guttless(and I hate it)
Thread Starter
|
Senior User
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
guttless(and I hate it)
I have a 91' ranger 2.3l 4speed w/ overdrive. This sounds weird but it idles rough, it's guttless and slow, but it runs fine. Any help with the guttlessness and slowness????
Post Fiend
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 6,940
Likes: 2
From: Eastern WA
Assuming that it's in good tune and a compression test produces average results, I'd say you will simply have to accept the power offered by the motor you've got. Then again, with some work a BB can be stuffed in there too 
.
.
Thread Starter
|
Senior User
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
It runs the same as before. I did the t/belt because of my problems. The timing is dead on. I think it is just a suckass lame engine, I was right I HATE that thing.
What about the rough idle?
Does anyone know how much a regular cab 2wd ranger weighs?
Did they make a dual overhead cam version?
What is the rear end ratio?
Thanks
What about the rough idle?
Does anyone know how much a regular cab 2wd ranger weighs?
Did they make a dual overhead cam version?
What is the rear end ratio?
Thanks
Trending Topics
Senior User
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by factory594x4
It runs the same as before. I did the t/belt because of my problems. The timing is dead on. I think it is just a suckass lame engine, I was right I HATE that thing.
What about the rough idle?
Does anyone know how much a regular cab 2wd ranger weighs?
Did they make a dual overhead cam version?
What is the rear end ratio?
Thanks
What about the rough idle?
Does anyone know how much a regular cab 2wd ranger weighs?
Did they make a dual overhead cam version?
What is the rear end ratio?
Thanks
Second,if you hate it so bad, you need to ask yourself why. Why don't you replace it with something you like? Why did you buy it to begin with? Or, as I suspect, if it was given to you by your parents, why are you so ungrateful and spoiled? ;-)
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
2027 Ford Super Duty Buyer's Guide (Every Model, Engine, & Package)
Brett Foote
Top 10 Ford Truck Tragedies
Joe Kucinski
AEV FXL Super Duty - the Super Duty Raptor Ford Doesn't Make
Brett Foote
Lobo Vs Lobo: Proof the F-150 Lobo Should Be Even Lower!
Michael S. Palmer
Ford's 2001 Explorer Sportsman Concept Looks For a New Home
Verdad Gallardo
10 Best Ford Truck Engines We Miss the Most!
Joe Kucinski
2026 Shelby F-150 Off-Road: Better Than a Raptor R?
Brett Foote
2027 Super Duty Carhartt Package First Look: 12 Things You NEED to Know!
Michael S. Palmer
10 Most Surprising 2026 Ford Truck Features!
Joe Kucinski
Thread Starter
|
Senior User
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
I have a 78'f-250 4x4 400c6 sucks to much gas. I have a 79' f-250 4x2 460c6 sucks even more gas. I have a 59'f-250 4x4 223 4speed it's great, but with 4:56 gears it's hard to reach 45mph. I bought the ranger to get to the job site and carry my tools economically. I also have a 63' fairlane, but I'm in the middle of doing the interior, so no driving that for now.
Senior User
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
It's hard to tell from what you've said so far if there's something wrong with the truck, or if you just don't like the power it has.
I'll agree that the little 2.3 is hard to step down to if you're coming to it from power. In 1996 I almost traded my 92 4.0 for a new 2.3, but I just couldn't handle the step down in power then. Now that I don't have to drive like a bat out of hell all the time, I've found that the 2.3 ain't so bad, especially at the pump. It does take some getting used to though.
Part of the problem is that yours is coupled to an automatic. That sucks a lot of the power out of it too.
I guess it's just a matter of compromise. You can't get good gas mileage with a big engine, and you can't get big power from a small engine.
I have to ask tho, didn't you test drive this vehicle?
I'll agree that the little 2.3 is hard to step down to if you're coming to it from power. In 1996 I almost traded my 92 4.0 for a new 2.3, but I just couldn't handle the step down in power then. Now that I don't have to drive like a bat out of hell all the time, I've found that the 2.3 ain't so bad, especially at the pump. It does take some getting used to though.
Part of the problem is that yours is coupled to an automatic. That sucks a lot of the power out of it too.
I guess it's just a matter of compromise. You can't get good gas mileage with a big engine, and you can't get big power from a small engine.
I have to ask tho, didn't you test drive this vehicle?
Thread Starter
|
Senior User
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Yes I did test drive it. It was in Az. on flat land. It had never had a tune-up, so I figured new plugs, wires and so on would do the trick. I live in L.A, not too many hills but any mountain or hill that I do meet and thats it. I'm sorry it is the manual 4speed w/OD
Freshman User
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
From: presscott
i had a ranger with a 2.3 that was a rocket but i took all the wate off i could (took it from 4300 lb to 3900 lb) an i had 15'' rims with lopro tires
oh and if your 2.3 is running ruff check the fuel pump
or your vacume if its loosing vacume it will run ruff and have no *****
and make sure that a rat didnt make a home in 1 of your intake tubes
oh and if your 2.3 is running ruff check the fuel pump
or your vacume if its loosing vacume it will run ruff and have no *****
and make sure that a rat didnt make a home in 1 of your intake tubes
