1984 Ford 2.3L powered Bronco II

My thought exactly. If the 2.8 isn't dead, the A4LD will be.

A 2.3L manual trans Bronco II will be loads more reliable than the factory version...
 
The Bronco is getting close to driveable.

Installed a rear driveshaft. Sometimes you can visit a wrecking yard with a tape measure and get lucky. In this case, a front driveshaft from a '90's Explorer fit the bill with a few tweaks.

1438458325752.jpg

The transfer case output of the BII was a 1210 double cardan joint, and the rear end a flat flange with 2.5" bolt spacing. I don't have anything against 1210-sized U-joints, considering I'm making less than 140 HP, but finding a shaft with them is tough. The Explorer used a 1310 double cardan output for it's front yoke, so I grabbed it.

1438461769748.jpg

The Explorer front yoke fits the rear of the BW1350 transfer case, and I must admit, I like the extra strength.

The front diff end of the Explorer shaft was strap bolts. I grabbed the rear slip yoke off the same Explorer and it fit the front shaft perfectly.

My transmission is the Toyo R4 four speed. If it was the five speed version of this trans I would have had to shorten the shaft a couple of inches.

Speaking of trans, the shifter was bent forward and right, which made the reach to it difficult. I submerged the plastic housing in water, heated the shift rod with acetylene and tweaked it a bit.

1438464158662.jpg

Got an exhaust welded up. It's a simple straight section dumping into a Magnaflow muffler and then the stock resonator, then dumping in front of the right rear tire. I got the Bronco out of the garage and drove it around the block, relieved that the trans syncros are sound and there is no bearing noise.

Next up is to wire the alternator and jet the carb...
 
My Holley two barrel turned out to be junk. I could close off the right idle mixture screw and that idle circuit was still getting fuel. Also, the transfer slot was very lean. I suspect someone drilled out the idle air bleeds in the past.

Went to the wrecking yard hoping to score a small venturi 2100, but carbs are getting scarce in the area pick a parts here.

Luckily I had a Weber 32/36 on the shelf that just needed some missing linkage ordered. I replaced the diaphragms and missing linkage, and combed the net for an adapter plate to mate it to the 2 bbl intake. The cheapest one I could find was $98, and I was afraid it would be one of those pot metal doorstops that warp. I decided to make one instead.

First step, 1/2" 6061 aluminum plate.

IMG_20150829_103143.jpg

I'll let the next pictures speak for themselves...

IMG_20150829_103149.jpg
IMG_20150829_110636.jpg
IMG_20150829_115850.jpg
IMG_20150829_122038.jpg
IMG_20150829_123838.jpg
IMG_20150829_124740.jpg
IMG_20150829_132900.jpg
 
IMG_20150829_134634.jpg
IMG_20150829_135555.jpg
IMG_20150829_151316.jpg
IMG_20150829_152226.jpg
IMG_20150829_171255.jpg

The Weber runs much better. The wideband is telling me that the transfer slot (or hole, in the Weber's case) is a bit rich. The nice thing about Weber carbs is the off idle fuel mixture can be adjusted by changing the high speed idle jet.
 
Thank you! It's crude, but it works.

Now I have to figure out an air cleaner. I've never liked the rectangular setups the Webers use. Maybe I can adapt the round base air cleaner I have with a bellcrank.
 
Nice work, I keep forgetting to check back on this thread.

If you can, do us a favor and post up all your jets and stuff once you get it dialed. For future reference I might want to build one of these someday but have no idea how to tune webers, they seem kinda mysterious to me.
 
They can get intimidating because of all the settings that can be changed. Kind of like a Holley with the tuneable metering blocks...

Here is the base jetting, which is a bit rich and will have to be tweaked...


PRI SEC
main jet 145 145
air bleed 160 170
idle jet 75
pump jet 60

I highly suggest one of the cheap wideband gauges for carb work.
 
I am the crazy guy that put a 300-6 into a 4wd Ranger few years back. Before I did that I looked all around for way to try a 2.3L to replace that horrible 2.8L. Four cylinder 4wd RAngers did exist but rare as hens teeth. As were the bellhousings. And only those early 5spds had a removable bellhousing. So one either had to find one of the super rare bellhousings or one of later 4cyl transmissions for 4wd. Or cobble some spliced spud shaft between a 2wd transmission and the transfer case, while keeping everything perfectly in alignment. There is an article by some guy that put a 5spd into his early Bronco doing this, apparently successfully....

As to fuel mileage, maybe you going all out with fresh engine and paying careful attention how its rebuilt you will do better. But from my experience with 2wd Ranger with the 8 sparkplugs and the computer fuel injection, these at best get around 24 to 25mpg driven at 55-60 mph. The newer Mazda 4cyl they used in later years did better, up towards 30mpg, but never was offered in 4wd version. I do wish you were bit clearer on what exact transmission and bell housing you are using. I assume you are using one of those rare ones from a factory 4cyl 4wd Ranger.

My 300-6 Ranger with the 3spd manual tranny and transfer case out of an early Bronco gets around 18mpg. Probably top 20 with an overdrive, but to shoehorn a 5spd in there, even if I could adapt it to the transfer case would require moving transfer case back further than original. There is no wiggle room to move engine forward. Darn hard to fit it into engine bay at all.

NOw I once owned an early Bronco, think it was a 1972, long time ago. It had the 200-6 and a manual 3spd. It would get an honest 21mpg at 55mph. Dont remember axle gearing, think it was originally a V8 Bronco that somebody put a car six cylinder into cause the bellhousing they used was nightmare to find a starter for. I ended up having to modify a starter to fit. Didnt lack for power though. Rusty as heck and I always regretted ever selling it, cause even rusted out basket case early Bronco now bring high dollar so will never own another one. I should just put a mid size pickup cab (think an early Dakota cab would fit nicely) on it to replace the rusted out body and kept driving it. Anyway I always wondered what mileage that 200-6 would have gotten with a 5spd.

