horsepower-vs-gasmileage

Reply

  #1  
Old 07-08-02, 05:36 PM
sleeper
Visiting Guest
Posts: n/a
horsepower-vs-gasmileage

i have a 94 ford ranger xlt (2.3 liter?)and was wondering if increasing the horsepower would, and if so how, affect the gasmileage in it? i was also wondering what are some of the simpler ways to increase horsepower?
 
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 07-08-02, 06:40 PM
Joe_F
Visiting Guest
Posts: n/a
Pitch it for a 3.0 or a 4.0 liter. The 2.3 is an economy motor made for fuel mileage.

Best way to increase fuel mileage is to drive without excessive loads, drive a well tuned and well aligned vehicle as well as driving easily. Beyond that you'll reach a point where you cannot do any better.

You'll spend collosal money souping up a 2.3 and the average 3.0 in stock form will leave you standing still at the stoplight .

It is cheaper to buy a Ranger that's a 4.0 or a 3.0 already.
 
  #3  
Old 07-09-02, 07:45 AM
mako's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Wake Forest
Posts: 455
The heck with a Ford 3.0 or 4.0- neither measure up to an S10 or Sonoma with a 4.3V6 by any stretch. Even the new Ford/Mazda OHC 4.0 207hp sucks rocks compared to the lesser horsepowered 4.3. I dunno why.

Get the manual trans if you can drive one. Lots of bolt-on power available for that engine.
 
  #4  
Old 07-09-02, 04:43 PM
sleeper
Visiting Guest
Posts: n/a
well then....

since ive already got the 94 ranger xlt 2.3 i guess i shouldnt worry about added horsepower then huh?
 
  #5  
Old 07-09-02, 04:56 PM
sleeper
Visiting Guest
Posts: n/a
well then....

since ive already got the 94 ranger xlt 2.3 i guess i shouldnt worry about added horsepower then huh?
 
  #6  
Old 07-09-02, 06:08 PM
Joe_F
Visiting Guest
Posts: n/a
I think what everyone is politely alluding to is that it's good money after bad and you're not likely to be happy with the results and will still be out money in the end.

If you like the Ranger platform and want "speed", the 3.0 or the 4.0 is the way to go. You'll spend less modding that than a 2.3 which isn't built for speed.
 
  #7  
Old 07-10-02, 05:37 AM
mako's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Wake Forest
Posts: 455
Sorry if it sounded like I was picking on your Ranger- actually the 94's are much prettier IMO than the new ones.

Like Joe, though I'm not a mechanic, I agree that the 2.3 won't be a speed anything regardless of what you do. It is a good engine, though, and strong for a 4 banger (better than the Chevy 4 cyl).
 
  #8  
Old 07-10-02, 02:54 PM
sleeper
Visiting Guest
Posts: n/a
ok thanks

that was what i wanted to know guys,and dont worry i didnt think anyone was dissing my truck.
 
  #9  
Old 07-10-02, 03:57 PM
Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: corona Ca.
Posts: 471
I have to agree with Joe and everyone else about it not being worth it though.

I have always been a Ford person(although let down recently by a bad tbird) I have owned a mustang with the 2.3 engine, my sister currently owns one and my mother owned a turbo'd version

This motor is solid and sturdy. Many don't know, but you trace it's origons back to the pinto (yep that's right). It was the same engine that was in the mustang and thunderbird for years.

Performance wise, there are actually quite a bit of things you can do to it. (I am sure there are many 2.3 liter message boards)
Ford offered it with a turbo in the mid-late eighty's. If you are serious you could adapt one of those. I see them in the junk yards frequently.

Get a ford racing catalog, or look at the after market. They offer after market heads, headers, and the sort for it.

I feel your pain, those engines are dangerously slow!!!! However, the Ranger is a nice truck.

My suggestion: Keep the truck for it's utility, and go out and by an 86-93 mustang for 2 or 3 grand with a 5.0, and get your speed needs vented there.
 
