Go Back   Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums > Performance, Engines & Troubleshooting > Other Ford Engines > 4 Cylinder Engines
Sign in using an external account
Register Forgot Password?


Welcome to Ford-Trucks Forums!
Welcome to Ford-Trucks.com.

You are currently viewing our forums as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Ford-Trucks Forums community today!





 
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 05-02-2005, 12:49 AM
1984 f-250 1984 f-250 is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Oregon
Posts: 377
1984 f-250 is starting off with a positive reputation.
The new 2.3 liter

I was wonder what Ford changed on the 2.3 engine. The focus ST has it and the base ranger. Its a quick with the 5 speed
__________________
1984 f-250 6.9 4spd, 96 Explorer XLT 5.0 AWD sct xcal2, torque monster headers, mac catback exhaust
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 05-02-2005, 06:44 AM
Gene K Gene K is offline
Junior User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 57
Gene K is starting off with a positive reputation.
The engine in the Focus is a clean sheet DOHC 16V.

It was also standard in previous Focus sold in Low-Emmissions States such as California and New Jersey. It was also availble as an option in 2004 Focus (Std some models) in other states.

It is basically the same 4 cylinder that dayviewed in the Mazda 6i but without Mazdas variable valve-timing.

Mazda had the lead in designing this engine.

The 2005 Focus 2.0L DOHC is also based on this engine. The Zetec 16V and the SPI 8V engines are history

Is this the same engine thats in the 2005 Ranger?
__________________
Gene
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 05-03-2005, 10:44 AM
1984 f-250 1984 f-250 is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Oregon
Posts: 377
1984 f-250 is starting off with a positive reputation.
Yes the base ranger has a 2.3 too.
__________________
1984 f-250 6.9 4spd, 96 Explorer XLT 5.0 AWD sct xcal2, torque monster headers, mac catback exhaust
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 05-05-2005, 10:10 AM
BroncoRoadKill's Avatar
BroncoRoadKill BroncoRoadKill is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 2,195
BroncoRoadKill is starting off with a positive reputation.
My buddy had a 04 ranger with the DOHC 2.3L and 5spd.
This thing would get up and go.
__________________
82 Bronco 351w C6
95 f-150 300I6 5spd 2wd

My truck likes mud.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 09-07-2005, 02:09 PM
BigBear1's Avatar
BigBear1 BigBear1 is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 192
BigBear1 is starting off with a positive reputation.
Yes! just, bought a '05 ranger 2.3 W/ 5-speed, it moves out. I think it helps that I have the 3.73 rear end gear (pretty low for a ranger in my opinion) I think it is pretty fast, but that could be because I'm used to my '85 f-250 W/ 300 c.i. inline 6. The F-250 can pull the ***** out of anything, but the ranger could definetly kick its a$$ in a drag race. I used to drive a '96 2.3 5-speed ranger at my summer job and my '05 definetly has more power, but I think that one had the higher 3.55 rear end gear
__________________
Travis
-'01 F-250 XLT 4x4 super duty sc sb, 7.3l powerstroke
- '11 ranger XLT super cab 4x2 2.3l 4cyl, 5-speed
-'11 f-550 XL 4x2 reg cab 6.7l (service truck)
-'85 F-250 4x2 "Big Bear" 300 inline 6, C-6 trans.
-'98 F-150 XLT 4x4 off road, 5.4 triton, step side
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 09-16-2005, 08:27 PM
Bart99GT Bart99GT is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,241
Bart99GT is starting off with a positive reputation.
The new 2.3L is up to 145 horses, only 3 shy of the 3.0L. It almost makes me wonder why Ford doesn't ditch the 3.0 V6 and just have the 4 cylinder and 4.0L SOHC as the only engine options for the Ranger. The 3.0L has no fuel economy advantage over the 4.0L and is almost matched for power by the 2.3L DOHC. Of course this is Ford we're talking about here...
__________________
2012 F-150 Lariat, SCrew, EcoBoost, 157"WB, 3.73 axle
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 09-16-2005, 10:41 PM
99F150 99F150 is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Sioux Falls SD
Posts: 1,277
99F150 is starting off with a positive reputation.
I have the new 2.3 in my 05 escape. Very quick and smooth running. No timing belt to change.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 09-17-2005, 02:26 AM
edgl edgl is offline
Elder User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lancaster, CA
Posts: 734
edgl is starting off with a positive reputation.
I have had 4 Rangers, and I now have a 2002 Mazda B2300, and that new 2.3 engine is really good. It runs very strong even with the auto trans I have in my truck.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 09-19-2005, 03:39 PM
AlfredB1979 AlfredB1979 is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Alvin, Texas.
Posts: 1,978
AlfredB1979 is starting off with a positive reputation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart99GT
The new 2.3L is up to 145 horses, only 3 shy of the 3.0L. It almost makes me wonder why Ford doesn't ditch the 3.0 V6 and just have the 4 cylinder and 4.0L SOHC as the only engine options for the Ranger. The 3.0L has no fuel economy advantage over the 4.0L and is almost matched for power by the 2.3L DOHC. Of course this is Ford we're talking about here...
True. GM and pretty much anyoe else has gotten by with 2 engine options for their compact trucks for a good while now.

