2.3 in a BII?
#1
12-11-2005, 11:52 AM
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Racine county, WI
Posts: 1,283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#2
12-11-2005, 01:34 PM
Posting Guru
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Alvin, Texas.
Posts: 1,978
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The good thing is that the 2.3L 4x4 tranny will bolt up to the t-case you have. You just need to get that tranny.
It wold bolt in, since that engine bay is the same as the Ranger, but since fuel mileage savings will be minimal, I'd consider a 4.0L swap. I like the 2.3L quite a bit, but even I bow to a 4.0L thought once in a while.
It wold bolt in, since that engine bay is the same as the Ranger, but since fuel mileage savings will be minimal, I'd consider a 4.0L swap. I like the 2.3L quite a bit, but even I bow to a 4.0L thought once in a while.
#3
12-11-2005, 01:49 PM
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Racine county, WI
Posts: 1,283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by AlfredB1979
The good thing is that the 2.3L 4x4 tranny will bolt up to the t-case you have. You just need to get that tranny.
It wold bolt in, since that engine bay is the same as the Ranger, but since fuel mileage savings will be minimal, I'd consider a 4.0L swap. I like the 2.3L quite a bit, but even I bow to a 4.0L thought once in a while.
It wold bolt in, since that engine bay is the same as the Ranger, but since fuel mileage savings will be minimal, I'd consider a 4.0L swap. I like the 2.3L quite a bit, but even I bow to a 4.0L thought once in a while.
#4
12-12-2005, 11:51 AM
Post Fiend
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Atlanta GA
Posts: 13,873
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The mileage would be better if the BII did not weigh so much. It's base curb weight (4x4) is 3400 pounds and a 2.3L 2x4 Ranger is 2800. In the FWIW department, my 4x4 BIIs weighed close to 3800 pounds.
On the other hand, my 1997 Ranger 4x4 4.0 5 speed with 3.07 rear end got 21 mpg highway driving. In a Bronco II you might actually see an increase in overall MPG because the 4.0 is not working as hard pulling compared to teh 2.9L and the 4.0L has the torque in the lower RPMs vs. over 4k for the 2.9L where it makes most of its power.
imo.
On the other hand, my 1997 Ranger 4x4 4.0 5 speed with 3.07 rear end got 21 mpg highway driving. In a Bronco II you might actually see an increase in overall MPG because the 4.0 is not working as hard pulling compared to teh 2.9L and the 4.0L has the torque in the lower RPMs vs. over 4k for the 2.9L where it makes most of its power.
imo.
#5
12-12-2005, 12:34 PM
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Racine county, WI
Posts: 1,283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rebocardo
The mileage would be better if the BII did not weigh so much. It's base curb weight (4x4) is 3400 pounds and a 2.3L 2x4 Ranger is 2800. In the FWIW department, my 4x4 BIIs weighed close to 3800 pounds.
On the other hand, my 1997 Ranger 4x4 4.0 5 speed with 3.07 rear end got 21 mpg highway driving. In a Bronco II you might actually see an increase in overall MPG because the 4.0 is not working as hard pulling compared to teh 2.9L and the 4.0L has the torque in the lower RPMs vs. over 4k for the 2.9L where it makes most of its power.
imo.
On the other hand, my 1997 Ranger 4x4 4.0 5 speed with 3.07 rear end got 21 mpg highway driving. In a Bronco II you might actually see an increase in overall MPG because the 4.0 is not working as hard pulling compared to teh 2.9L and the 4.0L has the torque in the lower RPMs vs. over 4k for the 2.9L where it makes most of its power.
imo.
I'm hoping to do the swap next week so hopefully I'll have some pics and info to share. I'll defiantly share the MPG.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post