Duratec 2.5 with a D'Tec Ranger 2.3 head

[Bill Blue]

Won't work! At least for me. Valve/Piston clearance issue. I decided on this combo because I liked the low rpm grunt of the original 2.3 Ranger. Everything I read said this was a simple bolt on, even found a thread that gave instructions, including where to drill through the Ranger head for the dip stick. Even today I see threads saying it is a doable, simple swap. Just finished reading a thread about a truck that had 1500 miles on such a swap, no issues! But when I set the engine on TDC, I can't time the valves due to piston interference. Any ideas what I'm doing wrong? Sure don't want to pull that baby (out the bottom, including the tranny) to swap heads. But that should keep me busy at least until the Holidays are over.
Bill

 

[bulldurham]

Head gasket thickness ?

 

[Barry]

For an "interference" engine, TDC (or very close to it) is the worst case scenario for valve-to-piston clearance. It seems to me that you either have to "time the cams" before putting the head on the block or that you have to time the cams at something like 45 degrees before or after TDC where none of the pistons are near the top of the cylinder.

 

[Bill Blue]

The engine is built without keys or keyways. To time it, loosen the crankshaft damper and camshaft sprockets so all are free to spin independently. Set the engine on TDC. set the cams, which have notches at the rear of the shaft. To set, align the notches. After the cams are set, the bolts holding the damper and cam sprockets are tightened. Nobody anywhere ever mentioned valve/piston interference. In fact, one source says that if the camshaft notches are below the center of the shaft, turn the shaft 1/2 turn. are So I was very surprised when I encountered it.
Bill

 

[Bill Blue]

I had the same thought. But I do remember installing a gasket. Do you suppose Ford made these engines with ultra thin (or thick) gaskets? Guess I'll check with Rock Auto.

 

[Bill Blue]

Rock Auto does not mention gasket thickness, but they do have a .020" shim for the 2.5 engine that goes directly on the block to restore valve clearance. Hmmm. One of those with a gasket under it would give about .040". Will have to check that out. Problem: cannot remove the head with the engine in the car. !!!!
Bill

 

[DanR]

cannot remove the head with the engine in the car. !!!!

Now that is what I'd call a real bummer!

 

[Bill Blue]

Yeah, but I have decided there is no reason to not try. It all has to come apart if I fail. So I stand to avoid weeks of labor if I succeed.
Bill

 

[Bill Blue]

The timing chain is going to be the big problem. The front engine casting has to be removed to relax tension on the chain. One front engine casting bolt is hiding behind the cross member. Yes, if I can lower the cross member, it should work. Problem: The engine is mounted on the cross member! Oh me oh my.
Bill

 

[DanR]

Mr Bill, I know what you forgot to do!!! Notch the cross memebr If only you had done that it would be much better..... Oh, then there would be something else... I wonder when we are going to get smart and quit fooling with this Old British stuff?

talk with you later, I just remembered I need to get out to the garage, need to work on my Red GT V6.

 

[Bill Blue]

Dan, I did notch the cross member, on the left side to clear the oil pump. That is where this bolt resides. But anyway, it was all a false alarm.

I had decided the problem could very well be a cam (or cams) that were out of phase 180 degrees. Nathan (#2 son) showed up and with his supersharp eyes, was able to verify that was indeed the situation. Took us another hour to determine that was the problem. So all is well. Just have to reinstall the starter, AC pump, radiator, steering R&P, valve cover, intake manifold, alternator and serpentine belt.

Bill

 

[DanR]

You are a Blessed Man, Mr Bill to have a sharp eyed son.....Now, Get'r running.

I tried five serpentine belts before I found one that will do nicely on the Red GT V6

 

[Bill Blue]

Dan, looks like your going to have to start looking elsewhere for surpentine belts. Once in the dim, distant past, in order to get the correct length, I had to buy a belt with something like seven ribs. Only needed four, cut the extras off. Amazing what can be done with a Swiss Army knife.

Wish I could solve my current problem with one. Got all the essentials installed, turned the switch and the music went something like this: Thum thum thum thunk! Immediately followed with dead silence. Looks like the engine will have to be "2.5 Duratec with 2.5 head." But right now, I'm tired. Tired of messing with it and tired physically.

Bill

 

[husky drvr]

Bill,

Here's a video that wont help with where you've been, but might help with where you go from this point.

Just watch and ruminate about the info in the video.

Don't stop now,

 

[Bill Blue]

Don, very interesting. Back when this engine was initially installed, tuners, using stock type manifolding were unable to see any advantage to VVT tuning and decided its role had much more to do with emissions than power. That was back before ITB's were being used. Now we find there is a distinct power advantage, even with crude ON - Off control. I was finding it impossible to control the VVT in a fine manner and was contemplating rpm based ON-Off control. The big difference, it seems is manifolding. But I don't think I can use ITBs. Space, or the lack of it, being the issue. The Duratec is a wide engine. As I recall, almost eleven inches on top and fourteen across the oil pan. Unfortunately, the Dear Old Alpine is no wider today than it was 60 years ago when it was manufactured. 'Tis a shame, Jose's much hyped but never demonstrated 200hp is alive and well in a stock innards four banger! I think it would be easier to cram a 200 hp Duratec into an Alpine than to find 200 hp in 2.8 V6. But to steal a phrase from Daffy Duck, "Not this little Black Duck. I do not and never did, have the sheet metal talent to even contemplate such miracle surgery.

