Put 2.3 EFI intake on 2.0?

Hey folks. First post here. Tried posting this on FRF first but the trend I've noticed there is that there is typically very little posting activity surrounding the early trucks, so I'm not too optimistic that I will find my answers there. I have searched a fair bit and can't find any references to anyone doing this, so it's either "a very dumb idea" or "literally not possible", but here we go.

My vehicle is a 1985 Ranger, 2.0L w/non-feedback YFA, TK5, RWD. Manual steering, no a/c. It is a Canadian market truck if this changes anything. The truck is the absolute definition of a beater and I am aiming for "functional result", not "perfection".

What I want to do is (first preference) swap in a good 2.3 w/EFI. However, finding a good engine is not a simple thing, so my second choice is to equip the 2.0 with EFI. I realize this is a ludicrous idea from a performance perspective, but my goal is excellent year-round driveability including below-0-Fahrenheit winters, and EFI is the best path to get there when compared to a carb that has a really worn out throttle body. I'd also like to put in a remote starter which is more complicated with a carb.

Big Question 1:
Is there some combination of intake parts (upper/lower) and fuel delivery (rail, injectors) that can be physically bolted onto my 2.0, which will cooperate with a MAF EEC-IV management system?

Big Question 2:
Assuming the stuff will line up well enough...what's the power loss (if much) going to be like slamming all that air into the "wall" around the intake port, due to the manifold runners being bigger than the ports on the head? Better than a poorly running carb 2.0 but less than a good condition 2.3 is what I'm aiming for.

Here's what I think I know already:

• It would have to be a Mass Air swap, because I suspect Speed Density would not get along with the differences in airflow and displacement (ECM fuel tables set up for 2.3, but only feeding the 2.0).
• 93 and 94 are the only 49-states trucks with MAF, but no cam position sensor. Therefore harness and ECM need to come from 93-94.
• I will need a spot to put an O2 sensor, and am pretty sure there's a plugged threaded hole in my exhaust manifold that will work for this.
• I need an EFI fuel sending unit, and it looks like I can take it from up to 88. This will be needed regardless of whether I try to EFI my 2.0, or do a full 2.3 swap.
• Donor truck for harness and ECM needs to be stick to reduce possible complications.
• A MAF 2.3 setup is twin plug and distributorless, using a crank position sensor w/trigger wheel on the crank pulley. 2.0 is single plug and Duraspark II with a traditional pickup in the distributor. The distributor would remain in the block unused if I were to do this.
• Comparing gasket photos, the intake manifold bolt pattern may be the same between 2.0 and 2.3, assuming the 2.0 one is pictured upside down.
• Comparing gasket photos, the intake ports appear to line up more or less (aside from the size difference).
• The early intakes (sampling model year 1985 for both 2.0 and 2.3) have a passage in the middle, presumably coolant since EGR is external. If I look at the intake gasket for a 94, it does not have that passage, but does appear to have an internal EGR passage (?). Therefore I cannot just take the entire 94 intake system and put it on the 85 head, that's definitely not going to work as it will leave the middle passage open on the head.
• For a MAF setup, I would need to put a crank position sensor on my 2.0. This doesn't seem like it should be a huge deal but there are some unknowns.

Outstanding questions (irrelevant if the answers to 1 and 2 above are not favourable):
3. Does the crank position sensor trigger wheel attach directly to the crank pulley? If so I can just grab the whole pulley off a junkyard truck.
4. Will the crank pulley off a 93 or 94 2.3 fit directly onto the crank of a 2.0?
5. What do I need to do for mounting the crank position sensor? I'm seeing some references to needing to replace the "front cover" of the engine but it isn't clear if that's just the plastic timing cover or something else (no pics anywhere).
6. Will running the ignition electronics (coilpacks, module) with half the spark plug outputs disconnected (single plug head) cause those parts to prematurely fail? If this is a waste spark system then can I get away with using only one coilpack?

Given all of the above, what would the parts list be? E.g. lower intake off an 85-?? EFI 2.3, upper intake off a ??, zip tube and MAF off a 93-94, etc.

I spend a lot of time in u-pull style junkyards and am not afraid of the physical work involved, nor am I afraid of the wiring (but I will say, those 93-94 harnesses are ugly...body electrical integrated into the same loom as the engine).

