• Welcome Visitor! Please take a few seconds and Register for our forum. Even if you don't want to post, you can still 'Like' and react to posts.

Identify what I need for this 2.3


kishy

Active Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2018
Messages
148
Reaction score
58
Points
28
Location
ON, Canada
Vehicle Year
1985
Make / Model
Ranger, RCLB
Engine Size
95 2.3 EFI Swap
Transmission
Manual
2WD / 4WD
2WD
Hi, me again...

As I have made painfully obvious I am looking at doing one of two things to my '85: EFI swapping my existing 2.0 engine with original head, or swapping in a 2.3 with EFI. The end goal is fuel injection and I'm not too worried about how I get there.

The thread linked above explores the first option, and it is still on the table.

This thread explores the second option, using an engine I have been offered locally (for too much money, but if it gets the best result, maybe it's not too much money).

This engine is a 2.3 EFI that has never been installed in a vehicle, supposedly. The story is that it came from an Exxon fuel additive dyno test lab (this really is a thing, and these 2.3 engines are the specific engine required for the industry standard testing). The current owner bought it over 15 years ago, it has not ran or been turned over at all in that time, and it supposedly only ran for 11 (eleven) hours total since it was built. I have no way to back that up, but I don't see much reason to doubt it either.

Facts:
  • It is wired with the engine harness, not all the way back to the ECM connector, but all self-contained engine bits of the wiring seem to be there. I would be able to complete the harness with a junkyard donor truck and some "quality time" with a utility knife, I suspect.
  • Known missing: fuel rail, IAC valve, thermostat housing, alternator (it may have never had an alternator installed, but the side-mount 3G bracket is there).
  • No A/C or P/S brackets or parts, which is fine for me, since my truck has neither. It also does not have a smog pump, and probably never did either.
  • I stupidly did not think to make a note of the full part number on the front of the timing cover, but it is an F5 number, which puts this as a 1995-revision part.
  • It uses an FL400 instead of an FL1A filter, so it is definitely newer than 1994 (last year for EEC-IV), however...
  • It has the crank position sensor inside under the timing belt cover = EEC-IV
  • It has the ICM mounted on the intake = EEC-IV

Please take a look at the following photos, and let me know what you think I will need to add to this engine and harness to get a usable result. My exhaust manifold in the truck currently has an O2 spot already, so I'm hoping to use the existing manifold. My 2.0 has a brand new clutch and flywheel on it, so those will be transferred onto this engine, and I will reuse my starter (although I want to upgrade to a PMGR one off a newer year eventually).

Does this harness look like it can plug into the body harness of a 93-94 as-is? Specifically thinking about the grey and black rectangular connectors.





















I have numbered the harness connections in a couple images. I suspect that #1 is the oxygen sensor (HEGO has 4 wires), #2 may be a ground, #3 is the ECT which mounts in a heater hose, and 4/5 are obviously the connections into the body harness which then find their way over to the ECM. Any corrections?







 
Last edited:


Mark_88

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2007
Messages
18,554
Reaction score
240
Points
63
Age
68
Location
Ontario, Canada
Vehicle Year
2007
Make / Model
Dordge
Engine Size
3.3 Fuel Injected
Transmission
Automatic
My credo
Love Thy Neighbor
If all else fails...and nobody who knows what those connectors are connected to...you can try the Connector Catalogue...it does require searching on the part number so maybe more work than usual...

http://www.therangerstation.com/how-to/lighting-wiring-horns-onboard-air/

When I did the cab swap on my truck I took many pictures but the time between start and finish was about 2 years...so it was sketchy as to where things went...but what did help was putting the harness in where it was supposed to go and then follow the natural path that it followed from so many years of being in that position...everything lead to the appropriate device...so it was actually much easier...or will be when you get the harness you need.