Maybe sooner than later, with the 2.3L going back into SuperCabs now, Ford will drop the 3.slow.

The 3.slow won't meet emissions before too long, if it even does without much effort now anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 11-01-2005, 09:10 AM
01_4cyl 01_4cyl is offline
Freshman User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Wisconsin Rapids, WI
Posts: 25
01_4cyl is starting off with a positive reputation.
I have an 01 2.3 Ranger with 177,000 miles on it. It's a good , dependable little motor. This summer I'm going to adjust the valves and probably change the timing chain and cam gears. I hope this truck goes at least 300,000 miles. The 30 mpg highway is really nice also.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 11-01-2005, 12:10 PM
ghunt's Avatar
ghunt ghunt is offline
Postmaster
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Morgantown WV
Posts: 3,266
ghunt is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
It doesn't have a timing chain, it has a belt...
__________________
1994 F250 XLT- Sold & sorely missed
2005 Mustang GT- Hurst Billet/Plus, Hooker Aerochambers, C&L Racer intake, tuner, very fun!
1997 Toyota Camry- Winter beater


Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 11-01-2005, 12:13 PM
99F150 99F150 is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Sioux Falls SD
Posts: 1,277
99F150 is starting off with a positive reputation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghunt
It doesn't have a timing chain, it has a belt...
Wrong! The 2.3 from 2001 to present uses a Chain. What I find interesting is that the Ford website shows the 2.3 in the Ranger as having Mech. valves with buckets. My Escape with this engine is listed as having Hyd. valve system.

Dan
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 11-02-2005, 12:06 PM
ghunt's Avatar
ghunt ghunt is offline
Postmaster
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Morgantown WV
Posts: 3,266
ghunt is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
I thought they had the old Lima-based engine clear up til they started using the Zetec. Ah well, I don't know rangers.
__________________
1994 F250 XLT- Sold & sorely missed
2005 Mustang GT- Hurst Billet/Plus, Hooker Aerochambers, C&L Racer intake, tuner, very fun!
1997 Toyota Camry- Winter beater


Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 11-02-2005, 02:07 PM
99F150 99F150 is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Sioux Falls SD
Posts: 1,277
99F150 is starting off with a positive reputation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghunt
I thought they had the old Lima-based engine clear up til they started using the Zetec. Ah well, I don't know rangers.
Zetecs were never used in the Ranger. Only used in the Contour, Focus, Escort ZX2 and Escape I believe. Ford phased the Zetec out at end of 2004 for the duratec fours. They use a smaller version of the 2.3 in the Focus. 2.0L
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 11-02-2005, 05:13 PM
ghunt's Avatar
ghunt ghunt is offline
Postmaster
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Morgantown WV
Posts: 3,266
ghunt is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Somebody told me the new 2.3L was a zetec. I dunno.
__________________
1994 F250 XLT- Sold & sorely missed
2005 Mustang GT- Hurst Billet/Plus, Hooker Aerochambers, C&L Racer intake, tuner, very fun!
1997 Toyota Camry- Winter beater


Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2005, 05:13 PM
Reply

Go Back   Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums > Performance, Engines & Troubleshooting > Other Ford Engines > 4 Cylinder Engines

Tags
23, adjusting, dohc, econamy, ford, liter, valves

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.5.2 ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.
Advertising - Terms of Use - Privacy Statement - Jobs
This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. FordŽ is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.

vbulletin Admin Backup