2.5L ('98-'01) Ok an engine question...

[scotts90ranger]

The scanner I have is just a POS Autozone one from yrs ago. Also, this is primarily a farm truck....as in no cat converter. So on the 02 sensor placement, how far downstream in the exhaust should I weld up a bung and put one in?

I have something similar to THIS, there's a bunch of them in the same price range (I imagine they're all the same with a different sticker, they're all the same blue plastic...) and they work with the torque lite app on a phone

 

[Cowboy Jim]

Yes, upstream O2 is closest to the engine, computer uses that to fine tune air/fuel mix for best MPG
MPG would start to go down after 100k miles or 12 years as this O2 ran out of chemicals

Downstream O2 is after the Cat(s) and is used to make sure Cat(s) are still working, if Cat(s) is failing, or missing, then computer has to run engine richer to try and "make the Cat work"


Engine size swap is never easy, lots of bits and pieces add up, lol

But a 2000 4cyl Ranger doesn't have the issue of PATS or speedometer
Really just need the new engine/trans and mounts, drive shaft conversion for GM
Fuel pressure regulator or fuel pump change for carb conversion

ACtually if I did the 2.8 swap, I would just rip out ALL of the computer stuff and go all analog. Even aftermarket gauges in the dash. Did that with a daily driver S10 I had. Damn S10s are heavy as hell with a full box frame and they put a little weak 2.4L motor in them with a hollowe ground crank. Every 65,000 miles they break the crank between #3 and #4 holes. SO I ripped out all the BS and dropped in a mild built 350 small block and seen my mileage rise sharply. That 350 basically idled that truck down the highway. Put all aftermarket gauges in it. The ONLY computer in the whoile truck, if you want to call it that, was the old MSD 6AL ignition box I had in it.

 

[RonD]

2000 Ranger has an analog dash and gauges so doesn't need to be replaced

 

[don4331]

Just asking - how can you say 2000 Ranger has an analog dash, when it is getting a digital signal from the rear axle and computer is converting that into speed, which is displayed on the speedometer (my '68 F100 had analog dash - cable when directly from transmission to speedometer).

2000 Ranger's electrical/electronic setup is such that the engine controls are all done by the module under the hood, so you can "strip it down" to point where you could run a carbed engine reasonably easy with the EVTM book in one hand.

I would have phrased it different in your 1st response - the O2 sensors control if the engine is running rich or not, but the skinny pedal determines a lot about fuel economy. Driving truck hard enough to want 4.88 gears, along with automatic isn't going to get you good economy.

The old F100 with a 100 gallon slip tank, mechanics tools chest, jacks, ropes, prybars, towing trailers & machinery, etc (all the crap that goes with a fam truck) wasn't hypermiling.

 

[Cowboy Jim]

Just asking - how can you say 2000 Ranger has an analog dash, when it is getting a digital signal from the rear axle and computer is converting that into speed, which is displayed on the speedometer (my '68 F100 had analog dash - cable when directly from transmission to speedometer).

2000 Ranger's electrical/electronic setup is such that the engine controls are all done by the module under the hood, so you can "strip it down" to point where you could run a carbed engine reasonably easy with the EVTM book in one hand.

I would have phrased it different in your 1st response - the O2 sensors control if the engine is running rich or not, but the skinny pedal determines a lot about fuel economy. Driving truck hard enough to want 4.88 gears, along with automatic isn't going to get you good economy.

The old F100 with a 100 gallon slip tank, mechanics tools chest, jacks, ropes, prybars, towing trailers & machinery, etc (all the crap that goes with a fam truck) wasn't hypermiling.

I didnt say it WAS analog, I said that if I had to drop that 2.8 in it, that it WOULD BE as I would start that conversion by removing every single piece of computer hardware out of it. I have built a number of vehicles and done this.

The 4.88 gears are on it for the fact I run a 30" tire. Had I kept the 4.10s that were in it with the original P215s....I would be having to put a new transmission in it once a year. lol

Is there an instant private message feature on this site by chance that I could talk to you directly? Or do you by chance use Telegram? had a couple of things to ask you that are rather involved on this.

 

[RonD]

1998-2000 Rangers are unique in that the electric speedo/odo use the rear axle ABS sensor and the GEM Module(body computer)
So no connection to engine computer or transmission
This makes for an easier engine/trans swap while maintaining all the cab electrics as is, i.e. wipers, lights, cruise control, windows, door locks, ect................

Gauges: volts, oil, temp, and fuel are also all analog

So, IMO, 1998-2000 would be good years for carb/distributor engine/trans swaps

Last year Ranger to have a speedo cable was 1994 and those clusters are not compatible with 1995 and up dashes, or wiring

 

[Cowboy Jim]

1998-2000 Rangers are unique in that the electric speedo/odo use the rear axle ABS sensor and the GEM Module(body computer)
So no connection to engine computer or transmission
This makes for an easier engine/trans swap while maintaining all the cab electrics as is, i.e. wipers, lights, cruise control, windows, door locks, ect................

Gauges: volts, oil, temp, and fuel are also all analog

So, IMO, 1998-2000 would be good years for carb/distributor engine/trans swaps

Last year Ranger to have a speedo cable was 1994 and those clusters are not compatible with 1995 and up dashes, or wiring

If I do the 2.8 swap. The speedo and all would come off the trans. Likely a Th350 or similar. Dont think the bigger 400 would fit.

