Quote:
Originally Posted by Christ
When that engine wears out, Some Rangers came with a milder version of the 2.3 that has better emissions and 8 spark plugs (4 in the exhaust ports), and a 1.9 will also bolt in place of your existing 2.3, as will a 3.0V6. The added torque of the 3.0 will give you cruising power at much lower RPM, and may or may not give you a chance to get better FE (I'm gonna say no, though.)
My ex's father is getting 22-24 in his Ranger under "normal" driving, that has a 3.0 EFI in it. I'm not sure if there was a carb version of the 3.0, but AFAIK, the 2.8 carb will also bolt up, but I'm not positive on that.
|
Both the Ranger 2.3L and the Mustang 2.3L had twin spark plugs in '93. The Mustang got the new head in '91. I had a 2.3L Ranger with a 5spd and it got 25 highway and 19-20 mpg on a rural paper route. The 3.0L Vulcan gets crap for fuel economy from what I've heard from Ranger owners, nothing like the 4 banger. The Lima 2.3L was basically the same engine until they increased the displacement to 2.5L in '96 when they converted it to OBDII and was still used with minor changes until MY 2001.5 when they switched over to the DOHC "Duratec." The Ranger got the new aluminum engine 4 years before the Focus did.
I have a '91 Mustang GT now but in retrospect I should have waited for a 2.3L Mustang. My first tank was mostly highway and I only managed 16mpg, last tank was all city and 11mpg. I'm just glad I haven't had a commute, I've owned it for 3 months and only filled it 3 times, once when I bought it.