93 2.3l Bored Over!!!

D

Dhood-93LX

New Member

Jul 23, 2009

4

0

0

Jul 24, 2009

#1

• Jul 24, 2009

• #1

I am new here i have a 93 2.3l hatch i have had it for 3 years it runs great i have 2 extra motors for it and was thinking about maybe boring one of them to a bigger displacement but dont quite know if that would be a good idea any thoughts would be valued thanks.
DANIEL







Sweet 93 LX 2.3L Hatch.

 

GT40 2

Member

Oct 13, 2004

109

0

17

Jul 24, 2009

#2

• Jul 24, 2009

• #2

What are you going to bore it out to? 2.5?

 

D

Dhood-93LX

New Member

Jul 23, 2009

4

0

0

Jul 26, 2009

#3

• Jul 26, 2009

• #3

That or i heard if i went with the svo head i would be able to bore it to a 3.0 i am not sure if it would be worth it or just find a 5.0 and be done with it

 

Red_LX

I’m not much help unless you’re looking for ****!

Founding Member

Nov 29, 1999

5,896

73

129

Morgantown, WV...where couches meet their doom

Jul 27, 2009

#4

• Jul 27, 2009

• #4

You do not BORE an engine for bigger displacement. You have to use a stroker crank for that.

The max you can probably get on a 2.3L with stock rotating assembly by boring is maybe 2.5 or 2.6, and that more or less eliminates the possibility of boring it later because the cylinder walls will be so thin.

Esslinger sells kits to stroke the engine to a 2.8 and 3.0, but those are intended for race applications, and the kit to do costs more than your car is worth.

 

65ShelbyClone

Founding Member

Sep 9, 2000

4,675

38

119

Antelope Valley, SoCal

Jul 28, 2009

#5

• Jul 28, 2009

• #5

That and anything over ~2.7L is going to be best achieved with a tall deck block....which in used condition is also going to cost more than your car is worth....if you can find one for sale.

 

Red_LX

I’m not much help unless you’re looking for ****!

Founding Member

Nov 29, 1999

5,896

73

129

Morgantown, WV...where couches meet their doom

Jul 28, 2009

#6

• Jul 28, 2009

• #6

Oh yeah, that too...forgot about that tidbit.

 

B

Brando5641

New Member

Jul 21, 2009

127

0

0

FT Gibson OK.

Aug 8, 2009

#7

• Aug 8, 2009

• #7

Red_LX
Doubt I could be of much help, unless you need **** pics!!

lol love that

 

B

Bloodire

New Member

Aug 9, 2009

2

0

0

Aug 9, 2009

#8

• Aug 9, 2009

• #8

Didn't they already try a 2.5 in the ranger that was nothing more than a bored 2.3?

 

5

57fairlane

New Member

Apr 2, 2005

560

0

0

Oakwood, GA

Aug 9, 2009

#9

• Aug 9, 2009

• #9

Bloodire said:

Didn't they already try a 2.5 in the ranger that was nothing more than a bored 2.3?

Click to expand...

no, its .275" longer stroke.

the 2.3 is a bored out 2.0 . . .

 

Red_LX

I’m not much help unless you’re looking for ****!

Founding Member

Nov 29, 1999

5,896

73

129

Morgantown, WV...where couches meet their doom

Aug 10, 2009

#10

• Aug 10, 2009

• #10

Well, sort of.

The 2.0 as used in Pintos had a considerably different head and a couple other differences from the 2.3.

The 2.0 used in rangers was actually a "debored" 2.3.

 

65ShelbyClone

Founding Member

Sep 9, 2000

4,675

38

119

Antelope Valley, SoCal

Aug 10, 2009

#11

• Aug 10, 2009

• #11

Guys, lets try not to confuse any newbies.

A 2.3 cannot simply be bored out by 0.160"/4mm to get a 2.5; the cylinders are nowhere near thick enough. Sonic checking is recommended for overbores beyond 0.040". Most easily have room for 0.020-0.040, some go more, and occasionally one will balloon a cylinder with less.