I'm also keeping my eyes open for a complete swap donor vehicle to yank the whole 2.3 from, but those are few and far between now.

Bonus question: can the accessory mounting brackets for a 93-94 2.3 bolt onto a 2.0? I'd love to gain the benefits of a 3G alternator, but there doesn't appear to be enough clearance behind the existing 1G to put a 3G in its place.

Welcome to TRS~!

This is my second attempt...accidentally deleted the first one before I could post it...dang scroll mouse jammed and I managed to hit the back button which effectively deletes anything typed...lol

Too much information to answer everything but I will start with what I did with an 88 2.0 carb...

Rebuilt the engine top end three times...using first a 2.3 head on the 2.0 block and then eventually plopping in a 2.3 block and another rebuilt head. I cracked three heads from overheating and oil loss problems. After the third rebuild i was being hounded by the emission problems and needed to do a major engine overhaul...

Instead I managed to find another TRS member with a 2.5 sitting on a 96 frame using the 96 intake/exhaust/wiring. All I had to do was plop the body and box on the frame (by this time I had also moved to ext cab) and install the 96 wiring in the cab and hook it all up.

This is what I would suggest...it's actually much easier to do once you figure everything out so if this is a time sensitive move then you might not be able to finish soon enough...but a bit of persistence and motivation (like keeping your job or girlfriend) might improve your chance of finishing before your children leave home for college...

So...my question would be: is the cab and box in good shape and the frame good enough to warrant this project for a long term vehicle or does it need work?

You can go the upgrade route to FI but I also managed to prolong the engine life and make winter driving way more enjoyable by adding a block heater...which eliminated cold starts and choke problems...usually started up first crank and I was on the road in a few minutes...

Mark_88 said:

Welcome to TRS~!

Click to expand...

Thanks! Hey look, Canada! I'm down in Windsor.

Mark_88 said:

emission problems and needed to do a major engine overhaul...

Click to expand...

Yes, this engine is at that point and has been for a long time. The difference between your 88 and my 85 is that my truck has not needed an e-test since 2005. Until 2008, it was a rolling 20 year cutoff, and in 2008, they changed it so 1988 and up would forever need a DriveClean test.

Mine failed every test it ever had, and got by with conditional passes. The issues my engine has predate me even being in high school yet lol.

It has blowby and burns oil. If it cannot be EFI'd, it is not worth rebuilding in my eyes, and additionally, EFI'ing it and rebuilding it are absolutely not worth it when good 2.3 and 2.5 examples exist out there to drop in instead...

But, if EFI'ing the existing engine and making no other changes (let it keep burning oil), that would be a cheap bandaid that could make a world of difference in how it runs. It would also put in place "infrastructure" (ECM, wiring, fuel pump, lines) that would prep it for a full 2.3 swap later on.

Mark_88 said:

So...my question would be: is the cab and box in good shape and the frame good enough to warrant this project for a long term vehicle or does it need work?

Click to expand...

Absolutely not, but I'm irritated enough with the carb-related issues to go to great lengths of effort to get the carb out of my life forever. The truck's rough but I kind of like it, and since lack of e-testing is a priority, plus parking footprint, plus not liking the aesthetics of the facelifted and newer Rangers...this is about as good as it gets.

Structurally sound, but that's about the best you could say. On the bright side I did 100% of the brake system from the master, hard lines, soft lines, and everything at the wheel ends all the way around, so no matter what, it will always stop. It passed a legit safety after all my work in 2015 and I only have it as a winter vehicle, or when I "need a truck". I have 4 other Fords for the other seasons.

TK5 is rough, synchros are kinda screwed and the output shaft bushing is toast so it automatically undercoats the floor and frame in one specific line from left to right. But I put a TK4 shifter on it which greatly improved using it, so it's not like stirring a bucket of soup anymore.

Mark_88 said:

block heater

Click to expand...