Anyway...hopefully someone can shine some light on what you are looking for...
 

kishy

Active Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2018
Messages
148
Reaction score
58
Points
28
Location
ON, Canada
Vehicle Year
1985
Make / Model
Ranger, RCLB
Engine Size
95 2.3 EFI Swap
Transmission
Manual
2WD / 4WD
2WD
Now that is some good info...going to put some time in studying that.

I concluded that regardless of if I do this engine, or another engine, or if I try to EFI my 2.0, there are certain items I will need regardless, so I ran out to the yard today and grabbed some things.

All from a 1993 Ranger:
  • ECM
  • Complete underhood wiring including the fuse box, EXCEPT the wiring that's on the engine in the OP
  • Thermostat housing
  • Fuel rail and the lines back to the connection point where the filter is. I will bring my reciprocating saw to drop the tank on a future visit to get the lines back to the sending unit. The lines after the filter (or I guess before) are a beautiful 3-in-1 moulded together setup and it looks very retrofit-friendly. I was worried about how I would handle the charcoal canister, but I think it should be totally doable to have it operational.
  • Throttle cable bracket and the plastic cover that goes over it.
  • Oil pump drive/dummy distributor (not needed for the engine in this thread, but might be handy to have on hand).
  • Complete air cleaner assembly (MAF is not present, but the metal tube it screws into is there, so I can just get a new MAF when the time comes)
  • Photos and useful knowledge!

I verified also that I already have a compatible IAC in my garage, so as long as it works, that's good. It pays to hoard Ford parts.

Findings:
The O2 wiring branches off from the body harness and runs under the engine to the O2. I got this wiring today.

Therefore, pigtail 1, as I numbered it, is definitely not for the O2. The 93 truck in the junkyard had this connector as well, positioned in the same spot. I really should have followed it back, but I was distracted by the gasoline shower I had just given myself and forgot. Oops.

I will want to verify there were no year-by-year changes to the pinouts of pigtails 4 and 5. If they did not change ever in the lifetime of those connectors, the engine would be plug-n-play with the harness I grabbed. If it did change, it's super easy to repin them, so all I need is a pinout.

I noticed the lower rad hose fitting is quite different, there's an extension on the engine in the OP which doesn't seem to exist on an installed engine. Shouldn't be a big deal to work around.

I'm going to throw the guy an offer on the engine and see what happens. I am concerned about how long it has sat without running (cylinder wall rust?), but I do think it's the best option I'll find for a complete engine. Plus the benefit of not having to pull it out of an existing truck is a huge bonus. And little big things like the fact the junkyard punctures the oil pans, so I'd have to find one of those intact.

Pics:
























 
Last edited:

Mark_88

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2007
Messages
18,554
Reaction score
240
Points
63
Age
68
Location
Ontario, Canada
Vehicle Year
2007
Make / Model
Dordge
Engine Size
3.3 Fuel Injected
Transmission
Automatic
My credo
Love Thy Neighbor
There may or may not be cylinder wall rust and it is something you will want to check. Easiest way I know is to scope down through the plug holes...but before you do anything I'd squirt some oil down and slowly hand crank the engine...or flip it over and remove the oil pan to get a better look. Unless you have another plan...

My 2.3 short block came from an 87 Ranger that had been sitting for a few years and there was no rust inside the cylinders...just a crust formed at the top of each cylinder. The engine was sealed (plugs and heads left in) and I swapped the head on myself so I was able to inspect it.

Depending on the year you pulled it from...the starter circuit and power distribution box may be opposite of the earlier config. The Battery was on the passenger side of my 88 but the 96 had the solenoid on the driver side. I was debating whether to move the battery or the starter circuit and what I ended up doing was leaving the battery on the passenger side and running the power feed from the ignition to the solenoid over to the passenger fender and adapting a wire harness for the starter circuit.

It required cutting the starter ground wire off the block on the driver side and connecting it to the block on the passenger side but that was just a simple reroute...you might want to check that out and plan on moving things around if needed.