 

[RonD]

Why would you want it to come off the trans?

Nothing you would do in an engine/trans swap would effect speedometer system in a 1998-2000 Ranger
It would just be more work and nothing gained

 

[Cowboy Jim]

Why would you want it to come off the trans?

Nothing you would do in an engine/trans swap would effect speedometer system in a 1998-2000 Ranger
It would just be more work and nothing gained

Was only stating that as thats where most of them come from on a TH350 juice box

 

[Cowboy Jim]

Was looking at that truck this morning and I have a question I thought I might point at you all. The fuel is injected via multiport on a common fuel rail, then air is put in via the air manifold. Having a rather substantial amount of fabrication experience, let me toss this idea at you guys: Pull the air manifold and build one myself for a simple carb setup on it. simply unplug the fuel injectors and leave them there to plug the holes in the head they screw into and then run my fuel supply to the carb as needed. Obviously the mass air flow sensor and all that shit will go away...creating a host of check engine lights....lol. But, will it still give proper spark to the engine? If so, I cant think of a reason why that wouldnt work and thats FAR easier than an engine swap. The biggest reason I dont want the cat under there is for the fact of how hot it gets. Out in the pastures I have seen grass fires started due to them. Anyway, just an idea. Your thoughts?

 

[Blmpkn]

Was looking at that truck this morning and I have a question I thought I might point at you all. The fuel is injected via multiport on a common fuel rail, then air is put in via the air manifold. Having a rather substantial amount of fabrication experience, let me toss this idea at you guys: Pull the air manifold and build one myself for a simple carb setup on it. simply unplug the fuel injectors and leave them there to plug the holes in the head they screw into and then run my fuel supply to the carb as needed. Obviously the mass air flow sensor and all that shit will go away...creating a host of check engine lights....lol. But, will it still give proper spark to the engine? If so, I cant think of a reason why that wouldnt work and thats FAR easier than an engine swap. The biggest reason I dont want the cat under there is for the fact of how hot it gets. Out in the pastures I have seen grass fires started due to them. Anyway, just an idea. Your thoughts?

My thoughts are swapping in a fresh motor would probably be less of a headache lol.

 

[Cowboy Jim]

My thoughts are swapping in a fresh motor would probably be less of a headache lol.

The only way thats less of a headache is if YOU are the one writing the check to cover that bill. Hell I got enough DOM tube here to build 2-3 race cars and race trucks LITERALLY. Plus a fresh motor isnt going to give me anything more than I already have. The issue was never a worn out motor. Read back thru this thread, you'll see.

 

[RonD]

2000 Ranger needs the engine computer for spark, and of course the fuel injectors so you would still need the computer with a carb swap

You could leave the computer just for spark and switch to a carb on the intake
But would need some sort of throttle sensor so computer could calculate engine load so it can calculate changes in spark advance

RPM spark advance is easy, distributors did that with springs and weights
Load advance is harder, that was what Vacuum Advance was for, and it was OK, but just "OK", not great
Computers do Load Advance much better

And there is no distributor in any case, lol, and no place to mount one after 1991 or so on this Lima engine

To get rid of an engine computer you pretty much have to have a distributor with vacuum advance
Even the 1989-1994 2.3ls with separate ICM distributorless dual spark system still needed the engine computer for Load Advance(the SPOUT)
And the earlier TFI systems still needed the engine computer for that as well
I think DuraSpark was the last Ford system with vacuum advance distributors

 

[RonD]

The reason "old" guys might like carbs and distributors is because they ALWAYS needed to be adjusted so we learned how they worked and how to adjustment them
It wasn't a choice, we HAD TO learn it, or pay someone to learn it for us, lol, a mechanic

With computers, fuel injection and distributorless spark there was no need to learn it because they were just 1,000+ times more reliable
So when there is a problem we wish for the days of carbs and distributors forgetting about what a pain in the ass they were and all the wasted weekends having to work on them

And we also forget it was the same pain in the butt to diagnose a problem with a carb or distributor that wasn't a "normal" problem
And that's where the learning starts.............for anything

 

[Cowboy Jim]

The reason "old" guys might like carbs and distributors is because they ALWAYS needed to be adjusted so we learned how they worked and how to adjustment them
It wasn't a choice, we HAD TO learn it, or pay someone to learn it for us, lol, a mechanic

With computers, fuel injection and distributorless spark there was no need to learn it because they were just 1,000+ times more reliable
So when there is a problem we wish for the days of carbs and distributors forgetting about what a pain in the ass they were and all the wasted weekends having to work on them

And we also forget it was the same pain in the butt to diagnose a problem with a carb or distributor that wasn't a "normal" problem
And that's where the learning starts.............for anything

Hey!! You calling me old?!? And you never mind the fact my first car had stone wheels!! BUT....you know I was part of that idea! I didnt knock the corners off but I did put the hole in the middle! Worked on that between bridge games with Moses! LMAO. But seriously, the spark advance is the ONLY part of that equation that I hadent came to addressing. You confirmed my ideas about just fabbing up an intake and slapping the carb to it being pretty easy tho.