2.3L ('83-'97) 2.3 Lima Max MPG

[RangerRob2.3]

Hi all, I have looked around some but haven't found much as to what others have done to pull more mpg's from the 2.3 lima motor or specifically a 1993 Ranger 2wd 5 speed in my case. I have replaced the thermostat, o2 sensor, cleaned maf, cleaned throttle body, and ran a tank of fuel system cleaner through it so far. Last fill up calculated almost 25 mpg mostly highway with light in the bed hauling, a small boat and then an atv, driving reasonably nice. I thought that was respectable for the overall situation but I would like to do better. I had a 1991 2.3 5 speed in the past I could pull well over 30 if I really tried but that was playing the hills as best possible, coasting, etc.. and that one also didn't have power steering dragging the engine down.

Anyways, I have an electric fan laying around I thought I might try and replace the factory clutch fan with to see how much that may help and if I could find information I would like to try a cam that would offer more low-end torque along with freshening up the top end or some light port cleaning/matching and shave the head a smidge. I couldn't care less about high rpm power one way or the other but if I could increase bottom end torque from idle to 3 or 4000 rpm to be able to keep the rpm's down I think I could do better mpg's for sure.

Thanks

 

[Blmpkn]

My last lima (98, long bed, 2wd, manual, 200k+ miles) got about 25-26mpg in my usual rural-esque driving. 29" tall tires on steel wheels, 3.73 gears.

There aren't many options for N/A lima cams that aren't geared towards 8k+ rpm and max HP.. the stock shaft is likely the most bottom-endy one to be had. Peak torque is 2800 rpm.. that's incredibly low for a 4cyl gas motor of that era.. pretty low for an n/a gas motor period.

Switching from a mechanical to an e-fan is a good start. It's well documented that doing the same thing with an old school SBC is good for 10hp.. that's quite a bit of efficiency. The ranger fan is smaller & lighter, so it won't be quite as big of a power sap as an SBC fan.. but freeing up 6-8hp wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility.

If you have steel wheels.. get some aluminum ones. The weight difference between steel & alloy wheels can be as much as 10lbs a piece on the same style of wheel. That's yuge.

What sort (& what size)of tires do you have? M/Ts are less efficient than R/Ts which are less efficient than A/Ts which are less efficient than all seasons.. you want to run the hardest compound tires you can find with the smallest voids between the treads. Stock diameter.. perhaps even a bit narrower than stock.. and pump them up to the limit of safe.

Lowering the whole vehicle would likely increase efficiency by a couple mpg's. Even just a shackle flip in the rear to level the truck would increase your aerodynamicalness a little by tilting the windshield back a bit.

Shaving the head is a good way to increase overall power output & efficiency.. the rule of thumb is +10% for each additional point of squish. This won't save you money though, as you'd need to run fancier gas. You'd also need an adjustable cam gear to get it timed right as well.. that's not a big deal though.

 

[RangerRob2.3]

Thanks for the response. Mine is a long box too. I do have stock size according to the door jam 225 70 14 tires and also aluminum rims. Hankook Kinergy I believe is the brand. I did some rear brake work today and found a loose piece of brake shoe that I believe was floating around and sometimes wedging up in there since that wheel was getting warm on and off so possibly a slight improvement there. I had thought of lowering but I need to keep height where its at for occasional hauling, rougher terrain, and snow. Sounds like if there isn't much room for improvement inside the engine I am best off sticking with a tune up, electric fan, and if I happen to come across a manual steering box for cheap I wouldn't mind going back to manual steering, I don't remember have much trouble steering my last one.

I was interested to see according to the 2.3 tech data on this site the 1986-1988 2.3 had peak torque of 130@1800 rpm vs 1989-1995 peak torque of 133@2600 rpm. Peak values don't tell the whole story but with only 3 ft/lbs lower peak and at a whopping 800 rpm lower I would wonder if the earlier 2.3 may actually have a bit more torque off idle to possibly 2400 rpm or so...