Edited this part of this post pretty heavily, hope I don't ninja anyone:
It's a viable option, but I'd need to invest in a good extension cord suitable for this use (and somewhere between 50-100ft long), plus the block heater. My carb is trashed. Throttle shaft vacuum leaks. Even if I can fix cold starting once and for all, it will always be untunable junk. So I can invest, what, $150 between block heater and extension cord, and still need to have a machine shop fix the carb, or I can get rid of the carb (money-wise, less cost, though more effort).

Believe me, I weighed my options before I came up with this stupid idea (EFI the existing 2.0). Donor trucks pop up all the time in junkyards in Detroit, and I could get everything needed to EFI this engine for <$100 USD. The question (labeled 1 and 2 in first post) is if it's viable at all (would these Lego bricks fit together?).

A guy replied to my Kijiji ad offering me one of the ASTM fuel additive test engines (the test specs using a fresh built 1994 Ranger 2.3 - very specifically) with very low hours on it, so I'm exploring that option too.

I think I would go for the 94 test engine, if possible, and poke thru the Detroit yards for a matching harness. If you can't match, then you can leave the drivers side plugs 'there' but doing nothing, and just use the exhaust side for ignition. It could be a "Frank Special", apologies to the author, mix and match of several vintages.
You would need the ducting, air cleaner, MAF mount, etc from the donor, along with the pump, fuel line, etc. And wiring. And computer.
As I note the obvious bits & pieces, it makes me wonder if it is worth the time and effort, all to get one that will start & run in all weather w/o troubles. I'd give a lot of thought to finding a newer vintage that had an absolutely toasted body/chassis for cheap, and just swapping a pile o' parts. Cobbling together and having it work well are somewhat questionable. Maybe import a whole vehicle from the South, on a flatbed?
tom

tomw said:

I think I would go for the 94 test engine, if possible, and poke thru the Detroit yards for a matching harness. If you can't match, then you can leave the drivers side plugs 'there' but doing nothing, and just use the exhaust side for ignition. It could be a "Frank Special", apologies to the author, mix and match of several vintages.
You would need the ducting, air cleaner, MAF mount, etc from the donor, along with the pump, fuel line, etc. And wiring. And computer.
As I note the obvious bits & pieces, it makes me wonder if it is worth the time and effort, all to get one that will start & run in all weather w/o troubles. I'd give a lot of thought to finding a newer vintage that had an absolutely toasted body/chassis for cheap, and just swapping a pile o' parts. Cobbling together and having it work well are somewhat questionable. Maybe import a whole vehicle from the South, on a flatbed?
tom

Click to expand...

The test engine comes with a harness that expects an EEC-IV to be plugged into it, so that's half the battle. Junkyard EEC-IV, pop it in, get fuel into it (need an EFI sending unit for my tank but those come along from time to time), 3 electrical sources (constant hot, hot with key in run, and crank), some grounds, and it should be operational...

Trying to set up a time to see that test engine. Apparently they have some type of external oiling system modification so I don't know what's up with that.

93 and 94 2.3 trucks are super common in Detroit yards. Literally always at least one available. But they never have collision damage, nor significant rust, so I shy away from a whole engine given those points. The engine is very likely to be bad on a truck that isn't wrecked, but got scrapped in Detroit (you have to understand the typical condition of a roadgoing vehicle in Detroit - it is not an exaggeration to say cars drive around with body panels missing or flapping in the wind all the time). The sealed beam trucks show up at least one every few months as well, and since that's where my fuel sender needs to come from, that's a good thing.

RE: bringing up a newer, cleaner truck
The newest year I'll consider for a winter beater vehicle is 1987 because 1988 has emissions testing. I am not one of these "rip off all the emissions gear" guys, nor do I want to drive a vehicle that would fail emissions, but I have 5 vehicles. E-tests are a big pain.

I also have way too much (time and money) into this truck as it is, so I'm running it until it has a frame structural failure, and that's pretty much the end of that. I cannot sell it without taking a massive loss, so at this point, I can either live with the problems it has (nope) or put more in to improve those problems out. And I'm done with carbs. If I could EFI swap my lawn mower, I would...

Bringing a whole vehicle across the border is a no-go. Huge expense and paperwork hassle. Done this once before, never (ever) doing it again. If it weren't such an issue to do it, I'd already have a donor truck in my driveway.

