What engines compatible with '94 b2300 tranny?

[kp3ft]

Hi all, just got a 1994 Mazda B2300. It has the original fuel injected 2.3 Ford motor and 5-speed manual tranny. Does anyone know what smallest and oldest carbed Ford or Mazda engines would bolt up to the transmission? I'd like to put in the smallest non-fuel injection engine possible with also the least electronics possible. Yeah, I know it sounds crazy, but I'm shooting for fuel efficiency and low maintenance. The older small pickups like the Ford Courier, Chevy LUV, etc. got better mpg than newer small pickups, and had smaller engines (I think the smallest was 1.5 liter), but I don't know what their curb weights were. The 1994 B2300 has a curb weight of 2918 lbs. The truck is in very good condition and I would like to keep it; I just obsessively hate fuel injection and electronic sensors. Electronic ignition is fine, but I'd like to avoid any other electronics like ECU's, etc. It may not be practical to swap the engine due to emissions requirements for 1994 vehicles in my area (Puerto Rico), I'll check it out, but I'd like to know what swaps are possible anyways.

[fastpakr]

The only engines I'm aware of being compatible are the other Lima models (2.3 turbo, 2.5) and I think the 2.3 duratec and the old 2.0 carb'd engine. Not sure if anything else bolts up.

What kind of efficiency are you looking for? The 2.0 was no better than the 2.3, and I get 27mpg on the highway out of my '94.

[kp3ft]

Originally Posted by fastpakr

The only engines I'm aware of being compatible are the other Lima models (2.3 turbo, 2.5) and I think the 2.3 duratec and the old 2.0 carb'd engine. Not sure if anything else bolts up.

What kind of efficiency are you looking for? The 2.0 was no better than the 2.3, and I get 27mpg on the highway out of my '94.

Hi,
I might be better off leaving it alone if mine also gets 27 mpg highway. I'd like to get up into the range of the older trucks from the 70's and early '80's which got roughly 8-10 more mpg ( http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/download.shtml ). It may not even be possible due to the extra curb weight. I did a bit of research and it appears the '94 B2300 weighs generally 300-500 extra lbs. than the older small pickups, which slices off a couple miles-per gallon right there. Did you do any mods to your truck, or is it all stock? I haven't driven mine enough yet to clock the mpg rating. Down here in Puerto Rico pickups are in high demand; an older small pickup is either hopelessly rotted out or the seller wants an extremely unrealistic price for it. My wife and I live on very low income, and I need a truck for work but also for a daily driver. The best mpg possible saves a lot of money over time. A possible solution is to get a newer truck with a good frame/body and swap the engine. If I get 27 mpg highway, it would be smart to keep the engine for now. It has 155,000 miles on it and runs great with no problems.

[fastpakr]

My truck is completely stock. What truck are you thinking of that ever got 35mpg? Short of a VW diesel swap, I don't see that being possible on an RBV. By the time you spent the money doing the swap, I doubt you'd ever make it back in fuel (unless you were able to sell off your current engine to offset it).

[kp3ft]

Originally Posted by fastpakr

My truck is completely stock. What truck are you thinking of that ever got 35mpg? Short of a VW diesel swap, I don't see that being possible on an RBV. By the time you spent the money doing the swap, I doubt you'd ever make it back in fuel (unless you were able to sell off your current engine to offset it).

That's what I'm thinking too, it would take a while to pay for itself after the cost of a different engine.
Check out the 1984 mpg rating for small trucks: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/epadata/84guide.txt
They got some pretty impressive ratings, even if the newer mpg calculation is applied to them. Older small cars and trucks got amazing mpg ratings, but then the trend started going down due to bigger engines, stricter emissions requirements, and more weight from airbag systems, etc. I've been on quite a few forums asking owners of different cars and trucks what they actually get in the real world, and they verify the high mpg numbers. Every case is different because of driver habits, engine condition, ignition timing, etc.