I might have some pics of my engine bay posted already...but if you need to see that let me know...I know they are not very clear but might help.
 

kishy

Active Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2018
Messages
148
Reaction score
58
Points
28
Location
ON, Canada
Vehicle Year
1985
Make / Model
Ranger, RCLB
Engine Size
95 2.3 EFI Swap
Transmission
Manual
2WD / 4WD
2WD
Scope down a plug hole, and turn it by hand with some oil in it is the intent. I've made the guy an offer and if he accepts or counters close to it, I will bring the scope to look inside when I go to get it (he will know this). If there's anything significant, price goes down. Thing is, even if it knocks a bit of life off the rings, if it's still a very low running hours engine, it should outlast the truck regardless.

I am aware of the differences in electrical from side to side, and yes, 93 has the battery and starter relay on the driver side. Electrical is 100% absolutely the easiest part of this and I am not even a little tiny bit worried about it, I just need to know the pinouts of what I'm working with and I'm good. Since I have the body side of the harness, I can (on a much warmer day) take it apart wire by wire, figure out what needs to go where in the truck, and have it all ready for dropping in the new engine and everything will be plug and play at that point. The goal would be to have the fuel lines already in place ready to hook up the rail at the engine end, and drop the tank to pop in the EFI sending unit on the tank end, so the actual downtime for the truck should be really minimal once the time comes.

As mentioned though the 2.0 EFI project is still on the table until the 2.3 is a sure thing.

Update: I have purchased a 1993 EVTM, since that will match the body harness I took and help me eliminate the (many) wires I won't need. I'm expecting to get it from my buddy's place in Detroit on the 23rd, when I go to the Detroit auto show. Then some wiring examination can happen.
A thought: the MAF hookup is different on the engine in this thread. A real truck has the MAF wires run across the rad support and come up from the passenger fender. This helps reinforce that the engine in this thread was never installed in a truck, since the MAF pigtail hangs off beside the throttle body on this one. This also guarantees the pinout is different on the grey and black connectors because there's a MAF signal buried in there that doesn't exist in the harness I picked up yesterday.
 
Last edited:

kishy

Active Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2018
Messages
148
Reaction score
58
Points
28
Location
ON, Canada
Vehicle Year
1985
Make / Model
Ranger, RCLB
Engine Size
95 2.3 EFI Swap
Transmission
Manual
2WD / 4WD
2WD
Went back today. Wasn't planning to, but buddy needed parts for something, so he was going.

Got remainder of fuel lines back to the sending unit, as well as the tank vent line for the charcoal canister. The tank vent "valve" (like a PCV valve, but mounted on the tank) is identical to that on my 85, so I can just reuse what I've got.

Also got remainder of wiring, back to the fuel sending unit. More wires in that harness continued further back but I couldn't figure out what for...something on the diff? Anyway, snipped them because I had what I needed.

Also figured out what "pigtail 1" goes to: a very short little sub-harness that has 4 wires, but two of the pins just loop back to each other, and the other two go to a switch below the shifter. I'm thinking reverse lights probably. Since the wiring for my body lighting is staying exactly the way it is now, I shouldn't need to mess with any of that stuff.

This means that as of now, I have 100% (perhaps like 150%) of the wiring needed for the EFI swap, regardless of what specific 2.3 goes into it. Just need to take the harnesses apart, remove extra wires, clean it all up, and figure out how the routing is going to go. I'll be starting on that once the EVTM is in my hands. Not sure where the EEC-IV is going to live, I think 85 has the hole for it in the firewall, just not sure exactly. It'll all come together in time. Need to remember to grab some ground straps, and my truck could also use new starter wiring, but the latter isn't a swap issue.

Dropping the tank on the 93 was brrrruuuuuuttttaaaaalllll. Absolutely ridiculous. I don't remember it putting up nearly that much of a fight when I swapped my tank out. Filler neck did not want to come off, and the plastic tank has a section that pokes out the side to occupy the hollow side of the frame rail, so it was a real pain. I'm glad my truck doesn't have that setup.





