2.3 into a BII.. Am I crazy?

[Beanmachine7000]

So, I'm still in the planning stages of my BII build up, and I'm looking for a motor swap candidate still... Well, me and my dad were discussing about how much we love Ford's Lima engines, and he suggested I put a 2.3 in the BII... Now, I hadn't seriously considered it until now, but I think if it would power a Ranger, it shouldn't have any problem with a BII now should it? I absolutely loved the 2.3 in my 90 Ranger, and I love the 2.5 in my new Ranger... Am I crazy?

 

[Hahnsb2]

Meh, the 2.3 is underpowered in a ranger and the 2.9 is underpowered in a B2 IMHO. I doubt you would get much better mileage either, my old 2.9 when it was stock could get equal mileage as my dads 4x4 2.3 ranger, smaller the engine the more weight will effect the gas mileage. The 2.3 is a much more bullet proof engine than the 2.9 however. IMHO the 4.0 swap is still the way to go.

 

[Beanmachine7000]

Oh, I wouldn't say underpowered... Maybe weak, but the darn things run forever... My dad put his first 2.3 well into 300k, and I still see it running around town today, my first 2.3 easily went to 250k, it's still working hard today, and my 2.5 is at 188k... Only thing we did to any of them was normal maintenance items... My 2.9 died at 177k Didn't they put 2.3's into the BII from the factory?

 

[Hahnsb2]

No, B2s only got 2.8s and 2.9 and supposedly on very rare occasions a diesel.
Yeah, the 2.3s are bullet proof but your mileage isn't going to be as great as you'd expect and it's going to be slow.

 

[Beanmachine7000]

Haha, speaking of those diesels, I found one of the turbo Mitubishi's close enough I'd drive to get it, but it has a bad injector pump Well, mileage really isn't that big a deal to me... I guess I'm just looking for something a little different to do...

 

[Totalled]

Yes, you are. A BII weighs at least 500 lbs more than a ranger and will be a slug. Not enough available torque.

 

[86ford]

if you want to be different swap in a 4.6, 5.4, 4.9, turbo 2.3, super coupe motor.

not a single one would be easy, but it would be different.

86

 

[Spartan]

Supercoups were 3.8 supercharged V6 engines.

Throw a 2.3 turbo out of a 83-88 thunderbird Turbo coupe, an SVO Mustang, or a Merkur XR4TI. plenty of power....on a stock LA3 computer it will handle 300 hp easy. plenty to move a bronco 2.

 

[fordmandan87]

if you regear the vehicle you can run with the 2.3 with little issues

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Id stick with the 2.9.

A 2.9 with 4.10's will do baout anything you want it to do.

later,
Dustin

 

[Beanmachine7000]

Id stick with the 2.9.

A 2.9 with 4.10's will do baout anything you want it to do.

later,
Dustin

I would too, but my 2.9 is sitting in the yard... Whatever I put in is going to be either more reliable, or more powerful, or both... 4.0=more power, 2.3=more reliable... I think the 4.9 would be neat, but waaayy too much work...

 

[country0001]

Thought about doing this myself. Mainly cause I have one in stock. I think it would be nifty, especially if u got it to perform like a 2.9 or better.

 

[bobbywalter]

why do i remember b2's having 4 cyl engines? they didnt have the 2.0 but the 2.3 1 bbl...then the diesel option in 85 iirc...the diesel the 2.3 and the 2.8 were options a few years...had 3 engine choice then it was 2.3-2.9 then 2.9 only...


i had an x truck that was gifted to trenton schools too that was a plow truck. 4.0 equipped...but a non production test truck. had to be sold in parts not whole.


put the axles in my truck. and the rest on many others.


there has to be someone round here with a 4 cyl truck...

 

[rusty ol ranger]

I would too, but my 2.9 is sitting in the yard... Whatever I put in is going to be either more reliable, or more powerful, or both... 4.0=more power, 2.3=more reliable... I think the 4.9 would be neat, but waaayy too much work...

How is the 2.9 less reliable then a 2.3L?....and there not that much weaker then a 4.0. There a good comprimise.

Actually the 300 (4.9L) swap isnt that big of deal if you put on like a 3 inch body lift.

Some here will try to steer you away from that swap, but with the body lift its no harder then a 302, and the 300 is better at performing truck duties then a 302. Its also as reliable as the earths rotation.

later,
Dustin

 

[Sevensecondsuv]

...the 300 is...also as reliable as the earths rotation.

later,
Dustin

Much like a 2.3.