 

[scotts90ranger]

way back in the day on my '90 it would get up to 28mpg but then I started screwing with it... best mileage on that thing was with 195 75 14 tires and 3.08 gears in back... but they started changing the fuel about the time things changed too...

My '97 with 4.10's and 225 70 15 tires and being extended cab so like 400 pounds heavier averages 23mpg now but closer to 24 in summer but not bad for 215k miles... that's driving as conservative as I dare, I get too bored and mad at other people driving slower...

The cam is nearly identical between the new and old, the higher peak and rpm is likely due to the more efficient head porting and roller cam instead of flat sliders, I bet they are very close... Around '95 they reduced the valve stem diameter for less drag...

If you ported the intake side of the head to get better airflow and drove conservatively I bet you could improve the efficiency... usually making the most power but using the least you can gives the best mileage...

 

[RangerFabWorks]

My 92 that’s fairly stock. Just has a cat delete. Full tune up. And electric fan. Gets 22 mpg highway with 205/60/15 tires. But to be fair. I don’t drive it easy. I cruise a lot in 4th at 2600 because 5th gets luggy. And I do 75 with it going to work.

also it has 3:45 gears.

 

[racsan]

The best I ever got with the 2.3 lima was 29 in my ‘88 2wd manual supercab 3.73’s with 205/70/14’s, my last 2.3 was a ‘94 longbed manual 2wd with 4.10’s & 225/70/15’s -it got 21 at best.

 

[Mechrick]

Make sure your cooling fan isn't overactive. Some make the mistake of installing a heavy duty fan clutch that will affect MPG.

My B2300 2wd 5 speed managed 27 MPG.

 

[RangerRob2.3]

My truck is probably doing ok for what type of driving it has had so far, only easy thing I could do for now is maybe the electric fan really. I think I will just keep an eye out for a parts truck I could potentially pull the motor out and freshen up, light port clean up and matching, verify squish and compression is as high as it can be on 87, maybe a windage tray? I don't know if it would be worth trying to snag a 96-97 with the smaller stem diameter, they show 96-97 having a slightly higher peak torque and at 200 rpm lower than my 93. I would imagine for mpg's you would want to stay away from the 2.5?

 

[racsan]

Ive heard the 2.5 lima does use a little more fuel, not sure if its more powerful enough to be worth it or not. Ive never driven one.

 

[Mechrick]

only easy thing I could do for now is maybe the electric fan

If you do, make sure you set it up so the fan is off at cruise speeds.

I've heard that myth about Lima fours not getting great mileage, not sure where that comes from. My 2.3 Mustang got an honest 28 mpg at 70-75 mph...

 

[scotts90ranger]

The mileage issues come when coupled to an auto transmission, even in mustangs they didn't get great mileage apparently...

My '90 got 20ish on 31" tires back when it was stockish with 4.10's and gets 16ish now on 35" tires with 5.13's and the turbo 2.3, plan on testing that more later this summer now that the suspension is better.

 

[superj]

the five speed mustangs were a blast and a got good mileage. but the auto 2.3 mustangs were not at all fun

 

[Shran]

These are the 4 cylinder RBVs I've owned-

1988 Ranger 4x4, 2.3, 5 speed
1994 Mazda B2300, 2wd, 2.3, 5 speed
1995 Ranger 2wd, 2.3, 5 speed
1996 Ranger 2wd, 2.3, 5 speed
1998 Ranger 2wd, 2.5, 5 speed

I'm guessing I have something like roughly 100k miles on all of those, mostly on the '88 and '96. Here are my observations:

- I have never broken 22mpg on any of them.
- None of them had AC
- Summer mileage on my '88 is somewhere in the high teens, it has been down to as low as 12 in the winter.
- The '96 averaged mid-high teens in the winter, usually right around 20 in the summer, 22mpg was my best and only on one tank
- The Mazda was about the same as the '96 and it didn't even have power steering
- I was super impressed with the '98 and how much power it had. That extra 0.2 liter made a huge difference, way more snort than any 2.3 I've owned. It was a total rust bucket so I put almost no miles on it before passing it on so I have no idea what kind of mileage it made. Would not surprise me if it was better than any of the others.

