New Timing Belt>> 1984 SOHC 1 Barrel 2.3L

TO my knowledge, the 2.3 distributor doesn't really care where #1 is. 5.0 is different, however, one reluctor is smaller than the other 7 such that that one is #1 cylinder. On every 2.3 I've messed with, they're all the same size.

The way I like to do it is to get everything set up and running properly, then pull the belt cover, spin the engine to TDC, and place a mark on the inner belt cover that lines up with the aux pulley mark. That way if you have to pull it apart again, it's easy to put it where it was. Or "easiER".

Using string to line everything up is easier for me, as well. There's a good writeup on turboford.org that explains it. You also have to be aware of the lower pulley and it's keyway. I've seen more than a few 2.3's that the key was nearly sheared and the crankshaft keyway was worn to the point where it was impossible to properly time it. Also, the pulley itself can wear out. They are still available new, by the way, from most any parts store, should you need one. Theres also a key on the cam although I've never seen one of those worn/broken...although I guess it could happen.

Advanced cam timing (one or more teeth) can cause pinging. Worth mentioning. Retarded, it'll barely run. Just did my 2.3 turbo a few hours ago and had it off a tooth retarded. It ran but had zero power. Had to floor it to keep it running and it would run about 1500 RPM max. That is also with retarded ignition timing.

But also, ping can be caused by vacuum leaks...lean condition...overly hot engine...and poor fuel. You don't need 91 or 93 octane, but you do need FRESH fuel. The older it gets the more likely it is to ping, and excessive "ping" can cause a head gasket failure....or worse.

Don't expect much power out of it. They are, what, 85 hp? Mine is a '93 and has more power (115hp I think), but it's STILL, quite honestly, painfully slow. Local hill is a 4th gear climb in the truck, barely touch the throttle to maintain 45 mph. In the car? 3rd gear/3500 RPM on the floor to maintain.

Usually if the "catastrophic" converter is plugged, it will barely reach 3000 RPM. On the turbo 2.3 engines, after driving around with plugged cat, the turbo and manifold will begin to glow, visible mostly at night.

The "good" thing about it is that you can put a roller cam in it very easily and very cheaply. Find a 2.3 in a junkyard that has 8 spark plugs and pull the cam AND the followers, but don't get the ones newer than 94 as the valve stem diameter changed and those use narrower followers. The roller cam really helps N/A 2.3's in the torque department from idle speed to about 3000. Makes a big difference, if nothing else, but a better idle and better throttle response. The original "slider" cams are usually worn out because of the change in oil formulation several years back. I have at least 2 worn sliders out in the shop both from turbo engines.

The 2.3 is a solid motor, but needs proper building. They were and still are run at sprint car circle races. I am putting one in a sportscar with a carb and no computers. Also, junkyardwarrior is correct about the change in oils. ZINC was removed which helps flat tappet cams but is not needed with rollers. Look on the quart oil container back for ZINC. My 65 Mustang 6-cylinder has the same problem with new oils. ZINC can be bought in STP additive and mixed with your oil. A compression gauge is a good tool to have and a vacuum gauge even better. Remember, an engine is basically an air pump and you don't want any leaks. Valves must open and close at the right time, lift the proper height, seal completely, and a vacuum gauge will let you know if it is happening. If your 2.3 is tuned, its 88HP will do fine for street use, and more HP can be added with removal of exhaust restrictions and a cool-air intake. I'm in Texas where cold-air intakes do not exist! I hope for 110 HP on a street engine without boring. Stock 2300cc, mild cam, new followers, springs, homebuilt points (yes) distributor, hot coil, better exhaust, new Esslinger aluminum intake with an Autolite 2100 carb (287cfm) and a cool-air intake. Before anyone argues with me about "points", they worked great for 70 years on the street and the track. Engineering wise, they make a LONGER-in-time spark than an electronic dizzy...that is why MSD (Multiple Spark Discharge) was invented. It simulates a points system longer duration spark. Besides, no computers are needed! Service intervals was the reason for electronics, plus putting FI controls and timing into one system. No doubt it is better for that, but not true for old carb engines...though it can be. Food for thought from an old Hot Rod guy.

If you were running on 3 cylinders, you'd know it. It would BARELY pull itself, speaking from experience. On my turbo 2.3, when a plug wire goes south and runs on 3 cylinders even at 20 psi it's a turd.

junkyardwarrior, the idea is to build an engine that runs on ALL cylinders! No doubt the loss of a cylinder really hurts on a 4-cylinder. For those who knock carbs and points, remember, all cars prior to the mid-1970's had points. Corvette's, Cobra's, Mustangs, GTO's (please don't call them a goat, that is for Dodge Rams) and even race cars used them, and they ran great. YES, YES, YES, electronics are far better for today's engines that have Fuel-Injection, o2 sensors, MAS, MAP, Vacuum, TPS and even more sensors, and rev high RPM. But it is not necessary for engines below 5,000 RPM with a carb. Maybe today's motor-heads just don't understand carburetors and how to adjust them. Once I adjust a carb I do not need to readjust it for many thousands of miles. The same holds true for points. Today's points are far better than OEM 1965 points and so are coils, wires, and spark plugs. And I do run a Pertronix after setting the dizzy for points, then keep them in the glove box or trunk. For my younger car friends...TODAY'S ENGINES ARE FAR BETTER THAN 50 YEAR OLD ENGINES IN EVERY RESPECT! However, my 6-cylinder 1965 Mustang with automatic, air conditioning and front discs gets 25 MPG while running the AC at 75 MPH...and it will go well past the century mark, though I have not had an opportunity to check MPG at that speed.