Gutless 4cyl.... - Ranger-Forums - The Ultimate Ford Ranger Resource


General Ford Ranger Discussion General discussion of the Ford Ranger that does not fit in any other sub-forum.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #1  
Old 08-28-2007
planefixer's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sturbridge, MA
Posts: 53
Icon11 Gutless 4cyl....

Hi Guys,

Just a quickie. I have a 93 Ranger XLT 2.3L two wheel drive, Now that I am driving it on the highway as my commuter daily, I have noticed that it is really gutless. I mean this thing cant get out of its own way. Is this normal? My wife has a 1.8L four door civic that has more power (if thats what what you want to call it) than this truck.

Thanks...
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-28-2007
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 737
The 2.3L in my 2003 does just fine. Gets good gas mileage too. You want a race car ?? Go buy a race car and quit trying to compare a 2.3L to a race car engine. You're not going to get race car performance out of a 4 cylinder engine. It's not designed for that. Next you'll be asking "Why can't my VW bug go 200 miles per hour ??"
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-28-2007
Mark98xlt's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Parma Ohio
Posts: 13
Yeah the old 2.3 lima isnt the most fastest thing on the road but its a reliable engine and does great for what it was designed for.

But yeah the 01+ 2.3 duratechs are really nice 4 cylinders.

and as for the 1.8 in your wifes car the car doesnt weigh as much as your truck keep that in mind.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-28-2007
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 737
Yes, if you want a more powerful truck go get a F-150 , lot's of power, lot's of speed, but you'll be crying the blues about gas mileage. My "powerful" Silverado only got about 13 mpg around town. I was so glad to see that truck get sold.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-28-2007
Level III Supporter
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: usa
Posts: 24,936
Quote:
Originally Posted by dj wayne
Yes, if you want a more powerful truck go get a F-150 , lot's of power, lot's of speed, but you'll be crying the blues about gas mileage. My "powerful" Silverado only got about 13 mpg around town. I was so glad to see that truck get sold.
screw that the 4.0L ranger has more then enough
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-28-2007
Mike9825's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Willard OH
Posts: 489
your not alone brother man, my truck is a complete dog but hey, that's not what there designed for. Mileage, haul a few things around here and there and that's about it. I've come to the conclusion is the power/weight ratio. Rangers are alittle on the heavy side at my truck over 3000lbs+ with a 120HP engine and Auto OD tranny. So yea, there dogs except for the manuals, those things got some get up and go! -Mike-
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-28-2007
Mark98xlt's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Parma Ohio
Posts: 13
u should drive the 2.3 duratech with a stick its a blast and it does get up and go. lol
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-29-2007
planefixer's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sturbridge, MA
Posts: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by dj wayne
The 2.3L in my 2003 does just fine. Gets good gas mileage too. You want a race car ?? Go buy a race car and quit trying to compare a 2.3L to a race car engine. You're not going to get race car performance out of a 4 cylinder engine. It's not designed for that. Next you'll be asking "Why can't my VW bug go 200 miles per hour ??"
Nice buddy, First off Engine displacement really is not the factor. And I never said anything about a race car... My porsche is a 2.7 liter and my BMW is a 2.5 liter. My wifes Civic is a 1.7 Liter...

Since you are quite uneducated, here you go: Examples,
1987 PORSCHE 2.7L 165 H.P WEIGHT 2975LBS
1994 BMW 2.5L 189 H.P. WEIGHT 3,020 LBS
2003HONDA CIVIC 1.7L 165 H.P. WEIGHT 2,752
1993 RANGER 2.5L 100 H.P. WEIGHT 3,010

Look at the numbers, I just feel that this truck is under powered for its engine size to weight ratio.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-29-2007
planefixer's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sturbridge, MA
Posts: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike9825
your not alone brother man, my truck is a complete dog but hey, that's not what there designed for. Mileage, haul a few things around here and there and that's about it. I've come to the conclusion is the power/weight ratio. Rangers are alittle on the heavy side at my truck over 3000lbs+ with a 120HP engine and Auto OD tranny. So yea, there dogs except for the manuals, those things got some get up and go! -Mike-
I only used my truck to go to the dump, and to pull a small trailer etc, I have never really taken it on the highway, so when I did it kind of caught me off guard... I am buying a 05 Escape, I made sure to buy the V6 :)
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-29-2007
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 737
You're the one doggin' the 2.3L. It is what it is.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-29-2007
planefixer's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sturbridge, MA
Posts: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by dj wayne
The 2.3L in my 2003 does just fine. Gets good gas mileage too. You want a race car ?? Go buy a race car and quit trying to compare a 2.3L to a race car engine. You're not going to get race car performance out of a 4 cylinder engine. It's not designed for that. Next you'll be asking "Why can't my VW bug go 200 miles per hour ??"

