I'm looking to buy another Ranger soon, to save some gas and keep the miles off my F-150. The plant I work at is about a half hour from home, and I really don't have a need to take a full-size four wheel drive truck to work every day.

I used to have a 91 Ranger SuperCab longbed with the 4.0, 5 speed, and she was only 2wd but she did the job. Like I said, just a parts hauler and my ride to work. Sold her because I wasn't driving it much.

So... what do I need to know about the 2.3? I would consider buying a truck with that engine, but aside from all the Ford V8's I've owned, I only have experience with the 4.0 (non-OHC) and the 2.9L which y'all know are both six cylinder engines. Ain't ever owned one of their 4-bangers so I have a few questions.

Would I be better served buying a six cylinder as far as mileage goes? If they're real close I'd rather have the extra torque on tap. I'm asking y'all because that's where the real world experience is. What kinda mileage can I expect?

Any specific years to avoid? Common problems?

I see it's timing belt drive... Are there conversion parts available to make it gear or chain drive? I don't cherish the though of a rubber band driving critical engine parts.

Thanks in advance, and if all else fails I'm gonna buy another bomb-proof 4.0 pushrod motor Seemed like it got decent mileage although I didn't really keep track.

 

What year range Rangers are you looking at? The older Lima 4 cylinders (2001 and older) have timing belts. Starting mid-year 2001, Ford switched to the Duratec 2.3, which has a timing chain. Gas mileage is way better with the 4 cyl. Duratecs can get 28-30 mpg highway. With a 4.0 V6 you'd be lucky to get 20. Limas get about 24-26 mpg.

 

I'll suppose I can go anywhere from 89-00, the 2000+ years might be out of my budget at the moment, but I prefer the 89-92 body style. Still made of real metal and looks like a TRUCK, even though it's a little guy

24-26 MPG sounds good. My half-ton with the 351 gets about 14.5 around town so that's almost double. I can live with a 4 cyl for that kinda mileage, I have my other truck for heavier/bigger jobs.

 

What's up Dixie I have had three Rangers two with the 2.3 and one with the 4.0. I will not buy another ranger that's not a 2.3. I drive a 95 ex cab 2.3 5 speed to work every day. Round trip just under 80 miles a day. Only complaint is when the a/c is on. Let me know if you have any questions.

 

Hey there Crewcabber, that's what I was hoping to hear. I don't mind it being down on power with the a/c on since I don't use it much anyway except when it's real hot (which is basically June-September around here) and it ain't like I'm trying to win a truck pull with it.

I liked my last Ranger, they're good trucks and I was just concerned since I knew nothing about the 2.3 but your reply and exranger06's post about mileage vs a 4.0 helps a lot. Just like anything I buy, I like to do my research first.

Thanks!

 

I've got a 95 B2300 (same thing, just different badge) with the 2.3/5 speed. 26-28 MPG is quite doable, but A/C costs 2-3 MPG hit. 180K and still runs/drives as well as it did new.
These engines are quite durable, if cared for. As for the "rubber band driving critical engine parts", no need to worry about that. The belt will last 100-140K under most conditions. Replacing it is relatively cheap, along with it's tensioner. Even if the belt happens to break, very little chance of any engine damage occurring, just an inconvienence and tow bill. If you are really concerned about this leaving you stranded, have it changed/change it yourself, and rest assurred that it's good to go for another 80K+.

 

Great, glad to hear from yet another source that the MPG's are good. Like I said I don't use a/c much anyway... although on the days I do use it I sure am glad to have it!

Uh yeah the rubber band thing... I just don't get why whoever came up with that idea thought it was a smart move. I do realize that timing belts are reliable if you replace them, it's just that I prefer chains. Good to hear that there's little chance of damage too.

Not that I don't do maintenance... if anything I'm guilty of replacing parts that still have usable life in them! I do everything myself, nobody so much as puts a wrench to anything I own except me. Well, except for front end alignments. Will I need any special tools to replace that timing belt? I doubt it, but figured I'd ask anyway. I will be replacing it along with the usual things (oil, coolant, filters, etc) when I get the truck.

So, I'm happy with what I've heard so far. Sounds like a Ranger with the 2.3 and a 5 speed is in my future.

 

From my perspective the most important thing is if regular maintenance was performed and if issues were addressed when they manifested themselves. I bought my 96 2.3 ultra from my brother in law. Multiple codes were logged and truck ran like crap. I still can only manage 15-17 mpg with mostly highway driving.
Again, he only had the truck repaired if it wouldn't start or move.

 

Quick question... I was just looking on Craigslist at prices and saw a good deal for a 91 Ranger 2.3/5 spd.

Guy is saying he put a 2.3 from a 92 Mustang in it . Assuming this was done correctly and not a hack job, are there any major differences (intake manifold maybe?) between that and the stock 2.3?

 

I have had a "few" 2.3s over 30 yrs or so in Mustangs, Pintos, Rangers..........Never once had the "rubber band" break, even after going 150k or more on the stock belt.

 

No special tools to replace the belt. I have 170,000 on my ranger my current belt has 100,00 on it. Like mentioned above the 2.3 is not a close tolerance motor so unless at high rims it should be fine. As far as belt vs. Chain eh they both have their own pros and cons. The best pro about a belt if it breaks it won't break anything else when it slaps around like a chain does. If your gonna do the belt plan on doing the thermostat at the same time it's in the same location cheap and easy insurance. The 2.3 does not like to get hot. Keep the oil changed and water in it and it will run forever. And if you get tired of it being stock you can play with them as well. The easiest upgrade is to buy the K&n filter pull the air box off aand voilà open air cleaner. The k&n filter will clamp in with the factory clamp. Throw a two chamber flow master on it and it's breathing easier. A couple more mpgs and ponies.

 

Oh yeah, I've seen a few trucks like that. My last Ranger was in slightly rough shape when I got her, but I fixed her up good (except for the firewall rust) and she ran like a champ.

Alright, sounds good. Yes I'll do a t-stat, I always do because usually what I find when I pull the t-stat housing is either no thermostat, pieces of what used to be a thermostat, or a junk no-name "Discount Super Value Auto Parts Chain Store" special POS, which I replace with a Stant or Motorcraft.

Airbox/filter, sounds like a plan.

A 2 chamber Flowmaster? Does that actually sound good or will it sound like the typical teenage kid in his riced-out Honda? I would think the latter...

 

3 chamber not 2 sorry. Mellow with good to be

 

10-4, I'll consider that. Just don't want the truck to sound like a blender motor.

Thanks for all the advice guys!

 

The Mustang 2.3 in my 92 Ranger is the same as the 2.3 that was originally in it (nephew ran it without coolant). The manifolds and bolt on parts are different, but the engine long blocks are the same.