2.3 MPG Predictions/expectations??
Super Moderator
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 39,847
Likes: 1,502
From: Maine, Virginia
I think they put one chain on the front of the engine and the other on the rear, and the cylinder heads were identical to each other. Just looked it up on wiki and they drove the cams off a jackshaft that ran in the old camshaft spot, which strikes me as complexity for the sake of complexity...and yes, one chain on the front of the engine and the other on the rear...with cam tensioners that were prone to failure.
Ford's program to put overhead cams in all their engines was, IMO, not worthwhile for the results it produced. The mod motors ended up huge in size and although they were good performers, probably cost a LOT more money to build than Chrysler's Hemi--the hemi is cheaper to build than the old Chrysler OHC 4.7 liter V8 which was comparable to the Ford 4.6.
The older, simpler versions of the Cologne engine (2.6, 2.8, 2.9 in particular) were really nice, smooth, and powerful engines in their day. And the Duratec and its descendents are great motors that were properly designed with dual overhead cams from the start.
Ford's program to put overhead cams in all their engines was, IMO, not worthwhile for the results it produced. The mod motors ended up huge in size and although they were good performers, probably cost a LOT more money to build than Chrysler's Hemi--the hemi is cheaper to build than the old Chrysler OHC 4.7 liter V8 which was comparable to the Ford 4.6.
The older, simpler versions of the Cologne engine (2.6, 2.8, 2.9 in particular) were really nice, smooth, and powerful engines in their day. And the Duratec and its descendents are great motors that were properly designed with dual overhead cams from the start.
Bleed Ford Blue
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 13,578
Likes: 157
From: Anchorage Alaska
97-01 SOHC were ticking time bombs (along with the 5 speed auto behind them) if you ask me, they did run well through! We have an '04 Ranger with the SOHC 4.0 as a shop truck at work (with snow plow, sander and ladder rack), it's been run hard, overloaded and put away wet and keeps coming back for more. We do keep up on oil changes and basic maintenance but that's all the love it gets. It seems the 03-04 and up to 2010 in the mustang 4.0's were pretty good, I'm not sure what all upgrades they came up with during the years.
Super Moderator
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 39,847
Likes: 1,502
From: Maine, Virginia
I just visited Nissan and Toyota's websites. Ford's numbers are the best advertised numbers and most likely the most powerful midsized truck to boot.
Thread Starter
|
Senior User
Joined: Jan 2017
Posts: 183
Likes: 1
With Chevy releasing the very disappointing EPA numbers for the Silverado 2.7 4cyl (20/23 for a 2wd), it's really making me wonder what the Ranger will come in at. While we don't know the curb weight of the truck, somewhere around 4,500lbs for a SuperCrew 4x4 should be close. I personally think anything less than a +2 city/hwy compared to a 2.7 F-150 4x4 (19/24) will be a huge letdown. In other words 21/26 for a 4x4 Ranger. I really could see this truck getting the same 19/24 as the F-150 or like 20/24, just because of the little 2.3 having to work harder. I know 2 mpg isn't much, but the 2.7 would make this truck change the rules, so if the 2.3 doesn't beat the 2.7 numbers handily, I for one will be a bit disappointed.
I guess I was spot on. I will retract my comment on being disappointed however. This truck will be nice and likely lead the class in performance and we know the 2.3 is capable and should be more than adequate. I won't retract that the 2.7 could have changed the rules. Maybe it was a production, profit or marketing based decision to go with the 2.3? I don't see the 2.7 being an option now ( unless Raptor gets a green light ) even in the future because the mpg numbers would have to be at least as good as the 2.3 based off the 2.7 in the heavier F-150 getting the same 24 mpg hwy in 4x4. GM will likely flop with it's 2.7 4cyl in the Silverado and it will make it's way to the Colorado/Canyon and probably up the ante. If nothing else Ford likely turned the mid sized segment into a torquey 4 cyl turbo class in the long run. Maybe we'll see history repeat itself and the Ranger get bumped to a 2.5 down the road......My biggest disappointments are the fact that you have to add on a trailer brake controller and keyless entry keypad is a stick on. Both of which look like cheesy after thoughts in a truck capable of costing $45,000.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
BlkRanger
1983 - 2012 Ranger & B-Series
21
Apr 5, 2007 08:49 AM