Hi guys. New member, or renewed I guess. I've had 3 Rangers previously, the last being a 2006 XL std cab with a 2.3L and manual trans. Bought it new, put 100K on in 3 years, then someone stole it. I still miss that truck. In the next few years my kids will start driving and my son is pushing for a mid travel Ranger, which I think would be a fun project. We will start to keep an eye out for 2001+ extended cab 2wd with a manual trans. My biggest question is which engine. I liked the Mazda 2.3, it was light and provided decent power and MPG, just don't know how it would be with 33s. I had a 3.0 and never liked that motor, no power and horrible MPG. The 4.0 SOHC seems to have a good reputation if the timing chain tensioner are replaced, but will suffer from poor MPG. The intention is for the truck to be capable in the desert, not a full long travel. What do you guys think? Any similar trucks with a 2.3 in the desert?

 

Welcome back to the forum

My opinion
Well with 33" tires and a lift MPG is NOT really your concern, lol, so 4.0l SOHC is best pick, MPG will not be much better with a 2.3l with 33"
Hold out for 4.10 rear axle so you don't have to change it with 33" tire, you may want to go to 4.56 ratio but at a later time
And if possible a Limited Slip(L/S) 4.10, more common on 4x4 but was an option on 2WD

The drivers door label will have A LOT of info about the one truck, its the "build" label, what it came with from the factory, have seller take a picture of it and send it to you before you go look at it
The axle ratio code is under AXLE on this label
Axle Code decoder here: https://www.therangerstation.com/tec...ag-door-codes/

4.0l SOHC does need the two timing chain tensioners changed, use Motorcraft if possible, Cloyes are next best
Also they have a plastic thermostat housing that liked to crack and leak, but there is a 3rd party metal housing that it can be replaced with, just a heads up

This 4.0l engine uses 9.7:1 compression ratio so can not run on regular 87octane gas as is
It has a Knock Sensor so it can run fine on 87octane, but with a loss of power and MPG
The cost difference to run 91octane for better MPG is break even at best, been tested many many times by owners, lol
But the power difference is noticeable, so if you are hauling a load or trailer, or just want best power, then a tank of 91 won't go unnoticed, lol


Just FYI
The 3.0l Vulcan was designed as a HIGH RPM engine, makes best torque/power at 3,500-3,900rpm
Most 4cyl and V6 engines make best torque at 2,500-2,900rpm, so 1,000rpm lower, even V8s

Imagine what you would say about a "regular" engine if you drove it around at 1,500-1,900rpm, ALWAYS shifting before 2,300rpm?
You would say, "WHAT A DOG!", lol, and you would be right, but not really the engines fault

With a manual trans the 3.0l was best, because you could REV it up to higher RPMs and get some power, "drive it like a rented mule" was the term, but thats its DESIGN, you were not over-reving the engine
With an automatic Ford left the shift points way to low so unless you held it in 2nd it was gutless, and why have an automatic it you need to manual shift gears, lol

 

Thanks Ron for taking the time to write a very well detailed reply. This was extremely helpful. I never knew that the axle coding was on the door sticker, so I went outside to check my F150 and confirmed that it is a 3.73 locker. We will focus our search on the newest 4.0 manual we can find. Most of the trucks we find are high mileage and if they don't have timing chain noise now, it is only a matter of time. If we need to pull the motor and trans, we can do it.

Thanks again. Even that I have a newer F150, leveled on 34s with a 5.0, I have some weird attraction to Rangers and can't wait to find one "for my kids".

 

History of the 4.0l SOHC timing chain issue
The 4.0l SOHC timing chains are OK for high miles they were a good design, the original tensioners on the other hand had a common internal spring failure, about 20+% failure rate, that was the problem on the 1997-2003 models until the fault was found
Ford of course blamed lack of oil changes and other "owner" issues for the failures, lol, as WE ALL DO when wife's car has a problem, we say "well what did YOU do before this happened?"

Once Ford got it's engineers on the case, around 1999/2000, they did discover the springs early failure rate was the issue, so it was redesigned and new tensioners were built, but they didn't make into engine assembly plants until 2002, so 2003/4 model year Rangers could have either, old or new

The tensioners are hydraulic(oil pressure), but on start up the internal spring needs to hold the chain tight against its guide, when the spring failed the chain could/would beat on its guide on every start up, can't hear it because of starter motor noise
Over time the guide's mounts would break, THEN you would hear the "rattle" just after start up, and also at mid-RPMs, damage was done at that point, guide is broken, need to replace the guide

ANY engine with a long timing chain will have more timing chain issues than engines with short chains, and 4.0l SOHC has TWO long chains, but if you change the two tensioners every 100k miles you should easily get 500k miles out of these engines

Anytime someone buys a used vehicle with 4.0l SOHC they should plan on changing the two tensioners just as general maintenance, and to start the clock on 100k next change

 

A 2.3L engine with 33" tires and manual transmission will be problematic with 4.10 differential gears. Even 4.56 gears will be marginal. I run 4.56 gears with my 4.0L SOHC engine with a manual transmission and 33" tires, and I consider that ideal. A 2.3L engine has much less torque and the clutch will suffer for it when starting from a stop with 33" tires.

I had an 89 STX with the 2.9L engine and a manual transmission. I ran 31" tires and the original 3.73 gears were hard on the clutch. I wore out the clutch in about 50K miles, but I towed my race car with it too. When I installed the new clutch, I had 4.10 gears installed and that worked very well towing and off-road. I consider 4.10 gears with 31" tires ideal. It seems Ford does too. My current Ranger came from the factory with 31" tires and 4.10 gears.

Once you do the lift with 33" tires and very low gears, you will need to run a 2.3L engine very hard off-road unless you just want to put around. If you want to have fun off-road, you will not get much better gas mileage than a 4.0L SOHC does. You will not have to work a 4.0L engine as hard to have the same amount of fun. That could make it more reliable.

If you do decide on a 4.0L SOHC engine, I suggest not considering a 2001 unless it has had the cam timing chain system rebuilt with updated parts. Even 2002 were marginal but had less timing chain guide failures than the 2001. The 2003 and newer models were much improved with upgraded timing chain components and had better front disc brakes.

 

Thank you guys for the education. It seems that 2003+ is going to be optimal. Luckily there are a lot of trucks here in the southwest. One will show up sooner or later. I told my son to start saving for the BTF mid travel kit. I also may have a contact at Fiberwerx for the fenders and bedsides.

As a side note, I did really like the 2.3 in my 2006 and I also used it to tow my car to the drag strip. It was definitely a work out for the clutch. As much as I am a glutton for punishment, the 2.3 just wouldn't cut it in the desert.

Thanks again.

 

Yes
"There is no replacement for displacement", lol