Hi everyone, I am in a spot where some of you may already have been. I have a '94 Ranger 2.3 Lima with a half million miles. I need to replace the truck or rebuild the drive train. I love the truck and the way it drives. But it has always been under-powered. The engine now uses about a qt of oil every 200 miles. It doesn't smoke, but it does leaks some oil. On the interstate, it might even lose a cylinder temporary and I have to limp it back home. It pings really bad, so I have to run high octane gas. The engine has never had any work done on it other than timing belt and water pump change out. The manual tranny has been rebuilt 3 times (that is like 4 transmissions in 500k miles) and it needs work again (3rd gear grinds bad as well as other whinning sounds coming from it). Now the clutch is giving trouble...it has trouble disengaging and I can feel "bumping" and "grabbing" in the clutch pedal as it is being released. It feels as if the clutch lining is coming apart.
I had told myself I would replace the truck when it reaches 1/2 million miles. My intention was to buy another ranger and maybe go with a later model 2.3 duractec 4 cyl. for the gas mileage and power (2000 thru 2011 ??). And stay with the manual tranny too. However, now that I have reached the 1/2 million mile goal, I am not too sure about replacing it. So I am thinking of maybe rebuilding the drive-train. Here are some things I am considering:
Possibly putting 2.5 crank and rods in it, bored oversized pistons, maybe slight cam. Maybe a turbo ?, but I like the simplicity without the turbo and I don't want to be tinkering with it. A new clutch and ...is there another manual tranny that is a bolt in (maybe the T5) that is more reliable than the Mazda tranny? (I dont want an automatic tranny behind a 4 cylinder! ). It seems a duratech engine swap in a '94 is out since it is difficult to do.
Tell me what some of you guys have done when it was time to replace your 2.3 Lima. Has anyone replaced their Lima powered truck with a duratech 2.3 truck? how did you like it?
I think the original plan to replace the truck is the better option. But I have had this Ranger for almost 30 years and hate to see it go. I have been looking at used Rangers and the ratio of Rangers for sale with automatics vs manual seem to be about 10:1. Not many manual choices out there.
I have test drove the latest generation of rangers with the 2.3 ecoboost. really liked it, but I think I want to stay with the smaller old body Ranger, pay less taxes and insurance, be able to work on it, etc. that the older ranger provides.
Love to hear your thoughts on replacing your Ranger and what you finally did.

 

The old 2.3 Brigs & Stratton as I call it was badly underpowered, I had an '83 4-sp 4x4 and a '90 2wd 5-sp... man were they gutless. I always thought the Tbird 2.3L turbo would have been a good swap. After that we had two different 3.0L 5-sp Rangers, a '94 ext cab and then a 2004 ext cab which was the best one by far. All of these just ran and ran without much issue and the 3.0 was much more powerful, the last generation trucks are a lot different mechanically but they do ride and handle much better. People disagree but IMO the 3.0/5sp is the sweet spot for the old Rangers with decent overall power, performance, and fuel milage.

 

I probably don't have any right to answer this as while I bought my 2007 Ranger XLT (with the 3.0 Vulcan and automatic OD transmission) with 67,000 miles on it back in 2010, after 15 years of ownership I just broke 150,000 miles. It lives in my garage on a battery maintainer when it's not out on the road and it's my daily driver (about every three days).

Had a transmission cooler installed, upgraded the sound system, had the airbag recall done, had the air conditioning replaced a few years back, and aside from that, it's just been routine oil changes and new tires twice.

I tend to keep cars a long time. My Taurus, which has similar miles on it and similar repair history, is a 2000. It also lives in the garage on a battery maintainer.

So why did I replace my 1988 Taurus wagon with the Ranger? Because I was having trouble finding parts for it. It needed a new computer and I had to settle for a junkyard replacement. Then I burned up the transmission. That tore it. Time for a new car/truck. I have only bought one brand new vehicle in my entire life (I'm 71). I always get something that still has the new car smell without the new car depreciation.

So my point is: can you still find parts? Do you think you'll still be able to in 5-10 years? If not, it's time to get something newer. It doesn't have to be brand new. You'll come to love it too.

 

Conanski....I like the term 2.3 briggs and stratton! I have been looking at the 3.0 V6 but have not drove any. I do want good mileage is why I continued looking at the 4 cylinder rangers. If driven conservatively, what mileage do you get on the interstate? My "2.3 BS" (lol) has gotten as high as 27 but that was driving it very very easy.

topsailbeachbum.....we had a 91 taurus and now a 2004 taurus. both have the 3.0 and that was a great engine. cant say the same for the trannys! I was thinking the 2.3 duratec might almost match the power of the 3.0 V6. ...and I have not ruled out the 3.0 V6. I too have only bought 1 new vehicle ('84 Mustang GT) in my life and sold it 4 years later, needed the money!
I think Ranger parts will be around longer than the taurus parts. I have experienced where ranger parts have to be ordered, they are not always on the shelf at the local parts houses. My search criteria for another ranger has been: less than 125K miles (maybe some new car smell still left) , manual, 4 cylinder (will consider 3.0), and possibly the extended cab for more room. I am hoping to find one cheap enough for just liability insurance. However, on the opposite spectrum, I have had my eye on a 60K mile 2020 ranger with minor collision damage at a great price for that year. This 2020 model is at 2.5 times the cost I was hoping to pay for an older ranger, and I would have to put full insurance coverage on it, pay high sales tax and yearly high property tax, well.... not ruled it out, but certainly thinking on it. I test drove one at the dealer and it had plenty of power and I hear they get almost 30mpg.

 

I have an 03 with the 2.3L/M5OD combination. I wouldn't call it underpowered, but it certainly ain't fast. I can get up to 30mpg on all-seasons and 25mpg on snows. If you don't need to tow/haul north of 1200lbs, it's pretty much perfect. If you pick up a 3rd gen 4 cylinder, I would recommend an 04+. The 00-03 have plastic plates in the intake manifold that are supposed to change runner length and improve performance, but they can fall apart and throw plastic chunks into your engine. The plastic intake manifold is also a liability for all the 4 cylinders, since they are out of production everywhere and get brittle over time like all plastic parts. I think the other engines are plastic as well, but are more available on the aftermarket.

The big difference between the V6s and the L4 is the low-end torque. The L4 has very little bottom end, which you have probably felt. The V6 won't be any faster, but it will pull better. I never owned a 3.0 myself, but effectively you're looking at a bit more torque for a pretty significant hit in fuel economy. I have a larger truck as wekk so power is less important to me, but that's a a decision for you to make.

 

Ford put a twin cam 16v Duratech (Mazda) 2.3L in these trucks in 2001, that motor made about 140hp which was a significant upgrade from the Lima 2.3.

The 3.0 trucks we had got about 20mpg which I think is pretty good considering how much better the truck drives compared to the old 2.3. However the auto transmissions do seem to suck the life out of these motors, I have only been in a couple with auto trans and it was extra underwhelming. Every one of the Rangers we have owned had manuals, the 04 we had with 4.10 gears in the axle was a hot rod but it got the worst highway fuel milage... no surprise.