Isuzu SUV Forum banner
1 - 20 of 30 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
169 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
8) I have to know...is there enough difference in performance between the 2.3 and 2.6 to
make it worth the effort to swap?
The post that showed the 2.6 with a turbo was inspirational!
All of this started over a dam transmission question...man getting old sucks!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,823 Posts
Carbed 2.3L 96 hp/123 tourque; EFI 2.6L 120/146 factory ratings.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
169 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
OK...now I know the specs and that's a good thing! There is one available rrreal cheap. Would be enough of a
performance difference to make it worth the effort? If so...any recommendations/suggestions on upgrades to the 2.6 block.
I've read here(I think...?) that there is an advantage to the head from a 2.3 or am I just imagining things...?
Doesn't the 2.6 have bigger valves?
It would be fun to have the head with all of the hot rod stuff done...porting, polishing, port matching...etc.
I know I've talked about this before but when you get to my age your memory gets better...just shorter!
I've got a line on a header(calmini) and I'm going to get an exhaust done!
Any thoughts...?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
181 Posts
Being as these vehicles were underpowered so much, I'd say if you can get the 2.6 cheap enough it would probably be worth it. Then you could throw a cam at it and your header would probably really help things a lot. The factory cams in these things were absolutly horrible when it comes to lift and duration. Also bumping up the compression a full point would really help.

I can only conclude that these motors were built to run on gasoline that is available in some out of the way county in Africa. With low compression and low lift I'm sure they would run about any gas in the world and be fine. Luckily the US is very strict about gasoline quality, so we can get away with hotter motors and not do any engine damage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
346 Posts
Most everything about a 2.3 and a 2.6 are the same. The 2.3 just has a shorther deck height. I got the 2.3 head on my 2.6. The big differences I know of are,
-Deck height, i.e. rods and pistons, Crank throw length
-Timing Gears are different, either will work just gotta be the same. Different pitch belts.
-Water Pumps are different, Depth of impellers and pulley mounting surface

Jerry knows this stuff backwards and forwards, ask him for more specifics.
-Billy
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
58 Posts
with this swap do you need to swap the whole wiring harness also? or just them computer box in the center console?

2.3 is the 4 clyinder right? and 2,8 is the v6?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,528 Posts
Doug,
make sure the 2.6L isnt from a 95.5-97 Rodeo, i forget what year 2.6L rodeo you were talking to me about. non airbag dash, you can BOLT in the whole harness, but if its a 95.5-97 (airbag dash).....you'd have to swap the whole dash and door panels. can be done, as ive done it on a 94 pickup with a 96 rodeo interior and driveline....bolts in....

Ron
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
546 Posts
Running a 4ZS1 (2.0 and 2.3) head on a 4ZE1 is kind of a down grade. Sure you will get a bump in compression, but at the loss of larger ports and valves. If you have an early, or pre 1992) 2.6, you could put on the head from a 93+ non air injected 2.6 which has a 58.5cc combustion chamber (as roughly measured by an Isuzone member). It would bump the compression up on that early engine quite a bit AND you can retain the 2.6's larger valves and ports. I wish i could remember the Dish CC's on the early and late piston tops. I know that the non-air port pistons had a smaller but deeper dish to them.

Oh, and to make your life easier. When you get that 2.6, make sure you get all of the accessory brackets for it. The 2.6 water pump is slightly different than the 2.0 and 2.3. its longer and the blades are a little deeper into the housing of the block. Something that all Impulse guys learn when we do a 2.6 swap.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,528 Posts
and the oil pump is also different, not that it matters but some people done know that. the 2.3/2.0 head should be designated 4ZD1/C1, not S. its the same head just the casting on the head is D1/C1 (2.3L/2.0L). to mix and match, you could use the 93-up 2.6L which has relief cut pistons too...think they are domed also. either way to do the head swap with the right parts would create a good motor and alittle porting and polishing.... ;)

or do what i did, and drop the 3.2L V6 in the engine bay :twisted:

Non air injected heads started in 95 on the 2.6 and 2.3 motors. 93-94 still had the tubes. i wonder if you get a 2.3L Fuel Injected head from a 95 pickup, and a 94-97 2.6L block together....wouldnt you have the best of everything then? the 94-95 injected 2.3Ls put out 102hp, 10 over the carbed versions.

hmmmmmmm....good info Rocket, now you got me thinking.... :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
546 Posts
lol. Anytime! I have spent a lot of time and research figuring out the 4Z engines and different combinations.

From what I can remember. the early pre 93 pistons only had a 4.2cc dish volume. 3.185 dish diameter with a .032" recess. my math came out at 4.19cc. The 93+ redesigned pistons have a dish volume of about 16cc.

Isuzu actually decreased the chamber volume and increase piston dish from 93+ to help with meeting emissions. It worked so well that its the reason they got rid of the air injection system.

If you used a non-air head casting on an early 4ze1 short block the total volume of combustion chamber and dish goes from 74.5cc ( non air head and matching pistons ) to 62.7cc. That combination gives a compression of about 9.8 - 9.9:1. This would be the cheap way to go if you wanted to bump the compression on a 4ze1.