Anyway be very interesting to see results of your efforts with the four cylinder. What axle ratios are you going to use? I always figured best would be either 4.10 or 4.56 with the four cylinder. Four cylinder can rev far better than the little V6 Cologne engines. You might lose some potential fuel mileage but be lot more pleasant to drive than lugging a lower numerical ratio. Yet still keep up with traffic on hiway in fifth gear. That 2.8L I had couldnt rev much and had no low end torque. Horrible choice for a pickup let alone a 4wd. The old 200-6 modernized with fuel injection would been lot better choice as optional factory engine for Ranger/Bronco II.
 
Oh, might mention there was another possible end run far as LIMA 4cyl transmissions. At one point there was a company producing an adapter to make a LIMA 4cyl bolt to a standard small block Ford V8 bolt pattern bellhousing/transmission. It was really intended for people with turbo 4cyl I think, but hey they all had same bolt pattern so kit should fit any. And there are then kits to mate 5spd to old DANA 20 transfer case which will fit in frame of Ranger/Bronco, cause thats what I used putting 300-6 into my Ranger. All costs money of course. I looked all this up at one point wondering about a 4cyl with a T-19 four speed and Dana 20 combo. Then go for taller axle gearing.
 
The Mitsubishi FM146, Toyo tk4 and tk5 all use the same removable bellhousing. I lucked out and found the four cyl bell, which mates to the Bronco II 4x4 transmission, for $60.

There is also the Mazda M5ODR1 from later Rangers that could be used.

Mine has the tk4 four speed. The diffs have 3.45:1 ratios, which will put the cruise rpm just above 3000, but from prior experience, 2.3's are perfectly happy up there.

My B2300 pickup got an honest 26 mpg at 70 mph. If I can exceed 23 mpg I will be happy.

Driving the Bronco today, I noticed that the primary was rich and the secondary was lean. Simple fix, I just swapped the air correctors. Now the 160 is in the secondary and the 170 is in the primary.

I think the idle jet is still rich (idle screw is only one turn out). I'm going to wait until it's registered and legal before I mess with it.

Initial impression is that the engine has plenty of pep. I will order tires and wheels this week so I can evaluate the highway performance.
 
Ok, didnt know that about the bell housings. I got the run around back when I tried to see if I could get a 4cyl housing that would fit my Mitsubishi 5spd. KNowing they all interchanged between different transmissions with removable housing is good piece of info to know. Though I am sure you dont want the early bellhousing on a later transmission cause if I understood a previous post of yours, the input shaft on early transmissions is longer. Mine is an '84 by the way and has the internal throw out bearing.



Is there a particular reason you chose the 4spd? I didnt think they were an overdrive transmission. And were mainly used on early Rangers with the bargain basement 2.0L engine??? I do know they used the 4spd in early 4wd with 4cyl, cause somebody was trying to sell a Ranger set up like that on Craigslist recently. They seemed confused and even though truck "leaked from every place possible" and wouldnt stay running, they still wanted $1000.

I dont think any of the V6 engines used the 4spd.

Like I say, I am really interested to see what kind mileage and drivability you achieve.
 
Ranger_gone_straight":3nd03i6a said:
Is there a particular reason you chose the 4spd?

I'm cheap. This one popped up on Craigslist for $50, with the transfer case. It's supposedly out of a Bronco II.

Ranger_gone_straight":3nd03i6a said:
I didnt think they were an overdrive transmission

It's not. That's why I'll be spinning 3k with low 3.45's. I'm reserving judgement until I get it on the highway. I won't put the front driveshaft on until I'm sure I'm happy with it. Otherwise I'll be looking for the tk5, which is an inch or so longer and will change all the driveshaft lengths.

By the way, http://www.fueleconomy.gov lists the 4 speed getting better mileage than the overdrive. There won't be any gear friction loss in fourth, so I'm hopeful.
 
My own results were consistent with that, my first ranger was the '84. It had a '78 pinto motor in it with what i think was a 2100 carb.

It had the 4 speed (4x4) and would do pretty decent considering it had big tires, 20 mpg or so, but it could hold an honest 85 on the highway in top gear, maybe even faster considering the speedo was off.


The '88 i replaced it with had the 5 speed, it was a dog and couldn't do 75 up a hill in top gear, it could just barely do 80 in 4th gear but the ratios weren't as good.

It also had 3rd gear synchro get really crunchy at (only) 180k miles or so. The '84 ran over 200k and survived being rolled and crashed several times.



That is a good idea RE the falcon motor, i wonder how that drivetrain would shoehorn in? Certainly easier than the 300. I think I remember the Granada and LTD 250's came with the SBF/Cleveland style bellhousing which would open up the M5R2 married xfer case trans out of the F150, or build a C-4 with the front half from the falcon 6 and the output housing with the T-case on it... did they ever make a C4 4x4?

Also- last time you posted, you promised to share some pics of the 300 ranger conversion! please pretty please!
 
I considered a 200/250 for about an hour. Then I remembered where I live. A/C is not an option, it's mandatory, and I had doubts an A/C condenser would find a home in front of an inline six.

The second Pinto I built had a cruise rpm of 3700 at 70 mph. That was a bit much, and I eventually put a five speed overdrive in it. 3200-3300 is no sweat though.
 
You might get condenser in front of a 200. You sure wouldnt with the 300.

I've got the pics around someplace. I found them at one point, then didnt get them posted.
 
Back
Top