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
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
Top 10 Ford Trucks Coming to Mecum Indy 2026
Brett Foote
5 Best / 5 Worst Ford Truck Wheels of All Time
Joe Kucinski
Ford Super Duty: 5 Things Owners LOVE, 5 Things They LOATHE!
Joe Kucinski
Every 2026 Ford Truck Engine RANKED from WORST to FIRST!
Michael S. Palmer
The Best F-150 Deal of Every Trim Level (XL through Raptor)
Joe Kucinski
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
testosterone27
1983 - 2012 Ranger & B-Series
39
Jan 15, 2007 07:39 PM