 
Last edited:

Mark_88

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2007
Messages
18,554
Reaction score
240
Points
63
Age
68
Location
Ontario, Canada
Vehicle Year
2007
Make / Model
Dordge
Engine Size
3.3 Fuel Injected
Transmission
Automatic
My credo
Love Thy Neighbor
Oh, that reminded me...lol...the ECM on my 88 was in the passenger side (until I swapped the wire harness for the carb) and when I went to the 96 I still hadn't figured out what I wanted to do with it. I was considering putting it into the space on the heater box where the AC usually went but I sold the truck before I got to it. Another option was to simply extend the harness so that I could put it inside the cab...which I was seriously considering and I even had an extra harness that I could have adapted.

It ended up sitting in the protective box from the 96 on top of the heater box...I secured it and added a ground strap to it to help keep it from flying around...which would have complicated my life substantially...

The wire harness to the tank also had the rear light wires and the trailer connection (optional).

If you are going from the 85 lenses to the 93 or later wiring another thing you need to figure out is the two bulb to three bulb wiring. I was going to go with using the brake and parking/signal lights in the two bulb lenses that my 88/92 box had and put the reverse lights on the bumper.

Another option I considered was to fab up a three bulb system into the two bulb lenses. It can be done...but it would require a bit of hacking the lenses and adding a third socket. If you look at the Gen I lenses there is a space large enough to add a third bulb just above the back up lights. If you hack the fitting from an extra set it will fit perfectly into the space just above the reverse lights and with a bit of Gorilla glue and some careful cutting...

Anyway...just another heads up...

That middle image above looks like the wiper motor wire harness...not sure when they went to six wires but I made mine work with the old 88 wiper motor that uses 4 wires...

I made a post about it...but you won't need to worry about hat if you have the 4 wire connector...maybe it will be plug and play...

http://www.therangerstation.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163558
 

kishy

Active Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2018
Messages
148
Reaction score
58
Points
28
Location
ON, Canada
Vehicle Year
1985
Make / Model
Ranger, RCLB
Engine Size
95 2.3 EFI Swap
Transmission
Manual
2WD / 4WD
2WD
I'm considering finding a way to make the ECM live in the air cleaner box. Probably not the best idea for various reasons though. With the cold and ice I can easily think of all these things I want to check on the truck (ECM hole in firewall) when I'm inside on the computer, but then when I'm out there, it's strictly business...get in, drive, forget about looking under the hood.

Since I'm not doing anything with the lighting wiring that already exists in the truck (I think all that hangs off a fuse link, which I'll just keep on battery positive unchanged), I can eliminate any and all lighting wires out of the harness I pulled. Without having the big round "everything" connector on the firewall like the newer truck, there's no point trying to clean up the 85 wiring.

The middle image is the same connector on the junkyard truck as is "pigtail 1" in my original photos of the engine I offered to buy. 8 position, 4 populated contacts, connects to the tiny harness section shown in the third picture which goes to a switch on the side of the trans.

The wiper connector is indeed a round connector. It's on the body harness I have, and will be eliminated from the picture as well. The harness I'm modifying will be strictly engine function and therefore self-contained except for grounds and 12V inputs (battery positive, and ignition switch trigger wires from inside, which should already exist under my hood, though I'll have to mess with the wiring to get the intended result).

Oh, and yeah. Guy's taking $300 for the engine, which is more than I'd pay in Detroit, but I consider it worth it given what it is, and that I don't have to pull it out of a vehicle first, nor cart it through the junkyard. I'm prepared to possibly pull the head and hone things as needed...don't want to, but I'm prepared to find out that it's necessary and not be too upset if it turns out to be the case.
 
