracking problems.
I think the only way you are going to get enough power out of a 2.3 would be with forced induction, which is entirely possible...
I feel a decently tuned 2.9l suits the B2 quite nicely. I have owned two, neither in the greatest shape, and both had plenty of power, whether it was passing on the highway, or pulling someone out of a mud hole.

 

[John Smith]

In about a month

I should have up and running...a 2.3 powered B2...just wanted to add some balance here..I also have an 88 DD 2.9..runs like a top and gets 26+ mpg..no complaints..

In my case i wanted "something different",,that was somewhat minimalist...and when i opened the hood i could "see the ground" and could change pugs easy etc...

I have the m50 4x4 trans from a donor and my B2 is an 87 so i will have to cut the floor for the trans plate...but other than that...it's a bolt in..it may be easier if you got a donor 2.3 harness matching the same year for the wiring interchange..(my donor wiring is 88) but the engine xmember has the holes for the 2.3 mounts already..make sure you get those from the donor...

Sorry if i butted in with an alternative view..but there are a lot of usable 4x4's that have a 100hp...then u could also turbo it....or carb it...for about 120+ hp....
about the weight...find yourself a Ford/SS header from a mid 90's Ford 2.3 and save quite a few lbs..

Of course it may not break drive-lines quite as easily but with a doubler..i'd say go anywhere you'd want to go stayin upright....maybe depends on why you drive a 4x4.....

PS: I sold an "08" Wrangler to drive one of these....and i have two...you can put a lot of stuff in and on a B2

 

[Twister]

You could always go with a turbo 2.3 out of a mustang.

 

[Surrey]

Sorry if i butted in with an alternative view..but there are a lot of usable 4x4's that have a 100hp...then u could also turbo it....or carb it...for about 120+ hp....
about the weight...find yourself a Ford/SS header from a mid 90's Ford 2.3 and save quite a few lbs..

Of course it may not break drive-lines quite as easily but with a doubler..i'd say go anywhere you'd want to go stayin upright....maybe depends on why you drive a 4x4.....

on a B2

I dont think the problem would be getting places, 4lo puts out plenty of power to the wheels even with a 4cyl in most situations... I think the issue is more when it comes to highway speeds, and accelerating.

The 2.9 does a nice job accelerating to pass people on the highway, not so sure about a 4cyl... The b2 isn't exactly aerodynamic...

 

[John Smith]

I dont think the problem would be getting places, 4lo puts out plenty of power to the wheels even with a 4cyl in most situations... I think the issue is more when it comes to highway speeds, and accelerating.

The 2.9 does a nice job accelerating to pass people on the highway, not so sure about a 4cyl... The b2 isn't exactly aerodynamic...

I understand your thoughts...In my case...On the hwy i usually set the cruise at about 50 and "let'm pass"...As you might imagine i prefer the "blue line hwys" and the 2lane roads....I can't imagine needing to pass anyone..but that's just my age i guess..i DO get it though

about the weight...I'm toying with either chopping the top..and using a ranger tailgate i have..or just putting a Ranger Cab on it....Time will tell...I have to finish putting the motor 2gether yet..

 

[plymouthrock]

hey guys, thanks for all the input, I would be doing this on a budget so I would stick with the 2.8 or 2.9 until it went south, then I would look into a swap. I would probably do a 4 cyl swap just because I had such good luck with them in the past plus I wont be doing any drag racing or passing anyway. I think I'll give it a try. gotta find a B2 first though, they go pretty cheap around here.

 

[disciplerocks]

Where you at? There is a guy selling 2 of them here for $700 for both. One with a motor and no title, the other with no motor and a title

 

[Mudhound]

I think that ford chose to NOT offer the 4cyl in the BII due to the weight of the BII. The 2.8 only put out a measly 115 hp on a GOOD day, but offered more torque than the 2.3 could muster at the time of the BIIs' introduction. A newer 2.3/25 will quite happily smoke a 2.8.

 

[plymouthrock]

thats a good point too, ive never owned a carb 2.3 both my rangers were fuel injected versions.

 

[mp3deviant721]

Well, see, if I had a BII, and was looking to do a 4 cyl conversion, I would be looking at the 2.5, more power than the 2.3 and is based on the 2.3 which will drop into the BII. Wiring might be more difficult because the 2.5 was never offered before 1998 which makes it OBD II. I just thought of that because someone mentioned that the 2.8 puts out about 115hp, which is about the same horsepower as a 2.5. So it might not be that bad.

I think I see a future project in my eyes............

If only I could find a BII that isn't completely rotted out.

 

[fordman2121]

I put a turbo 2.3 out of a 88 t-bird in a bii. I used a 5 spd out of a 85 4x4 2.3 ranger. I have a blow threw propane setup on it. I just got my wideband o2 to help with tuneing it, its running rich yet. I need to "finish it" by getting gauges yet and an MSD iginition, I blow the spark out at upper rpms and high boost. The motor stock in 88 was rated at 190hp.

 

[plymouthrock]

a turbo 2.3 is a good idea, someone else mentioned that earlier I also used to have an 84 tbird turbo it was a sweet engine.

 

[racsan]

really with 4.10's i think a 2.3 would work, i had a '88 2wd supercab with the 2.3, 5 speed manual and 3.73's, it did alright until you had a really long upgrade to deal with. ive thought about a turbo 2.3 in a BII chassis before. dont know how it would do low-end wise, but on paper it seem it would work out good at highway speeds. dad breifly had a 2.8 BII, it was either wore out or all 2.8's are just dogs. if i would have still had my '88 at that time, i would have swapped motors and kept the BII for myself.

 

[Surrey]

really with 4.10's i think a 2.3 would work, i had a '88 2wd supercab with the 2.3, 5 speed manual and 3.73's, it did alright until you had a really long upgrade to deal with. ive thought about a turbo 2.3 in a BII chassis before. dont know how it would do low-end wise, but on paper it seem it would work out good at highway speeds. dad breifly had a 2.8 BII, it was either wore out or all 2.8's are just dogs. if i would have still had my '88 at that time, i would have swapped motors and kept the BII for myself.

If gas prices keep going up, I might change my mind from a v8 swap and go with a 2.3 turbo when my 2.9l packs it in...
My problem would be I doubt they put out any power below like 3000-3500 rpm...