kishy's 1985 Ranger

[BigMerc96]

Slowest thing I've ever driven was a '94 2.3l 5sp Ranger. My buddy was borrowing it to move large-ish things that wouldn't easily fit in the Colony Park. That truck topped out at about 60mph, in 4th, trying to shift into 5th resulted in it slowing down to 55 and forget about a slight incline in the road. On the return trip with it empty, we managed to hit 65 once, but that might have been slightly downhill. That truck did have nearly 275k on it tho, the guy he was borrowing it from got it from his granddad who owned it from new and drove it all over the place. I'm sure it was down on power from new, but good lord was that thing slow. Even the Volvo 240 my buddy's Mom had could do 70mph, it took it 5 miles to get there, but it could.

[Kodachrome Wolf]

A 229 V6 with a 3 speed auto in a Chevy Malibu is probably on par in the terribleness area. Drove a '78 one time while a friend had it, and I recall doing 50 MPH in 3rd, got on a mild hill, it started slowing down, so I got into it and continued losing speed, even after it shifted back into 2nd. Sounded good, but that was about it.

Sure is nice to see an early Ranger still kicking around. Most Rangers around here are usually thrashed into the ground, regardless of age. Given they usually fall into the small, cheap truck category, it makes them easy choices for people needing basic transportation that can have maintenance deferred until they fall apart and are replaced by another. Obviously this doesn't apply to all of them, but it is much easier to find a clapped out one over a good one.

[kishy]

All my clutch stuff including flywheel is here now, so it's just a matter of finishing cleaning the garage and getting it done.

The Tempo 2.3L (HSC engine, not the Pinto-derived one) 3G alternator, which at first glance looked like a good fit, is a no-go. 180 degree ears at the right spacing, but the bottom ear is made up of two ears, one at the front and one at the back, and the spacing makes it so it can't fit on the Ranger engine. No good way to hack it to fit either.

Sucks because the 130A 3G is a good bit bigger than than this 95A, and there are clearance issues if I recall correctly with the fuel line so a bigger alt is not a great idea. I just want it to be able to keep the blower motor at a respectable speed at idle with lights and wipers on, which the 40A 1G does not do a great job of.

Newer Ranger and other Pinto/Lima 2.3 vehicles do have a 3G, but they have the side mounting bolts instead of the more traditional setup, so they're useless to me. I'll have to explore RockAuto's catalog, maybe if I check out every Ford for m/y 1994ish I'll find a 95A 3G that will fit like I need.

Edit: I just did that, picking a variety of vehicles from 91 to 94 and their various engines. There's only one that looks like it might be what I want and I'm not sure because it doesn't look like the 3Gs we know and love...it has 5 holes where we expect to see 2 on a 130A and 4 on a 95A. T-Bird 3.8 SC.



But this looks fairly chunky so 130A 3G might be the fallback I have to go with anyway. Nevermind the fact that I'll never find a Supercoupe in the junkyard anyway.

[turbo2256b]

About the same as my 85 ranger same engine but a 5 speed. Dumped the engine and installed my old 170 HP 2.3 in it. Spent 2500 building the engine for my pinto back in the mid 80s only had 3000 mi on it. truck cost me 250.00. Gave it to my son it was totaled about 4 months later

[gadget73]

I wouldn't expect a mid 90s Ranger with a 5 speed to be all that bad. They responded decently to EFI. The carb ones kind of sucked, the carb automatic ones were flat out horrible. The 4 plug variant they had out in the mid 90s ran pretty good. Not sure if that was a 2.3 or a 2.5 but I knew someone who had a Ranger with that motor and the 5 speed. It went pretty well.

[turbo2256b]

I wouldn't expect a mid 90s Ranger with a 5 speed to be all that bad. They responded decently to EFI. The carb ones kind of sucked, the carb automatic ones were flat out horrible. The 4 plug variant they had out in the mid 90s ran pretty good. Not sure if that was a 2.3 or a 2.5 but I knew someone who had a Ranger with that motor and the 5 speed. It went pretty well.

tHE LAST OF THE CARBED ONES WERE 2.0L version of the 2.3. i CALLED THEM electronic carbs. the 2.3 version in those days were FI. Started to design a split port 2.3 with a dual runner intake. would have been quite similar to the 3.0 v6 I did port wise. It was shit caned just before it went to casting division. Politics killed it. later did the oil pan and pickup tube for the 2.5 stroked version of the 2.3 used the last couple years. Saved them 3.50 cents a oil pan. It was an improved structurally, eliminated oiling issues inherent with the old design. Could have even done more but was limited do to shipping pallets and assembly line constraints which would have cost millions to change.

