I just added a 1994 2.3L 5 speed to my fleet. It's got 88K on it and is super clean. My other trucks are a 1995 2.3L also a LB stick, and a 1992 LB stick with the same 2.3L.
They all have the same rear ratio, the 1994 has smaller tires, 195/70/R14, vs. the others with 225/70R14 tires. The 1992 and 1995 both have far more miles, both over 200K. All three run great with no fault codes and all pass state emissions with no hassle.
The problem is that the 1994 is a real slug, it runs like it's got a 2.30 rear ratio and taking off even in first feels like I'm trying to go in third or fourth in the other trucks. The 1992 is the quickest, it will run circles around the others.

I have checked the obvious like Fuel pressure, timing belt, and clogged exhaust, I even ran it around sans the exhaust to see it that helped but no difference. It even seems easier to stall, where as the others are nearly impossible to stall.
I've even cleaned and even changed the injectors, coils, Ignition module, checked the cam for wear etc. I replaced the mass air sensor with a known good one, and even pulled the rear cover to verify the gear ratio. I swapped in a known good cam sensor as well, (distributor drive location). I've also played with advancing and retarding the cam one tooth each direction with no good results. I gain some by advancing it but it pings so bad that way it's not drivable. The only thing I've felt slower than this was my 1980 Diesel VW rabbit.
All three Rangers have 2.73 rear ratios, but I keep reading that these all should have come with at least a 3.55, the problem is that after owning 12 Ranger 4 cylinder stick trucks, I've yet to see a 2.3L stick with any lower rear ratio around here, my one 1993 had a 2.31:1 rear ratio. Fifth gear is just about useless, if I shift into 5th at say 65mph, I will lose speed, unable to maintain any speed in OD on anything but flat or downhill runs. In 4th, it will run 80+ if I have the room to get there. It actually feels pretty normal power wise at speeds above 65 in 4th.
It simply feels like it's geared WAY too high, my 1992 will chirp second with little effort, the 1994 won't spin a wheel in sand.

The 1994 gets about the same mileage as the others, always in the low 20 per gallon range.
I have also shimmed the throttle cable to remove any slack which all of these seem to have had, but that only ads a bit of pedal feel and better response, not any real power for normal driving.


Was there something with the 1994's that made them slower? Any ideas?

I feel it's a matter of gearing not a performance issue, the motor sounds and runs the same as the other two trucks but feels like it's always geared way too high. I've considered a rear swap, as well as an 8.8" upgrade. What year Explorer will give me a bolt in donor rear?

 

A known good MAF will not necessarily be the right calibration for your engine, no? Or maybe they are all the same...
I'd disconnect the MAF, and let it run in 'limp home' mode, where you provide a fixed number to the ECM. If you then have more normal performance, I'd be looking at a new one.
How are you figuring out these axle ratios? My understanding is that you have to jack up the back end, and then turn the drive shaft a number of turns until the wheels have rotated one revolution. If you block one wheel, then you would need the number of driveshaft turns for 2 revolutions of the free wheel.
Is that the general method you used, because I don't think FoMoCo makes up ratios out of the blue.
Where are you ? Up in the low (fog) clouds of Denver?
tom

 

I borrowed the MAF sensor from a buddies truck, same year, same part number sensor.
I initially did the spin and count turns method but each rear has it's original tag which gives it's ratio and part number and besides, I've had the covers off each rear to change the fluids and was able to look for myself.
I'm at sea level in NJ.
I tried to start it accidently once with the MAF unplugged, it barely ran and blew out black smoke. The MAF volts look fine, about .78 at idle and a steady increase which matches the manual specs. When I got this one it had a bad DIS module and a check engine light on. I replaced the DIS module and all was clear after that. It was running with no spark on the right bank on two cylinders. A buddy also gave me a spare set of coils, I've also swapped them out with no change. I've owned 12 of these things over the years and know them pretty well. I've also accumulated lots of spare parts. This is my 4th 1994, and by far the slowest. The 1993/94's were slower for some reason but this one is way slower. I also notice that on occasion it starts funny and backfires, as if it lost it's sequential fire signal. Turning the key off and back on fixes it. That made me try a new crank sensor but that did nothing. I was wondering if the cam sensor could be out of proper timing somehow. It acts like a car that has it's timing too far retarded.

It's got a stable consistant idle but it stalls easy. You have to give it way too much gas to make it move without stalling. I've been driving manual transmission vehicles for 28 years, and even I've stalled this at stop lights just trying to get going. It's 10 times worse with the air on.

 

You menationed nothing about doing a tune up. Get the vehicles some new plugs, wires, replace the O2 sensor, and check for vacuum leaks.

 

Have you done a compression check on the '94? 1 bad lung will kill overall engine performance. I can't imagine driving one of these with even lower numerically gearing, ours has 3.08 and I'm seriously considering swapping in a junkyard axle with 3.73's, I'm sure performance and clutch life wll increase.

 

Especially if one or more cyclinder was running without spark for any length of time. Unburnt fuel loves to wash down the cylinder walls and all sorts of havoc with the rings.

 

One of the first things I did when I first got this one was to check compression, it's got 155 psi in all holes.
The plugs are new, the coils are new, and the wires are new.
I haven't replaced the O2 sensor since it's working fine. It also just pasted state inspection and was fine as far as tailpipe emissions. If I had a motor issue or bad O2 it would show up there.
When I first drove it, I would have sworn the parking brake was stuck on, I puled over twice to check, even put it in neutral and rolled it by hand in the parking lot to make sure nothing was dragging.

