2.3l
Thread Starter
|
New User
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
2.3l
I was just wondering, mileage wise, how long a 4 cylinder can be expected to last. I was looking in the autotrader, saw a 2002 ford ranger 2.3L engine. I believe it had about 89k miles for about 4800 bucks. I'm a retired person, funds are limited. I'm a little wary about 4 cylinders? I'm just thinking out load. Year--make and model isn't as important as price. Any thoughts? thanks
Former ******
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,901
Likes: 2
From: Salt Lake City, Utah
The 2.3L is a very reliable bulletproof engine. Its not very powerful, but they do get great gas mileage, and is extremely dependable. My dad has a '96 with about 380,000 miles on it.
Thread Starter
|
New User
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Thanks for the info. I haven't traded vehicles in sooo long. The old vehicle out front is 20 plus years old. I'll be doing mostly highway driving. I'm not racer,but, I'd like a little acceleration, for merging into highspeed traffic. thanks
Logistics Pro
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,907
Likes: 39
From: suburban atlanta
Th '96 and the '02 are not related in any way. The older engine was a re-design of the German 2000cc OHC engine first seeing use in USA in the Pinto. Introduced in 1974 in the Mustang II and the Pinto. It is a workhorse, and is strong enough out of the box to take a turbocharger in the Mustang and in the T-bird. Runs real fine, last long time...
The newer engine is a DOHC, and has only one failing I have heard of. The porosity of the metal near the thermostat housing. Some castings were a bit too thin... Search around on this site for more details. It, too, is an otherwise good engine from what I've read.
I had a '74 2.3 from new, the only year it had a points distributor, and now have an '85 in my Ranger. I've worked on a Turbo Bird, and it needed its valves seats cleaned up. The Mustang with the turbo engine was scary fast, to me.
In all, the original 2.3 was a pretty good design. The newer engine appears to be carrying out the same tradition.
tom
The newer engine is a DOHC, and has only one failing I have heard of. The porosity of the metal near the thermostat housing. Some castings were a bit too thin... Search around on this site for more details. It, too, is an otherwise good engine from what I've read.
I had a '74 2.3 from new, the only year it had a points distributor, and now have an '85 in my Ranger. I've worked on a Turbo Bird, and it needed its valves seats cleaned up. The Mustang with the turbo engine was scary fast, to me.
In all, the original 2.3 was a pretty good design. The newer engine appears to be carrying out the same tradition.
tom
Last edited by tomw; Jun 6, 2009 at 09:42 AM. Reason: added thought
Trending Topics
Thread Starter
|
New User
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
3 Best / 3 Worst Parts of Modern Ford Ownership
Brett Foote
10 Amazing Upgrades That Solve Common Ford Truck Owner Headaches
Pouria Savadkouei
Every 2026 Ford Engine Explained
Brett Foote
10 Ugly Ford Trucks That We Still Kinda Love
Joe Kucinski
10 Things Every Truck Owner NEEDS (2026 Edition)
Michael S. Palmer
Rezvani's Latest Post-Apocalyptic Monster Is a Ford F-150 Raptor Underneath
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Most Expensive Ford Trucks Ever Sold on Bring a Trailer
Joe Kucinski
2027 Ford Super Duty Buyer's Guide (Every Model, Engine, & Package)
Brett Foote
Top 10 Ford Truck Tragedies
Joe Kucinski
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
testosterone27
1983 - 2012 Ranger & B-Series
39
Jan 15, 2007 07:39 PM