As a side note, I think that if a builder switches to "Tiger" (really MGB) steering, the Duratec installation is simplified, although the laid over design would be a manifold space advantage.

Bill

 

[Bill Blue]

On second look, I am struck that he talks about the torque "down low" but the test cover the rpms from 2500 to 6500. 2500 is not "down low" in my car, in which "down low" starts at about 1500 and runs to 3000, where midrange starts. I have no idea where "down low" would start in a Jose approved "200 hp 2.8". Different cars, different drivers, different needs.
Bill

 

[Bill Blue]

While eating supper, I realized that tubing to the ITB was already present. Just run the intake manifold through the bandsaw. I would even have a choice of intake tube length, anything from about 6" to 14". Then the problems would really jump at me. Where do I measure the intake manifold pressure? Where do I run the crankcase ventilation? How would I feed those four hungry throats clean air? Just punch a hole through the hood and let them feed on butterflys and grasshoppers?

But now for the interesting problem. What would cause the engine to freeze (at least forward, I was able to back it off) after it had made two or three trips to TDC? I must admit those trips to TDC were not without their issue. The "thums" definitely had a metallic sound to them. The only answer I can think of would mean the engine has been running mostly on three cylinders. Or perhaps the Ranger (from which I got the head) only ran on three.
Bill

 

[husky drvr]

Different cars, different drivers, different needs.

Bill,

Stop and think about your own "words of wisdom." As enticing as ITB's seem to be, it's unlikely ITB's would be the answers for your goals. Don't go modifying your intake. Besides, you don't need a saw do you? You just need to pull the adjustment tubes and plenum off the runners.

A quick question, what's the lowest RPM you would apply full throttle to your 2.5 if it's connected to a resistive load capable of preventing any further increase in RPM - 1500, 2000, 2500, or higher RPM?

That's what a dyno test is, wide open throttle at maximum load through the entire tested RPM range. The graph is developed by measuring the max load (torque) at different RPM's. Horse Power is derived by a mathematical formula converting torque and speed to the derived HP numbers. There is no measurement made of part throttle performance.

ITB's have some advantages for performance, but your stated goals for your car and driving style aren't a good match. The only two points I wanted you to catch in the video was the use of the VVT for lower RPM torque improvement and the 15* cam advancement when timed with the cam timing tools. There was one thing about the ITB's in the video I did notice, something that might have been the biggest advantage, the fuel injectors were different from the OE injectors and mounted several centimeters further away from the valves. Although not stated, I'll guess the tune for the tested engine focused on power with little consideration for mileage or emissions.

If the reason your engine locked up is not the interference design, then could it have something to do with the transmission?

Hoping for a decent out come here,

 

[Bill Blue]

Don, thanks for your valuable input.
As to the question of low rpm throttle, Growing up, I spent a lot of time aboard farm tractors, running at full throttle at about 1,000rpm against loads they never conquered. So full throttle at 1500 does not bother me. I feel that any engine that cannot handle that stress is in need of retune or redesign. My runs from 20 to 80 start with WOT at about 1300 in 3rd gear.

Never fear about the throttle body stuff. My mind was playing around with the concept in the unlikely event they proved to be the missing key. It (my mind) stalled at the air filtering requirement.

As to there the thud came from, I'm not sure. I was seated in the car when it occured. I do know that previous to resetting the cams, I cranked the engine enough to see good oil pressure, no rotational problem. Also, when fighting the interference, it was audibly coming from the head.

Speaking of performance, that is essentially the heart of the head swapping exercise. The Ranger (2.3) engine was overall, more powerful than the 2.5. The problem was it was not consistent. Shortly before that engine was taken off the road, it had blazed through the 20-80 exercise so rapidly that I turned around at the point of normal shutdown. The runs were conducted on old US 40, which not only is very flat, is 4 lane with grass median and is dotted with connectors, allowing residents free choice of direction. Mind blowing performance. My problem, the next day I turned around on the connector I normally passed as I got off the throttle. This engine uses the same shut down connector. So here I stand, hoping to consistently recreate the performance of the past.
Bill

 

[Bill Blue]

After all of the above, I went to the basement, grabbed a 13/16" wrench and commenced to turn the engine over. It didn't want to. Very stiff and complaining. Released the wrench to get another grab when I heard something slip. The engine was magically easier, make that much easier to turn over. No complaints from the innards, either. Very smooth.
Further installments on this mystery will have to wait until we return from the United. Perhaps quite a while as the valve cover is going to have to be removed before I can see anything. But I have hopes. High hopes, like something was left in the engine and I can latch onto it with a magnet for removal.
Bill