The details of the work required don't bother me at all. If the intake will bolt to the 2.0 head and the MAF computer will adjust fuel delivery to match the airflow of the 2.0 (thanks to being MAF), then it's an appealing option and I'm giving it a serious look. The problem is that I have no way of knowing about the intake matching up to the head. There's only so much I can get from looking at part vendor pictures of gaskets.

There's a pic of an 85 2.3 EFI engine bay at this link, which does help put things into perspective, but not in great detail. If someone with an 85 EFI truck can snap some pics of how all the intake stuff goes together, and especially if the intake is in full contact with the head between the middle two runners, that would help.

--
getting back to basics (if we try to sort out one question at a time, the answer may become clear easier)
Any thoughts on if the upper and lower intake pair (and injectors, IAC, etc) from an 85 EFI engine will play nice with the harness I would collect from a 94? Or 93?

It would appear that 1985 2.3 EFI uses the same actual injectors as 1994 2.3 EFI. The IAC is different, but the valve portion is the same, it's just the newer style solenoid half with the 90-degree connector that changed. Since it's the same valve half I expect the IAC could be swapped to match.
I can't figure out what's up with the TPS, seems like it's different between them, but even the newer TPS has the same bolt pattern as the old TPS that Ford used on a lot of stuff, so I think there's a way to rig it to work. Plus the resistance values may be the same anyway.
Also appears the IAT/ACT sensor is located in the upper intake on the 85, but I believe it was relocated out into the air cleaner box in later ones. No biggie though since Ford used the same ACT in everything EEC-IV for years and years.
I also have the inline ECT mount point to insert into a heater hose already.

So...if the 1985 EFI hard parts can be paired with the 1994 harness and ECM, it just falls back on the numbered questions in the first post.

OK, thanks for the clarification on what you're looking at. I avoided the questions initially to find out if the rest of the truck was viable and it sounds like it is borderline. My concern was that unless you've pulled the dash and looked at the firewall on the inside it will always stand in my mind as severely questionable. That's were I found my otherwise pristine 88 cab was showing the worst signs of decay.

The reason I mentioned the Drive Clean was I was pulled over by an OPP officer one day and he gave me the $400 fine because my engine was modified. I also got caught in a scrap metal sting where they were targeting guys like me hauling scrap metal and they did a complete search of my vehicle for any possible violations. What they found was my air pump was missing. It never worked and it didn't matter on my emission testing but they fined me and forced me to add an air pump even if it didn't work.

I was floored by that utter stupidity but realized what an old friend (Metro Cop) told me...if they want to get you they will go to any lengths to find something to throw at you...

Anyway, most of that reasoning went into me doing the major swap and dash change to my 88. It was a lot of work but it would have been worth it overall.

The 94 engine sounds like a good idea if you want to use it with the older EEC-IV system that means getting the MAP and all other parts and you can use the distributor and 4 plug system like the original EFI for they years 1985-1988. That would work if you can get all the parts say from a donor truck.

It was only pushing about 80 HP in the best possible situation...maybe 90 HP tops. It might help cure the blowby problems if the rings and valves are good and it will be an improvement over the carburetor system right off the bat even if the engine is slightly worn.

But, yes, those parts will bolt onto the 2.0 head and even if you swapped on a 2.3 4 plug head from that vintage it will work as well. The heads are pretty much interchangeable throughout the years but the intakes are not always compatible...which is why I would suggest getting the 4 plug head and associated 85-88 parts and drop it on the 2.0 for the quickest swap without too much investment.

EDIT: and the 2.0 will still have blowby if it is ring related...I tried rebuilding the head before I realized it was rings so all that work only partly helped my situation.

Grabbing the 64 pin computer and everything else may be best done with a complete vehicle though...if you have access to the USA Junkyards then bonus! I've never had the pleasure of cross border shopping...

Yeah, I'm aware OPP can give you emissions tickets even if a vehicle passes emissions legitimately, or is emissions exempt, based on "modifications to the original emissions equipment". But I know of many, many people with emissions-modified vehicles that receive many tickets, but somehow never those ones...so I do think it was a "grasping at straws" instance for you. Probably.

Plus, if you smelled the exhaust coming out of this thing I've got now, you'd wonder how I haven't been ticketed for it yet. That's part of why I want to get some type of improvement going on here. It's unbearable.

