Ford 300 rods in a SBC

[pmuller9]

We are usually putting Chevy parts in the Ford sixes but here is a case where Ford six parts make it into the SBC.

After viewing this article, consider that the 240 six has an extremely long rod to stroke ratio.

https://www.motortrend.com/features/the-350-engine-chevrolet-should-have-built-982-1605-106-1/?lid=12xsll8zwkhz&eml=organic%3Aeml%3Abrz2&utm_source=braze&utm_medium=emaileditorial

 

[63 Sprint]

That was a very interesting article. Thanks for posting it.

 

[aussie7mains]

I have a similar rod ratio in my 200, 3.13 stroke, 6.27 rods, thats right on 2;1. I dont get any detonation or ping and 1.5 octane propane with 30 psi manifold pressure. Does this confirm the artrical?

 

[63 Sprint]

After reading the information a few times in the article. I’m wondering if the compression can be brought up some in the 240 engine since the rod to stroke ratio is 2.14 while still using 87 octane E-10 fuel.

I experienced something similar.
I had a 1987 Ford Ranger Long Bed pickup, and a 1993 240 Volvo station wagon. Both had a 2.3 liter engine. We’ve owned both vehicles at the same time. Both vehicles were maintained well. And both vehicles had automatic transmissions.

The Ranger was always way underpowered and getting on the interstate took some work. At times, it took everything it had to get up to 65 mph. Fuel economy was poor. It got about 16-18 mpg if it was lucky. The engine started tiring out at around 150,000 miles.

The Volvo was completely different. It had no problems getting on the interstate, Most times it could exceed the speed limits by a huge margin. The fuel economy was around 24 mpg. The engine still ran strong with over 430,000 miles on it. I sold it and purchased a 1993 Ford F150 with the 4.9.

I always thought the Volvo engine and transmission would be a nice conversion in a Ranger.

For some reason, the Volvo Wagon had a better preforming engine and could pull a 5 x 14 utility trailer fully loaded with ease. The Ranger struggled with the same load.



Here are some spec’s below:

Ford 2.3 engine:
86 hp @ 4000 rpm
130 lb-ft torque @ 1,800 rpm
Bore: 3.780
Stroke: 3.126
Compression ratio: 9.0:1
Rod length: 5.207
Rod to Stroke Ratio: 1.67

Ranger weight 2,638 lbs.



Volvo (B230F) 2.3 engine:
114 hp @ 5,400 rpm
136 lb-ft @ 2,750 rpm
Bore: 3.78
Stroke: 3.15
Compression ratio: 9:8:1
Rod length: 5.984
Rod to Stroke Ratio: 1.9

Volvo weight 3,084 lbs.


I wonder if the aluminum head on the Volvo engine also helped suppress detonation.

 

[MechRick]

I can say for certainty that Ford 2.3L vs Volvo B2.3, rod/stroke ratio had nothing to do with it.

The best thing about the Volvo is the cylinder head (which is why they get swapped on to the 2.3L Lima). The Ford 2.3L beats it everywhere else. It's possible to port/valve a 2.3L head to get decent performance.

Reliability-wise, a 2.3L Ford will way outlast a Volvo 2.3, which were known to have weak bottom ends. One of the tire stores I used to work for had a fleet of 2.3L Rangers, all of them had in excess of 200k miles, some in excess of 300k miles, all on their original engines (and third or fourth transmissions, but that's another story).

The last 2wd Ranger platform I owned got 26 MPG highway. My 4wd Bronco II when it was 2.3L-powered averaged 20 MPG with a high of 22 MPG.

The Ranger started out at 17 mpg, mainly because someone installed a high performance fan clutch (bad idea). I installed thermostatic electric fans and swapped the auto for a manual, and put a bed cover on it to get it to 26 MPG.

The 2.3L Ford turbo I built for my '87 Mustang had a 3.4" Ranger crank with 2.3L rods, and custom Wiseco pistons to deal with the non-standard pin location. The rod/stroke ratio of that engine was a palsy 1.53:1, and it was one of the smoothest engines I've built. That engine got 28 MPG highway.

Rod/stroke ratio is way over hyped, especially on street engines that never see the high side of 6500 RPM.

Are you sure of that Ranger weight? I've never seen one that light.

 

[63 Sprint]

Your right, people put the Volvo head on the 2.3 Lima engine.

Left in stock form, the 1988 to 1993 Volvo B230F engines were pretty good.

The last version of the Volvo B230F, K block engines from 1988 to 1993 received a stronger crankshaft and had larger main bearings. The 1993 B203F block has an oil gallery in the side of the block. And the block can be machined to mount oil squirters to cool pistons. They were better than the earlier 1985 to 1987 engines.

Had A 1991 sedan with almost 300,000 miles and a 1993 wagon with over 430,000 miles.

Years ago, I installed a Ford 1988 2.3 Turbo coup engine in a ranger for a friend. It was fun beating the rice burners at the time. It took a while to get the wire harness pinned right. And the heater box was in the way.

Had spare NOS Turbo bock, NOS D-port head. And just sold Crower Sportsman bushed Rods with cap screws.

I was going to make an engine to install in a 1974 pinto hooked to a C4.

I also had an extra 1988 TC ECU that I sold to someone years ago.

I understand that when the Ford stock blocks, cranks and stock rods were properly prepped they were able to handle upwards to 450 hp. It was fun while it lasted. The blocks are high nickel and last very well.

The Ford 2.3 engine has much more potential than the Volvo B230F engines. But in stock form, I feel the Volvo engine had slightly more hp and torque came on at a more useful rpm.

I lost out on a Ford tall deck SVO tall deck block back in the late 1990’s on eBay. What I would have given at that time for that block.

Back to the stock 1987 2.3 ranger long bed with the automatic transmission. It was a sled. Even though the truck was under powered I liked the truck.

Added:
What I liked about the 2.3 Lima is, they were, simple, reliable and at the time they were relatively cheap to build. Still one of my favorite 4 cylinders.