Last edited:

Mark_88

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2007
Messages
18,554
Reaction score
240
Points
63
Age
68
Location
Ontario, Canada
Vehicle Year
2007
Make / Model
Dordge
Engine Size
3.3 Fuel Injected
Transmission
Automatic
My credo
Love Thy Neighbor
You can see mine sitting in the top right corner of the enginebay.jpg file...it really was fine being there since it was in the original sleeve that fits into the firewall and it is protected on the back end by the aluminum plate that was used to secure it to the inside firewall. It wasn't going anywhere and was fully waterproof where it sat...so much other stuff in front of it that there was no worry about roadspray.

But if you can find it a nice dry home then it's going to work how it should...as long as it's grounded properly and otherwise secure and out of the way of other maintenance items.

The engine price sounds good if you get the all the top end stuff in the deal...that adds up but the US yards might knock enough off the price to warrant the drive and all other aspects...I like not having to drag stuff out...especially big stuff...especially this time of year.

Good work...:icon_thumby:
 

tomw

Well-Known Member
U.S. Military - Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
1,613
Reaction score
46
Points
48
Location
toenails of foothills NW of Atlanta
Vehicle Year
1985
Make / Model
ford
Engine Type
2.3 (4 Cylinder)
Engine Size
lima bean
Transmission
Manual
2WD / 4WD
2WD
My credo
vertical and above ground
The 85 factory ECM resided in the passenger side kick panel behind the plastic shield. The fuel pump relay mounted on top of the ECM. If the 93/94 are EEC-IV, they should have the same pinout(count, anyway) as the 85, and there should, I think, be wire enough to plop it into the factory location.
I did not track all the wondrous things they did to the Lima since mine was put together, but the intakes & manifolds sure look more open than the one I have.
I understand also that there is a factory exhaust manifold that is a pretty good flowing piece of iron. FWIW the O2 sensor mounts to the underside of the 85 factory cast exhaust manifold, pointing straight up. I just changed mine which was rusted in place since sometime in 1984. New plug wires and it is running better than it has in years.
You guys sure are into mixing and matching. Hope it turns out well. From the discussion, it seems the ducks are indeed lining up.
You can get a USB camera from Amazon for about $15US that will go through a spark plug hole to check the bore condition on the 'test engine' rather than pull the cylinder head. I expect it to be in decent shape, personally. From the pics, it appears that someone plugged the openings so the 'air changes' should have been minimal, and thus the amount of condensation inside minimized also, reducing the possibility of rust.

tom
 

kishy

Active Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2018
Messages
148
Reaction score
58
Points
28
Location
ON, Canada
Vehicle Year
1985
Make / Model
Ranger, RCLB
Engine Size
95 2.3 EFI Swap
Transmission
Manual
2WD / 4WD
2WD
The 85 factory ECM resided in the passenger side kick panel behind the plastic shield. The fuel pump relay mounted on top of the ECM. If the 93/94 are EEC-IV, they should have the same pinout(count, anyway) as the 85, and there should, I think, be wire enough to plop it into the factory location.
I did not track all the wondrous things they did to the Lima since mine was put together, but the intakes & manifolds sure look more open than the one I have.
I understand also that there is a factory exhaust manifold that is a pretty good flowing piece of iron. FWIW the O2 sensor mounts to the underside of the 85 factory cast exhaust manifold, pointing straight up. I just changed mine which was rusted in place since sometime in 1984. New plug wires and it is running better than it has in years.
You guys sure are into mixing and matching. Hope it turns out well. From the discussion, it seems the ducks are indeed lining up.
You can get a USB camera from Amazon for about $15US that will go through a spark plug hole to check the bore condition on the 'test engine' rather than pull the cylinder head. I expect it to be in decent shape, personally. From the pics, it appears that someone plugged the openings so the 'air changes' should have been minimal, and thus the amount of condensation inside minimized also, reducing the possibility of rust.

tom
The mix-and-matching is more or less out of necessity, and availability. The wiring in my truck is very sparse, there are no provisions I can see in my body harness to plug in the EEC-IV stuff at all. No big pigtails hanging disconnected, nada. I don't mind the work required to adapt the stuff, I'm painfully well acquainted with Ford wiring. It's a lot easier to start with a harness that is ready for the engine than one that is ready for the body in this case, since no matter what, I'm going to have to make stuff up as I go for the body end of it.