If you guys are making better mileage than me, I have no idea how you do it. You have to hot rod these things around to keep up with traffic and my foot is on the floor on the highway... they just don't have a lot of power. I love them, they are tough little brutes, but not very efficient.

Maybe our gas here just sucks. I've had my Explorer out in Colorado & Wyoming a lot and can easily get high teens and occasionally over 20mpg with it. That's fully loaded with camping gear, water, people... easily 1000-1500lbs heavier than a stock Explorer. Back when it was totally stock I got 26mpg one time between Denver & Colorado Springs. That was on 85 octane gas and at 5000+ feet elevation.

 

[RangerRob2.3]

These are the 4 cylinder RBVs I've owned-

1988 Ranger 4x4, 2.3, 5 speed
1994 Mazda B2300, 2wd, 2.3, 5 speed
1995 Ranger 2wd, 2.3, 5 speed
1996 Ranger 2wd, 2.3, 5 speed
1998 Ranger 2wd, 2.5, 5 speed

I'm guessing I have something like roughly 100k miles on all of those, mostly on the '88 and '96. Here are my observations:

- I have never broken 22mpg on any of them.
- None of them had AC
- Summer mileage on my '88 is somewhere in the high teens, it has been down to as low as 12 in the winter.
- The '96 averaged mid-high teens in the winter, usually right around 20 in the summer, 22mpg was my best and only on one tank
- The Mazda was about the same as the '96 and it didn't even have power steering
- I was super impressed with the '98 and how much power it had. That extra 0.2 liter made a huge difference, way more snort than any 2.3 I've owned. It was a total rust bucket so I put almost no miles on it before passing it on so I have no idea what kind of mileage it made. Would not surprise me if it was better than any of the others.

If you guys are making better mileage than me, I have no idea how you do it. You have to hot rod these things around to keep up with traffic and my foot is on the floor on the highway... they just don't have a lot of power. I love them, they are tough little brutes, but not very efficient.

Maybe our gas here just sucks. I've had my Explorer out in Colorado & Wyoming a lot and can easily get high teens and occasionally over 20mpg with it. That's fully loaded with camping gear, water, people... easily 1000-1500lbs heavier than a stock Explorer. Back when it was totally stock I got 26mpg one time between Denver & Colorado Springs. That was on 85 octane gas and at 5000+ feet elevation.

I don't hot rod mine at all, if I did I'm guessing I would get numbers similar to what you posted. I simply don't always keep up with traffic. Often get blown by leaving stop signs/lights and If I'm in averaging upwards/hilly terrain cars can go around me too. My perception of the lima is if you can't stand being a bit slower than everyone else at times and not being able to hold 55+ up an incline you are better off with a bigger motor. Sure, you can drop gears and hammer the gas down to always keep up and hold 60 up the hills but your working that little thing so hard it will suck just as much fuel as a V6. If I had to drive in an area where there is extreme traffic I would absolutely hate this motor.

 

[Shran]

I don't hot rod mine at all, if I did I'm guessing I would get numbers similar to what you posted. I simply don't always keep up with traffic. Often get blown by leaving stop signs/lights and If I'm in averaging upwards/hilly terrain cars can go around me too. My perception of the lima is if you can't stand being a bit slower than everyone else at times and not being able to hold 55+ up an incline you are better off with a bigger motor. Sure, you can drop gears and hammer the gas down to always keep up and hold 60 up the hills but your working that little thing so hard it will suck just as much fuel as a V6. If I had to drive in an area where there is extreme traffic I would absolutely hate this motor.

Mine has no problem keeping up with traffic but as I said it burns a lot more gas than you would think.

Not keeping up with traffic or not maintaining modern highway speeds is simply not acceptable. Burning more gas is a small price to pay for avoiding someone else's road rage.