Of course, if you wanted to be silly. You could take the early 4ze1 head (74cc chamber) and combine it with a non-air piston (16cc) and have an engine with 7.4:1 lol.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
169 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
...this is exactly what i'm tryin' to do. Now for an old guy like me i have to churn this info and data in to something useful for me. I will get back to the donor vehicle and get some specifics.
This is going to be a long term project as SHE doesn't see the value of the fun of it! Og well, she'll get ovwer that too!
I will be staying with a carb'd engine and will be [probably boring .40 over with hi comp. pistons, already have a Delto 260 cam,
will do the valve mech. soon and remove ALL emissions stuff up to and including the charcaol things will go away!
Oh the fun! ni think the phrase is...Boy's and their Toys or the difference betweem men and boys is the cost of their toys or he who dies with the most toys wins...!
Thanks for the input and stay tuned and keep the 411 comin'.
I'll get some pics posted soon and BTW the way the name will be AMIGO in barcode font!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
546 Posts
Heck, if you want to keep it carbed and you have the time for a longer term project. Why not grab a spare intake manifold, hack off everything but the flange and water outlet passage for the T-stat. Then weld in some new runners with a Webber DCOE carb flange. I have always wanted to see a high compression, cammed, twin carbed 4Z.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
Hacking the thread a bit...
I am currently replacing a 2.3 with a 2.6 carbureted engine. I was planning on using the 2.6 exhaust manifold since I understand it is a better design; however, the connection to the exhaust pipe is different. Any suggestions on what I should do?
I still have the 2.3 exhaust manifold... My existing exhaust is in surprisingly good condition so I hate to spend money to get it modified...
Thoughts/Suggestions?
Thanks!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,725 Posts
I did a 2.6 swap on my old '87 Trooper (from 2.3). I used the 2.6 exh manifold because of the 2 port exhaust (closest to a header). I swapped out to a 2.6 front ex pipe and everything else fit. I will say that I didn't notice any appreciable change in performance. Dennis
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
Dennis, is the pipe you are referring to from the manifold to the cat? If so, I guess I'm SOL. You may be seeing a post here shortly with me looking for one...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,725 Posts
Yes it was. 2 into 1 pipe. They are available on evilbay sometimes (new). Dennis
Saw one for 81.00 and one for 36.00 (+15.00 shipping) still a lot of shekels. Hopefully, someone here will have an extra. If not, there is always J5. D
 
  • Like
Reactions: cjreed10

·
Banned
Joined
·
84 Posts
********** built a 2.6 with a milled 2.3 head and installed 2.6 valves and the later model cam and reported that it ran like a race car but couldn't control spark knock with even super unleaded fuel.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,823 Posts
I finally got around to cc'ing a 2.3 head today. I only measured #4 chamber to keep from having to move the cam from #4 TDC- it's a new head with Delta 260 & swivel head adjusters & cam break-in lube all installed, so I didn't want to mess with it any more than necessary.
The method I used was to install a spark plug, lay the head chamber-up on about a 30 degree slant & seal a .093" clear polycarbonate plate to the head surface with a smear of petroleum jelly pressed as thin as possible. The plate had a small fill hole positioned at the uppermost edge of the chamber. I used a 100ml buret & tinted rubbing alcohol, noting the level before & after filling. I performed the test three times, removing the plate and the seal from both surfaces, wicking up the test fluid, blowing out the chamber & re-installing the plate & seal between tests.
Results are:
#1 54cc overfilled just a bit
#2 53cc had a small air bubble that would not completely come out
#3 53.6cc no bubbles, no overflow
Average is 53.53cc
This is just one chamber on one head, but it should give an idea of how the 4ZD1 head volume compares to the 4ZE1 early & late head volumes noted elsewhere.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,207 Posts
oldestisuzuist said:
I finally got around to cc'ing a 2.3 head today. I only measured #4 chamber to keep from having to move the cam from #4 TDC- it's a new head with Delta 260 & swivel head adjusters & cam break-in lube all installed, so I didn't want to mess with it any more than necessary.
The method I used was to install a spark plug, lay the head chamber-up on about a 30 degree slant & seal a .093" clear polycarbonate plate to the head surface with a smear of petroleum jelly pressed as thin as possible. The plate had a small fill hole positioned at the uppermost edge of the chamber. I used a 100ml buret & tinted rubbing alcohol, noting the level before & after filling. I performed the test three times, removing the plate and the seal from both surfaces, wicking up the test fluid, blowing out the chamber & re-installing the plate & seal between tests.
Results are:
#1 54cc overfilled just a bit
#2 53cc had a small air bubble that would not completely come out
#3 53.6cc no bubbles, no overflow
Average is 53.53cc
This is just one chamber on one head, but it should give an idea of how the 4ZD1 head volume compares to the 4ZE1 early & late head volumes noted elsewhere.
THIS IS GREAT, NOW IF WE CAN GET THE SAME INFO ON A STOCK 2.3 FACTORY HEAD , THE CLEAR WATER HEAD , BOTH THE 2.6 AND THE FACTORY 2.6 EARLY AND LATE
LOOKS LIKE WE WILL HAVE TO WASTE A FEW HEAD GASKET,S TO GET THE COMPRESSED SWEPT VOL.

AND THE PISTON TOP VOLUMES FOR ALL THREE DESIGNS PISTONS 2.3 AND BOTH THE 2.6 , THIS INFO IS SORTA HARD TO GET WITH OUT HAVING TO TEAR DOWN A BUNCH OF ENG , . I WENT TO GET MY OLD BURRETTE OUT AND THE DANG THING IS BROKEN, HASNT BEEN OUT OF THE BOX IN A LONG TIME,
 
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
Top