  #10  
Old 07-11-02, 04:44 AM
mako's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Wake Forest
Posts: 455
Good advice! I think hopping a 4 banger would ruin it's reliability (that's why you see a lot of turbo 4's in junkyards and not on streets!).
 
  #11  
Old 07-12-02, 12:40 AM
knuckles
Visiting Guest
Posts: n/a
I think hopping a 4 banger would ruin it's reliability (that's why you see a lot of turbo 4's in junkyards and not on streets!).

That's not really the case. The engines themselves are very stout. The turbo Ranger conversion has gained popularity recently, mainly because there's a ton of old neglected Turbo T-birds in the junkyards & a bunch of underpowered Rangers on the streets. The 'birds are in the junkyard because everything ELSE fails. Transmissions, a/c systems, 1st gen. ABS systems, etc. These parts are all expensive to fix, so the cars get scrapped.
 
  #12  
Old 07-12-02, 04:36 AM
mako's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Wake Forest
Posts: 455
Well, that makes sense too. That's why YOUR a moderator and I'M a peasant!! lol...

It's a shame too, b/c those T-Birds have a pretty body style. I like it a lot better than them box-trot stangs.
 
  #13  
Old 07-12-02, 05:55 AM
Joe_F
Visiting Guest
Posts: n/a
I disagree on the Turbo 2.3 .

It's a wicked oil burning heap, and expensive to fix. Hardly stout . My friend had one. It was always on the rack. It soaked him like mad until he finally got smart and pitched it.

A 5.0 Mustang is half as complex, will roast a 2.3 and go forever, not to mention has higher resale value. Pound for pound a lot more fun and moddable. You can literally trip on performance parts there are so many out there.

With the money you'd waste on a 2.3 conversion, you could buy a 4.0 and have all the heavy duty parts for hauling and other activities and it would STILL be cheaper.

My .02. The Fomoco 2.3 was not worth a wooden nickel from the get go. It has its roots from the Pinto years as I recall. Hardly the bastion of quality .
 
  #14  
Old 07-12-02, 06:26 AM
mako's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Wake Forest
Posts: 455
Actually, Joe, my pops had SEVERAL old pintos that yes, they did eventually die, but he only paid $50-$150 for them, with well over 180K miles on most, ugly banged up bodies, etc.... very poorly cared for.

He'd replace all the normal tune-up stuff (spending more on parts than he did for the car) and drive it for two to five years before having it scrapped. I don't really know what engine they had, but Corvettes they weren't (hell I don't think they measured up to a Chevy Citation) but they ran and ran and ran and he rarely had to replace any major components as long as he kept the engine wet and well fed . I'm just glad he left an 86 F150 instead of a 76 Pinto for the family to worry about.
 
  #15  
Old 07-12-02, 07:01 PM
sleeper
Visiting Guest
Posts: n/a
Unhappy ok guys

i think ill scrap the horsepower idea so lets try something else...
SOUND SYSTEMS!!! i have two 300 watt speakers in my truck and just bought 2 200 watt speakers,i would like to buy an amplifier for it (200 or 300 amp),which would be better/
 
  #16  
Old 07-12-02, 07:38 PM
knuckles
Visiting Guest
Posts: n/a
Better install another 2.3L engine in the bed just to power the speakers!
 
  #17  
Old 07-12-02, 07:40 PM
Joe_F
Visiting Guest
Posts: n/a
Might want to check out Crutchfield.com and see what they have to offer in the way of information. Generally very good.

With that being said, good thing he paid 50 bucks for a Pinto, because it wasn't worth much more than that, even when new . Riddled with problems, horrific quality, butt ugly styling, and a literal deathtrap. Not much was worse in automotive history .
 
  #18  
Old 07-15-02, 04:44 AM
mako's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Wake Forest
Posts: 455
FOR GREAT INFO ON SOUND SYSTEMS TRY:




http://www.caraudioforum.com/vbb2/
 
Reply

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


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Display Modes