I'm quite sure the blowby is at least partially the rings, and I'm sure that has to do with the fact it's been rich for a very long time. Compression is good, haven't done a leakdown test (don't have the tool, nor does anyone I know, nor do parts stores do the "loan a tool" for it), but suspect leakdown would look kinda bad.

93-94 EEC-IV 2.3 is a MAF setup (seeing them in person confirms it). I don't know if that's what the test engines use, maybe they're special speed density setups (with a MAP). But either way, I have piles of EEC-IV parts. My other cars are Panther platform cars, which share all those sensors (and much of the troubleshooting knowledge). So I'm really not scared of jumping to EEC-IV. EEC-V, on the other hand, is totally out of the question. No way I'm messing with OBD2's sensitivities in an engine swap.

My plan is to pick one of these options:

a) Put 1985-design EFI intake and stuff onto 2.0 engine. But it must be operated by a MAF ECM from 93-94, or the computer fuel tables will be wrong for a 2.0 (MAF needed to compensate for airflow differences). Doing so would implicitly require going distributorless and that requires a crank position sensor.

or

b) full 2.3 EFI swap, does not matter if SD or MAF, DIS or distributor, since all the parts match up to each other, but a 94 donor engine would be MAF anyway.

If I'm unbolting the head from the engine, the work involved immediately justifies just swapping the whole engine. I would only EFI swap the existing engine if I'm leaving every fastener involving the cylinder head into the block, and exhaust into the head, untouched. And that is where my concerns about mating a 2.3 intake to a 2.0 head come from. The ports are radically different in size and shape.

Good to hear you are aware and taking steps to avoid the pitfalls.

Yes, I suspect the guy was looking for some violation but I don't blame him. I was leaving a trail of smoke down the highway...it was just a matter of time but I couldn't find what I wanted.

Head swaps are not that hard but I agree that if you're going that route it's better to just swap the long block and if you have the intake/exhaust attached it is much less work.

I'm not familiar enough with the intricacies of the different FI systems to know how to make them compatible but maybe someone else can help with that if you need it.

It already sounds more complicated than what I would do but there is probably a solution out there...I like simple things and staying as close to the OEM specs (mainly from getting slapped on the wrist for my innovations) but that's just my desire to keep it simple and why I stuck with the carburetor for so long.

I look forward to seeing a solution though...I might end up in an older Ranger again some day and every bit helps when considering options...

I don't mind the idea of it being stupidly complicated. I take photos of everything I do and make notes, so I don't mind deviating from the shop manual, since I basically write my own.

That being said, it's nice when everything can match up with the factory shop manual, especially the EVTM. But I suspect I could have some issues with that using the ASTM fuel testing engine anyway, since those EEC-IVs run a special calibration so who knows if the pinout is even guaranteed to be the same...

I am reasonably confident that I can mix-and-match a combo of [93/94 harness/ECM] + [85 to whatever year lower and upper intake] + [93/94 air ducting, MAF, etc] + [85-88 fuel sending unit to hang a pump in the tank] and get a combo that will function...on a 2.3. It would be subject to performance concerns if 93/94 has a bigger throttle bore or wider intake runners (IDK, do they?), but it should run.

The question becomes, what happens when you try to bolt that mess onto a 2.0?
Bolt pattern line up? If no, give up.
If yes, do the ports line up? If no, give up.
If yes, will the air flow OK, and will the fuel mix OK, considering the sudden reduction at the ports on the head? If no, give up.
If yes...then everything should go together nicely and I get the first EFI swapped 2.0.

It occurs to me that the injectors might spray the fuel partially onto a flat metal surface (the side of the cylinder head), depending on exactly how the ports line up. That would result in very poor atomization and something that runs like absolute garbage (not just low on power, but probably very lean plus the occasional backfire inside the intake manifold...). So that's where I really need the commentary of someone who has handled these heads and intakes to say what they think would happen.

For future reference, thanks to that handy link you supplied...these are for a 93 and similar:

Glad you found the link helpful...