I've been looking for a rear to swap in, but would prefer to upgrade this to an 8.8 vs the stock 7.5. I am thinking that maybe a similar aged Explorer rear would fit from a 4.0 or V8 truck. I have a spare 7.5 from a 1989, but it's narrower by a little over an inch. That one is also a 2.73 ratio anyhow.

I can't figure why they would ever put such a rear behind a 2.3L. I've driven newer trucks with the 3.55 or 3.73 rears and they actually feel fast compared to these.

I'm not certain which year Explorer I should be looking for a rear from, I suppose the first generation body style will use a narrower rear like the 1989 and back Ranger? I've never measured the newer Explorer rears.

If I were to just change ratios, I'd just as well just buy a set of gears and rebuild this one if staying with a 7.5" rear?

 

Also run a can of seafoam through it to get rid of some of that carbon build up.

 

I've got Ford's version of Sea Foam here, I've used that before but not yet on this one.
I usually take a look with the borescope first and use it only if it looks all coked up.
Ford had some problems with earlier motors in which the back of the intake valves carboned up really bad, but I've not seen one of these do it.

This wasn't running without spark in any of the cylinder, only the clean up cycle or secondary spark wasn't working. It ran just about the same as it does now with the check engine light on. It's been a good 5k since I changed the module out and it's been code free since.
One thing I really expected to improve it's power was changing the timing belt, but it made no difference. The old belt was stretched so bad it was slapping the cover. I figured it was putting the motor out of time a bit but even with the new belt it hasn't changed any, at least not enough of a difference that I can feel it.
If it weren't so apt to stalling on take off I'd have just thought it was the gearing making it so slow. If I take off and let the rpms drop below the set idle, it just dies all at once, it don't stumble or shudder, it just dies. My other two won't stall no matter what. They pull like an old tractor. One the other truck, you could easily coax them to take off in a higher gear, but that would be impossible on this truck, it would just shut off.
Its like it can't get enough fuel to the injectors to make any torque at lower rpms.
The others will just shudder a bit at low rpms and keep pulling, the '94' just dies when pushed.
The idle is rock solid and steady when sitting still, it's not an IAC issue or anything like that. It will die with my foot in the gas, and after it dies, it often takes several tries to refire it, after stalling it will often act as if it lost #1 cyl. reference. You have to turn off the key twice to get it to restart. This is what made me think maybe it was a cam sensor or crank sensor problem, but I've changed both with no improvement. This uses the CMP sensor which is located in the distributor hole on top of the oil pump drive.
(2.3L stick shift only had these, the Ford manual refers to a section that isn't there when you go to the Powertrain manual). I am wondering if the tool I used to align the sensor was wrong? The manual don't call for a tool, and yet it can be adjusted. I used the tool for another motor, not sure which one but it put the cam sensor in the same location as it was before I removed the old one. I have all of the OTC CMP sensor tools offered back then, none say 2.3L on them. There is very little room to move the sensor or pump drive to make adjustments.
My cam sensor looks like this one:
eBay Motors: 94 95 96 97 Ford Ranger Camshaft Synchronizer 2.3L (item 260305504923 end time Nov-23-08 14:06:03 PST)

 

I'm puzzled by your saying the truck has a 2.73 rear axle ratio. As I have looked at Ford's literature and factory manuals, I haven't seen a 2.73 ratio listed. Are sure it isn't 3.73? I'd agree that a 2.73 would make it run like a dog, but I'm not aware of Ford using that ratio in a Ranger.

 

You measured 2.73 counting driveshaft turns, and the door sticker agrees that they are 2.73, correct? On all three.
So it is not gearing, or all three would be barking, no?
Two things came to mind. The cam position sensor essentially sets the ignition timing, the crank position identifies which cylinder.
You have low power and tip in stalling. The latter points to MAF or TPS or low fuel pressure or timing. Take your pick. Given that the valve train is timed correctly ( a 'mechanical' thing ), it is one of the 4.
You have checked fuel pressure, traded MAF, used the tool to set the timing, and checked manual valve timing (cam belt pointers.)
Is it possible you have pressure but no flow? Check the volume output of the pump over a measured time to see if delivery is correct. Trade in a TPS from a 'known good' source - heck you have two others sitting right there.
The last thought is can you get it into wiggle test mode, as it stalls at idle as if it lost its mind (which cylinder am i?), and wiggle all the wires on the CMP, CPS, TPS, and the DIS.
I hope this is not a FFV that someone has 'fixed', thus lying to the ECM about the fuel that is being used.
tom

 

My '92 was a slug as well, so I feel your pain. One thing that woke mine up was cleaning the EGR port and valve. I think your also on the right track putting some additive through the top end to clean out carbon, it can't hurt you any. I wonder about a bad knock sensor? Could the engine be sensing a pre-detonation condition that doesn't exist? This would trigger the engine to retard timing and change the air/fuel ratio slightly to prevent pinging. Just a thought.

 

 

Plenty of Rangers came with 8.8" 3.73 and 4.10 gear ratios. My '94 4.0 V6 2wd has 3.73's. 4.10 sets are probably more common in 4x4's. Look for a V6 model I the salvage yard.
If the engine is pinging, though, it may not be a gearing issue, especially when all 3 trucks likely have the same 2.73 gears. 2.73 seems especially absurd on a 2.3 4-cylinder.

​​​

 

low power on take off dies easy and almost no power in 4th and especially 5th. Can't hardly get above 60-65 at most on flat roads. any ideas?