Yours is a duratech mine is not. I have a 1993, Not 2003.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-29-2007
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 737
I've never driven 1993, so I wouldn't know.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-29-2007
KARPE's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Valrico, Fl 33594
Posts: 4,748
there is more to consider than displacement if you want better throttle response.

when comparing the Ranger to the civic you are comparing the ratio of Torque to weight agaisnt each vehicle.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-29-2007
Red_Ak_Ranger's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 17,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by planefixer
Yours is a duratech mine is not. I have a 1993, Not 2003.
You're wondering why a 93 truck is slower than a 03 civic?

First off, you have a very weak engine more designed for gas mileage.

Your engine is now 14 years old and that civic's is 4. You think those extra 10 years might have put some wear on it?

Also, you have a civic with different gearing in the rearend.

You Ranger engine is a truck engine, not a car engine. It behaves differently.

When it comes to wind resistance, your ranger is shaped like a brick and that civic is somewhat designed to go through air better.

As well as a host of other things.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-29-2007
Mark98xlt's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Parma Ohio
Posts: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red_Ak_Ranger
You're wondering why a 93 truck is slower than a 03 civic?

First off, you have a very weak engine more designed for gas mileage.

Your engine is now 14 years old and that civic's is 4. You think those extra 10 years might have put some wear on it?

Also, you have a civic with different gearing in the rearend.

You Ranger engine is a truck engine, not a car engine. It behaves differently.

When it comes to wind resistance, your ranger is shaped like a brick and that civic is somewhat designed to go through air better.

As well as a host of other things.
yeah his 2.3 is in a ranger but isnt it the same engine the 2.3 they used to put in the 4 banger fox bodies?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-29-2007
Level III Supporter
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: usa
Posts: 24,936
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark98xlt
yeah his 2.3 is in a ranger but isnt it the same engine the 2.3 they used to put in the 4 banger fox bodies?
yes and no... that motor isnt as strong and had a different cam and intake. other then that there the same..they used better parts in the truck motor.. and the truck motor is the motor used for the T-coupe
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-29-2007
94greenmachine's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 553
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redneckstone
screw that the 4.0L ranger has more then enough
YES IT DOES!!!!! LoL
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-29-2007
mx98ranger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: GA
Posts: 1,493
Quote:
Originally Posted by dj wayne
The 2.3L in my 2003 does just fine. Gets good gas mileage too. You want a race car ?? Go buy a race car and quit trying to compare a 2.3L to a race car engine. You're not going to get race car performance out of a 4 cylinder engine. It's not designed for that. Next you'll be asking "Why can't my VW bug go 200 miles per hour ??"
i would hardly call a civic a race car...
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-29-2007
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 737
How come the Civic doesn't go 200 miles per hour ?? It's not designed to.

According to him, the Civic is a race car compared to the1993 2.3L Ranger.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-29-2007
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: AL
Posts: 52
A little harsh

I think DJ is being a little hard on ya, but yeah it is true, it's gutless. In 93, both me and my friend got new truck. He got a ranger 4 cyl. and I got a nissan 4 cyl. both 2wd reg. cab, 5 spd. He raced motorcyles and towed his to the track on a trailer that probably weighed about 300lbs. He couldn't get above maybe 75. Where as I could run over 100 pulling his bike and trailer with my truck, not safe, but as teenagers, when your running late, you do what you have too. He was very disappointed in his truck. Both of us got 25-30 mpg though. i know my nissan was rated at 134 hp but I don't know about his ranger. YOu may try a regear to get more power. these guys i am sure can tell you the cheapest/best way to do that.

Sorry so long, I am preacher, it happens!
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 08-29-2007
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 737
No I'm not being hard on him, I'm just talking out of my hat....I didn't realize there was such a big difference in 2.3L motors from 1993 to 2003.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-29-2007
mx98ranger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: GA
Posts: 1,493
changing gears doesnt give you more power.. if he went to lower gears he go faster off the line but he might go slower on the interstate.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-29-2007
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 737
Quote:
Originally Posted by mx98ranger
changing gears doesnt give you more power.. if he went to lower gears he go faster off the line but he might go slower on the interstate.
Hence the Overdrive feature on the 2003 ???
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-29-2007
Cody_288's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oil City, PA, Pittsfield, PA
Posts: 511
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red_Ak_Ranger
Also, you have a civic with different gearing in the rearend.
RWD civic? lol...I know what your getting at though.

Slap some 4.10's in it
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-29-2007
BRENSRANGER's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,308
my 93 is kinda fast but it has the 4.0 in it,never driven the 2.3 so...
Reply With Quote
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
4cyl to a 302 Fordranger1998 8-Cylinder Tech 2 07-20-2007 04:51 PM
gas mileage on my 4cyl 2.5 PURECLUTCH SOHC - 2.3L & 2.5L Lima Engines 12 04-23-2007 07:22 PM
help! 4cyl 4x4 or 6cyl 2wd???? Ranger00 General Ford Ranger Discussion 28 01-05-2007 05:22 PM
Shaking Engine (Videos) 4cyl SouthernMudSlinger General Ford Ranger Discussion 14 10-02-2006 07:48 AM
converting a 4cyl to a v-8 96RpAaNjGoErR 8-Cylinder Tech 1 09-05-2006 06:00 PM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:08 PM.


We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.