On one head I was able to do a bit of the porting that everyone said was important to proper flow and I saw that the intake on the carbed version was a very inefficient method of fuel delivery...the fuel injection would spray the fuel into that opening and then taken in by the opening valves so as long as it is atomized by the injector I'd imagine where it is spraying is less critical...other than it pooling after hitting something like the side of the opening...timing would be more critical so that the spray doesn't have time to actually pool.

But the angle of those injectors should give it a clear shot at the intake valve or you might be able to skim away a bit of the material to make it more direct...it's been so long since I even looked at a head that I don't remember at all...but I recently acquired some images of the heads from another member...I will post a link below to his thread...might help you see something worth noting...

http://www.therangerstation.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=23056&d=1515437198

That is a shot of the intake side of three different heads...you can see approximately how they line up with the intake opening but not much else...

That is pretty helpful. If we compare that with this image (link) of three different "2.3" heads, the middle of which is a round-port carb head which should have identical ports to a 2.0 head, we can see with certainty that the EFI manifold will bolt to the carb head. You said this above, but I still needed a visual to help...uh...visualize it.

Has anyone tried to do what I'm doing, but to a carb 2.3? It seems like someone who did would be able to answer the question about injector aim and port alignment.

Looking at gaskets (RockAuto is great for this, but I'm seeing catalog errors mixing in Tempo OHV 2.3 stuff...grr), 85 86 and 87 are the only three years that use the intake that will directly bolt up.

My concern re: injector aim is that the round ports are a good bit smaller than the ports on EFI heads. If the injector is too far offset from the centre of the port on the head, or in the case of the front and rearmost ports maybe totally misaligned with the 2.0 port...I don't see any way that they could be ported out to work without extensive work (and certainly not without removing the head from the vehicle).

Check out the attachment I cooked up. It perfectly illustrates my concerns about the port misalignment.

So it's pretty clear the manifold will bolt up (with the possible exception of the top leftmost bolt?) and the ports will align so that the 2.0 ports are not restricted any more than they normally are. But that doesn't look like very good airflow at all, to me. And lots of opportunity to fuel to pool up in bad ways, possibly.

JB weld to fill in the bottom of the runners on the intake to be flush with the bottom of the 2.0 ports? Joking. I promise.

Theoretical parts list as of now looks like:

• 85-87 Ranger 2.3 EFI lower and upper intake complete with injectors, rail, IAC, sensors, etc.
• New intake gasket for the above
• 93-94 Ranger 2.3 EFI intake tube, air cleaner, MAF
• 94-94 Ranger 2.3 EFI engine harness & ECM
• 85-88 EFI fuel sending unit, any engine, just need a way to hang a pump inside the tank
• If salvageable, fuel lines off a 2.3 EFI truck, but should be able to just use universal fuel hose if it comes down to it.
• Probably smart to buy an EVTM for the donor truck to figure out what the rogue harness wires are (EEC-IV is pretty well documented, but Rangers mix body wiring into that harness too...)

And the crank position sensor questions remain unknown.

That's great that you can check the gaskets...that's what I usually recommend but didn't realize they had images you could compare.

That's what I was saying earlier about the ports matching and how using a later model head would be better if using the later model intake. The exhaust side apparently is the same for all the Lima engines but the intake definitely is not. You're the third person in recent months to ask about this sort of thing...usually I see "waves" of similar questions...

Anyway...another thing about the aluminum intakes is they can be reamed out a bit if needed to match bolt patterns...I've even seen custom made intakes but not that many...if you go with a 4 plug configuration you have all that intake side plug area free also...not that you could do much with it though...just nothing to impede other than access to a some sort of plug.

The pumps are all 40 PSI up to 1997 too...so a fuel tank from any of those years can be adapted...they are plastic after 1989 I think and the sending units don't matter too much as long as you are working with their output.

One of the reasons I went with the 96 frame was the plastic tank would not rust out on me...had to replace one and that was enough.

I had to save and manipulate the gasket images a fair bit. They're all pictured "upside down" and "flipped" different ways from each other, so after correcting them to all face the same direction as the pattern on the head, I blew them up bigger (why it's so pixelated), then used GIMP to delete out transparent sections inside the intake ports and bolt holes on the one gasket and lay it on top of the other one. If RockAuto offered a tool to do that automatically, that'd be awesome...but it's such a specialized need that I think doing it by hand is the best we have

I agree, matching the head to the intake is a guaranteed way to get a matched result that flows properly without these questions that I have. I dunno, maybe grabbing a whole head wouldn't be such a bad thing. But it really does seem like that's not worth the effort compared to doing the whole engine.