The 93 body harness that I'm going to be mating with the harness on the engine, and the harness on my truck, expects to place the ECM in the firewall on the driver side, places a fuse and relay centre on the driver fender just behind the battery on a 93, and connects to the starter relay ("solenoid") on the driver side. Since I'm going to have it completely unwrapped, I'll have the freedom to re-route and re-design as I see fit. Not afraid to break out the soldering iron and heat-shrink tubing, either.

I have a cheap boroscope-type camera thing...display is greyscale, but it should be enough to survey the condition. The engine was stored indoors for a number of years, and was only more recently put "outside" (parked in a semi trailer), so I'm hopeful about rust being minimal or none. Keep in mind the IAC has been missing for an unknown amount of time, so the intake side has been open, but only that one tiny little hole.

It's also worth noting that I don't mind doing a complete butcher job on the wiring as long as it functions, largely because I'm never planning to sell this thing. I will never get back out of it in money the value I have into it in time, so it's with me until it snaps in half, at which point I'll pull the minty fresh engine and find something else to put it in.

Something I realized is missing on the 2.3 I'm getting is the little round tubes/hollow dowels on the leftmost and rightmost bellhousing bolt holes. I imagine it will be difficult or impossible to accurately line up the trans without them and result in trashing the input shaft bearings if it's off. Can these be plucked out of my 2.0 or is that not practical?
 
Last edited:

tomw

Well-Known Member
U.S. Military - Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
1,613
Reaction score
46
Points
48
Location
toenails of foothills NW of Atlanta
Vehicle Year
1985
Make / Model
ford
Engine Type
2.3 (4 Cylinder)
Engine Size
lima bean
Transmission
Manual
2WD / 4WD
2WD
My credo
vertical and above ground
To my understanding, all 2.3/2.0 blocks are the same, so the bellhousing should mate up which would make me think the dowels would also.
You are going to have fun transplanting. When the battery relocated to the drivers side, they whole power system was new. The older models used fusible links on the starter relay, which was becoming impossible to assemble w/o problems with all the circle/ring fasteners on the battery side post. They have to align or they won't stack.
The power distribution box was the answer. Perhaps the answer no one wanted, but it seemed logical and is what all the other makers are doing to this day. Perhaps stolen from Toyota or Honda. I dunno. But you are going to find out how well it works.
If you have enough wire, moving the computer to the kick panel will save you from trying to weatherproof it. Given all the wiring you are going to undertake, might be worth while, ... or not.
tom
 

kishy

Active Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2018
Messages
148
Reaction score
58
Points
28
Location
ON, Canada
Vehicle Year
1985
Make / Model
Ranger, RCLB
Engine Size
95 2.3 EFI Swap
Transmission
Manual
2WD / 4WD
2WD
RE: Dowels, there are references online to the 2.0 and 2.3 not being able to use the same ones. However, based on context, I believe they're talking about the earlier 2.0 (EAO)...not the Ranger 2.0. Why Ford would use different dowels on two damn near externally identical engines that mate with the same transmissions in the same vehicle, well...I'm hoping they didn't...

I don't know how to get them out of my 2.0 though, so that's another thing. Any type of aggressive pliers action could screw up their shape and cause issues mating the trans to the engine.

Yes, quite familiar with the rats' nest of fuse links Ford loved to hang off the starter relays. My other vehicles are 83 Grand Marquis, 84 Town Car, 85 Country Squire, and 91 Grand Marquis. I'm swimming in fuse links and starter relays.