[fastpakr]

Those numbers concern me - even using the old ratings, the '85 numbers are significantly different. For example, the 2.2 Ranger diesel is listed at 39mpg in your 84 numbers, but only 33 in '85 (only 30 with the new numbers). The 2.0 gasser is the same - 36mpg by the 84 numbers, but only 27mpg in '85 (25 with the new numbers).

Very strange that from the same source they're that far apart from '84 to '85. The Ranger didn't change design in that period.

[Will]

I'm sure the earlier trucks--Courier etc.--were lighter by far, and probably had deeper axle gears. Changing your 4-cylinder for a smaller, carbureted 4-cylinder won't give it better mileage. Probably worse. You have a much heavier vehicle and you'll spend a lot of time in the power circuit of the carb where fuel isn't being metered through the main jets, but arbitrarily dumped in.

It takes a certain amount of power to accelerate your truck at a given rate, and then another amount to hold it at steady state cruise. The difference between a small engine and a large engine is that the large engine can burn more fuel and accelerate more quickly. That's a big contributor to it getting worse average mileage. If you drive your 2.3 with a vacuum gauge and make sure to not let the gauge dip very much when you accelerate you can simulate having a 1.5 and burn less fuel. At steady state cruise, there will be no difference. The truck requires a certain amount of power to hammer it through the air and both engines will have to produce that power. A gasoline engine running near stoichemetric uses around .08 gallons of fuel to develop one horsepower for one hour and a diesel requires about .06 gallons to develop one horsepower for one hour. If an engine in the same vehicle gets worse mileage it's because during the use of that tank of fuel, the engine did more work. If you let the 2.3 slow down on hills and accelerate it gently it will get better mileage. A 4.0 doesn't slow down on hills as much as a 2.3 and accelerates more readily and gets worse mileage than the 2.3, plus they are typically installed in heavier setups.

Get a vacuum gauge and drive with it. Your mileage will go up a bunch, I guarentee it.

[85_Ranger4x4]

Originally Posted by fastpakr

Those numbers concern me - even using the old ratings, the '85 numbers are significantly different. For example, the 2.2 Ranger diesel is listed at 39mpg in your 84 numbers, but only 33 in '85 (only 30 with the new numbers). The 2.0 gasser is the same - 36mpg by the 84 numbers, but only 27mpg in '85 (25 with the new numbers).

Very strange that from the same source they're that far apart from '84 to '85. The Ranger didn't change design in that period.

They changed from the 2.2 to the 2.3 in '85.

http://www.therangerstation.com/tech...ry/Diesels.htm

[fastpakr]

Good point. Still leaves a 9mpg change for the 2.0 from one year to the next. It would be interesting to check some of the other listed vehicles.

[85_Ranger4x4]

Our library says they were playing with them in that time frame, going from a 1bbl to a 2bbl.

The 2.0/2.3 liter versions that were offered in Rangers starting in 1983 used a different head having four evenly spaced round holes of equal size. A 2.0 liter 1bbl carbureted version was offered in Rangers from 1983 - 1985, and in 1987 - 1988 with a 2bbl carburetor in some parts of the US, Canada and Mexico. Electronic Fuel Injection (EFI) was added to the engines in 1985.

http://www.therangerstation.com/tech...cylinders.html

[fastpakr]

I'm not sure how common the 2 barrel was, and in any case didn't appear for at least another year.

[grandpa5x]

I had a '79 Courier with the Ford 2.3L and Mazda 5 spd, the best it ever got was 23.3mpg, I had done every thing imaginable to improve mpg, that was hwy driving at 55-60 mph. I now have a '97 B2300 5 spd that gets 27.2 mpg driving the same way, I don't like all the emission requirements but I like the extra mpg. During the mid '90s just about all vehicles maxed out on mpg. By 2000 all vehicles were starting to lose mpg due to EPA's newer regs, even 18 wheelers were being affected by 2002. That was a major thing I was looking at when I was shopping for an economical used truck.