My tank was new in 2015, so I'm definitely not ready to scrap that yet. Hence matching the fuel sender to the tank. Otherwise I'd definitely go for a plastic tank. I believe all the years that use this tank use a 2-pump system, but my plan is to just put a normal high pressure pump in the tank. Just need something to hang it off, and a return line fitting, so junkyard sending unit should do the job.

My (limited) understanding of how air flows in an engine is that the airflow should be OK through the 2.3 intake into the 2.0 head. It should flow enough to run reasonably, maybe a little lower on power than a perfect running 2.0 would be to begin with though. The issue is largely about where the injector is, and where it's pointing. Fortunately, the top side of the ports all line up fairly well, but it's still something to verify before I go buying parts for a ridiculous project like this.

I kind of like the idea of doing this (EFI'ing the 2.0). I'm rooting for it to be doable. It's the cost winner, and the idea of a hodge-podged, never-done-before(?) engine setup kind of works for the character of the truck. I'm also not bending the truth to fit my wishes though, I want all the ducks in a row before that trigger gets pulled.

I've swapped heads a few times...I could do one in about 4 hours now with the right setup...maybe even less if I hurry...not much to worry about on them either...they probably weigh 100 lbs and I've put them on myself...just climb in and straddle the block...line it up and watch the fingers don't get pinched.

But I would have swapped out the short block the first time around and if I'd done that my $600 rebuilt head would have made a big improvement. Ah, well, live and learn.

I know what it's like to have parts from many years...heck at one time I even had suzuki parts in my Ranger (door arm rest and rear view mirror)...so it got a bit hairy trying to order parts and keeping even worse trying to find replacements after the junkyards started crushing the older ones. The cost of buying new or remanufactured has become obscene in my area and that was a big factor in my decision to go with the 2.5...at least they are still plentiful.

I'm quite fortunate to have the Detroit self-serve junkyards at my disposal. Windsor-Essex previously had two self-serve (one officially, the other if you were on good terms with the people there). Prices were astronomical...buddy needed the plastic reflector panel that runs left to right across the back of his 87 Town Car. Guy here told him $80. That sale did not get completed. That's a $10-15 item across the border. More than makes up for exchange rate, fuel, and border tolls.

Complete engines were on sale for $100 US for a while. Now one yard has them on for $77 US. If I could more confidently trust what I was getting, I'd already have an 88 Turbocoupe engine sitting in my garage...but no. Car's not wrecked from a collision, so I'm forced to assume mechanical failure.

This also means the chances I'd pay $600 for a cylinder head (rebuilt or otherwise) are in the negatives. If I'm spending $600 that cylinder head had better have a car bolted to it.

The more I try to figure out this port shape thing, the less I think I know anymore. It seems as though the truck 2.3 used the large D-shaped ports, rather than the large oval ports? Or am I getting something wrong there?

The large D-ports are closer to the same size as the round ports, on account of the bottom being cut off of all of them. A D-port intake would probably mate up better with the round-port head, if only slightly.

OTOH - if the intakes used on the D-port heads still had full size oval-shape runner ports...then that is good news for mating an oval port intake to a round port head, because it would have the same "shelf" at the bottom of the port. Just more of it, but still not a smooth passage.

Unfortunately it looks like all the 80s trucks I've run into lately in the yards have been crushed, so I'd need to wait for another batch to show up. The plan is to take a 2.0 intake gasket to the yard and mock it up against an oval-port (or D-port?) intake to see how things look.

By the time one of those trucks shows up and I can check it out, I should know the outcome of the complete 2.3 situation, so one way or another an answer to my situation is coming...just might take some time. In the meantime if the remaining mysteries can get worked out I'd like that.

Especially the issue of how to mount a crank position sensor to the 2.0 if I were to go that route. Recall MAF is essential to adapt to the reduced flow of the 2.0. The only way to get MAF is to also get a distributorless setup, where the crank position sensor exists.