The power distribution box rather nicely (I studied this before deciding to take it) just covers engine control functions. There's a connection right to battery positive which feeds everything out of the distribution box. Fuel pump relay is in there, ECM relay, ECM diode...previously this stuff was not so well organized. Added bonus is that the power distribution box uses normal relays, not those irritating Ford proprietary ones. The box is the same one used on other vehicles and has a whole lot of unused fuse and relay spots in it, making it look more intimidating (bigger) than it is. There are only perhaps 5 functions fed off that box, off the top of my head.

Net change will be, remove alternator charge wire ring terminal, remove Carter ISC ring terminal, add new ring terminal & fuse link for the new alternator charge wire, and add the ring terminal that feeds the distribution box. That takes care of all connections to battery positive, the rest of the connections should be a couple switched inputs from inside the cab, which I will find somewhere near the Duraspark module I'm sure, and lots of grounds. Lots of them. My battery terminals are shot and cables are seriously corroded back inside the insulation, so that's on the agenda also.

It's going to need a new starter relay though. It has come to my attention that there's a flyback diode inside the newer ones to protect against the voltage spike off the coil inside the relay hurting the ECM. This is no big deal, but it will be necessary.
 
Last edited:

kishy

Active Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2018
Messages
148
Reaction score
58
Points
28
Location
ON, Canada
Vehicle Year
1985
Make / Model
Ranger, RCLB
Engine Size
95 2.3 EFI Swap
Transmission
Manual
2WD / 4WD
2WD
Another thought on the topic of this engine: oil filter and oil viscosity.

Currently, I own 5 Fords engineered around the same time. All use FL-1A and all run 10W30. The 302s don't get run in the winter, and oil consumption skyrocketed on the 2.0 with 5W30, so it keeps 10W30 year round. Depending on the specific vehicle I use a diesel HDEO (flat tappet cam 302s), or a high mileage synth blend (leaky 91 roller cam 302 and the leaky 2.0).

I know that around the mid 90s, Ford started specifying 5W30 and 5W20 year-round in some engines.

Can I continue to use the FL-1As on the 2.3 shown in this thread? As best I can tell the FL400(S) and FL-1A will fit in place of each other. This matters because I have about 15 FL-1As on a shelf.

Best guess on oil though sounds like I'm going to have to start "stocking" some 5W20 options on my supply shelf.
 
Last edited:

Mark_88

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2007
Messages
18,554
Reaction score
240
Points
63
Age
68
Location
Ontario, Canada
Vehicle Year
2007
Make / Model
Dordge
Engine Size
3.3 Fuel Injected
Transmission
Automatic
My credo
Love Thy Neighbor
I ran 5W30 in my Ranger initially and it was fine using the stock filter. 10W30 is also fine and was what my 70s and 80s vintage vehicles called for.

At one point with a leaky 2.0 I was at 20W50 but that was too thick for the colder weather.

Unless you live in the south of Canada where the weather is always warm and sunny I wouldn't recommend anything other than the 5W30.

My 2007 Dodge uses and specifies the 5W20 on the engine bay sticker so that's what I use...when the temp hit -25 recently my oil light did not go off when I first started the vehicle and I was kind of shocked to find the oil was still indicating full...when my Ranger oil light came on it was usually shortly followed by the rattle of lifters...

different technology and different results...:)

EDIT: Someone posted a list on here a few years ago showing alternate filters and someone else posted an "upgrade" to the filter using an elbow adapter to point the filter vertical instead of horizontal...one of the alternate filters was a high capacity unit but I can't remember the reasoning behind adding more oil to the mix...
 
Last edited:

Sponsored Ad


Sponsored Ad

Staff online

Member & Vendor Upgrades

For a small yearly donation, you can support this forum and receive a 'Supporting Member' banner, or become a 'Supporting Vendor' and promote your products here. Click the banner to find out how.

Truck of The Month


Kirby N.
March Truck of The Month

Recently Featured

Want to see your truck here? Share your photos and details in the forum.

Follow TRS On Instagram

TRS Events

25th Anniversary Sponsors

Check Out The TRS Store


Sponsored Ad


Sponsored Ad

Sponsored Ad


Amazon Deals

Top