Before mine was turbo'd, it wasn't underpowered in the least. It would move the ranger just as fast as the 4.0 moves my explorer. The BII is much closer in weight to a ranger. I see no reason why it couldn't move a BII. Ford was putting them in extended cab ranger's which can't be any lighter than a BII. I say go for it. Make sure you've got 3.73 or 4.10 gear axles and it'll be fine. And you won't have to worry about cracked heads and loss of oil pressure problems associated with the 2.9L POS engine.

 

[Beanmachine7000]

why do i remember b2's having 4 cyl engines? they didnt have the 2.0 but the 2.3 1 bbl...then the diesel option in 85 iirc...the diesel the 2.3 and the 2.8 were options a few years...had 3 engine choice then it was 2.3-2.9 then 2.9 only...


i had an x truck that was gifted to trenton schools too that was a plow truck. 4.0 equipped...but a non production test truck. had to be sold in parts not whole.


put the axles in my truck. and the rest on many others.

there has to be someone round here with a 4 cyl truck...

I thought I remembered reading the BII came with the 4-banger

How is the 2.9 less reliable then a 2.3L?....and there not that much weaker then a 4.0. There a good comprimise.

Actually the 300 (4.9L) swap isnt that big of deal if you put on like a 3 inch body lift.

Some here will try to steer you away from that swap, but with the body lift its no harder then a 302, and the 300 is better at performing truck duties then a 302. Its also as reliable as the earths rotation.

later,
Dustin

In my experience the 2.3 has been WAAAYY more reliable than the 2.9, I've seen one go over 300k, one go over 250k, and one at 188k, and all still running, with no major work done... Both 2.9's I've had died before 200k... Maybe I'm unlucky... I think the 300 would be real neat, but I'm looking for something that's gonna be easy to get, and no real major fab work...

Much like a 2.3.

Before mine was turbo'd, it wasn't underpowered in the least. It would move the ranger just as fast as the 4.0 moves my explorer. The BII is much closer in weight to a ranger. I see no reason why it couldn't move a BII. Ford was putting them in extended cab ranger's which can't be any lighter than a BII. I say go for it. Make sure you've got 3.73 or 4.10 gear axles and it'll be fine. And you won't have to worry about cracked heads and loss of oil pressure problems associated with the 2.9L POS engine.

I think a 2.3 will do fine in a BII... It already has 3.73's and when I do my 8.8, D35 swap I'll probably go to 4.56's run maybe 31's... So, for now it all depends on what engine I can find first and the least expensive... 4.0 or 2.3...

Maybe I could add a small turbo to the 2.3? Run maybe 5 psi? 150hp would be easy to get wouldn't it? I should stop thinking... I'm gonna get myself in trouble, lol...

 

[coonass_cracker]

been there, done that.

you'll be fine. i put a carbureted (1 barrel no less) 2.3 into an 84 BII and it was no different than driving the 83 ranger i pulled it out of. and that was turning 235/75r15's to boot. it won't be no hot rod or stump puller of course, but the BII does have the axle ratio to make it work.

even though the BII is heavier, it's not significant. plus the ranger with a 4 cylinder is expected to move at least that much weight and more in payload capacity. unless you plan on hauling 1000+ lbs in the back of your BII i doubt you'll notice much difference from driving a ranger that has one.

 

[Beanmachine7000]

I don't plan on carrying around that much all the time, but on occasions I'll need to be able to take enough stuff for a week or two worth of camping, plus a small utility trailer... I flat towed my BII home with my 2.5 Ranger and it didn't have any problems at all... It really depends on what I find though... If I find a 4.0 I'll put that in, but I'm having a hard time finding one around here... That's why the 2.3 idea hatched...

 

[Gotta_gofast]

I'd go 302 over a 300 anyday...

But for the BII, if its low geared rock crawling or slower offroading the 2.3L should be sufficient. If its mudding or any sport requiring you to spin those tires then obviously a 2.3L would be a poor choice. I agree with Seven, the 2.9L is junk. What size tires are you going to install? I think if its going to see a lot of offroad time, maybe step up to 4.56:1 or greater.

 

[coonass_cracker]

I don't plan on carrying around that much all the time, but on occasions I'll need to be able to take enough stuff for a week or two worth of camping, plus a small utility trailer... I flat towed my BII home with my 2.5 Ranger and it didn't have any problems at all... It really depends on what I find though... If I find a 4.0 I'll put that in, but I'm having a hard time finding one around here... That's why the 2.3 idea hatched...

i still think you'll be fine. when i drove the ranger i constantly overutilized it, towing trailers that exceeded what it was rated for and all that crap. the only problem i forsee *with a heavy load* will be going up a grade or merging onto freeway traffic. don't be in a hurry and be prepared to have other drivers honking and throwing you the middle finger here and there.