They had some issues with the dual plug designs some connection at the fire wall if I remember correctly would come loose or something and often keep one set of plugs from firing. Most never knew the difference.

[DerekTheGreat]

I wouldn't expect a mid 90s Ranger with a 5 speed to be all that bad. They responded decently to EFI. The carb ones kind of sucked, the carb automatic ones were flat out horrible. The 4 plug variant they had out in the mid 90s ran pretty good. Not sure if that was a 2.3 or a 2.5 but I knew someone who had a Ranger with that motor and the 5 speed. It went pretty well.

My brother had a '95 regular cab shortbox with 4.10's and it went really well compared to my extender cab & it's 3.73's. Was great for tooling around in the city or even the expressway. Not a race truck by any means but for economical, easy to maintain transportation it was great. When I was looking for one I drove a '98 that had the 2.5 you speak of and yeah, that was even better. More torque where you needed it. Truck was a pile so eventually found my '94 and bought that instead.

I liked the dual plug idea as it eliminated the need for a smog pump. Actually the reason I never got into S10's despite me liking GM's interior design better. Plus I got all stoked reading about the reliability factor of the 2.3 and so that was that. Same group of friends began educating me about the 300 six and well, eventually I moved on to those. I miss RangerTurds though.

[kishy]

...electronic carbs...

I don't think I'd call that super accurate. It's not a feedback carb. It has an idle speed motor to bump and hold the idle higher at certain points but it still has the traditional idle speed linkage and works exactly the same aside from the "computer" being able to hold the idle higher if it wants to. Off the top of my head the only sensor the system has is integrated with a ported vacuum switch, for coolant temperature.

The carb is a Carter YFA. It's largely the same as the YFA that appeared on the 300 I6, which was a feedback carb complete with TPS and all, but the 2.0 version is minus the feedback stuff.

I do want to eventually 2.3 EFI swap this, but I'm not paying over $100 for the engine so that's gonna be a while down the road. Have to be careful about more torquey options such as the 2.5 because the TK5 trans has internals made of Pillsbury crescent rolls, or so I'm told. I have no plans to get rid of the TK5 either.

[gadget73]

You're in the great white north. I think the models we got here had additional bullshit that you guys were spared. By and large late carb era stuff in the US was just a nightmare. EFI was a welcome upgrade from feedback carbs and the miles of vacuum plumbing.

[DerekTheGreat]

The things you can do with vacuum are great, but after years of being able to study the failures and problems it caused and why they still continued to use it is beyond me. It's not like people weren't already going to servo motors and stuff. Another reason why I like GMT400 trucks so much. All the vacuum crap is right where you can see it and easy to troubleshoot. None of it messes with the HVA/C either.

[BigMerc96]

The things you can do with vacuum are great, but after years of being able to study the failures and problems it caused and why they still continued to use it is beyond me. It's not like people weren't already going to servo motors and stuff. Another reason why I like GMT400 trucks so much. All the vacuum crap is right where you can see it and easy to troubleshoot. None of it messes with the HVA/C either.

Aero and whale Panthers have comparatively little vacuum going on, just PCV, fuel pressure regulator, and emissions (EGR and EVAP). I think the box cars kept using it because it was an old design dating back to before electric controls for a lot of that stuff was the norm, and back to carbs where there wasn't a computer to control stuff. At least it isn't a "classic" vehicle where everything was vacuum operated including door locks, that would be a nightmare to troubleshoot. I'll take electrical over vacuum when it comes to troubleshooting anyday.

[DerekTheGreat]

Yeah I think you're right there. They only seem to engineer that stuff away with a new platform or significant platform update.

[kishy]

Tables might be turning on that engine swap. The sale is back on, and there's an 87 Turbocoupe in the yard...

Derek, you free Saturday? Shoot me a PM if you are.

[kishy]

Decided not to get a junkyard engine because I'm...what was the cover story again? Oh, right. Concerned about the potential investment depending on possible internal engine issues or a cracked head (not unlikely on a 2.3). It certainly isn't just because I'm lazy.

Also the ECM was missing from that car which would have made it more complicated and time consuming to arrive at an operational result, so yeah.

Garage finally has room for two vehicles, put the Ranger inside and double-checked I've got all the parts for the clutch job. It's not going this weekend, but maybe sometime next week I'll start on it.

[Tiggie]

Did you get the prebled master cylinder? I hear its a royal pain if you don't get the prebled. Luckily I haven't had any trouble out of mine.