2.3L ('83-'97) Odd thought on the '97 for runability...

[scotts90ranger]

Ok, hear me out... the thing is always gutless when the underhood temp is hot, today on the way home just after it warmed up I stopped at home depot then it played it's normally game of being completely gutless with the outside temp high and underhood temps high, only noticeable in stop and go traffic when underhood temps are going to be hottest...

What if I did something silly and put a resistor across the intake temp sensor (once I find what ~70F is in ohms on the sensor) and just call it macaroni... in theory the MAF and O2 sensor should be able to figure it out. The issue can't be with coolant temp since that's solid (checked on the way home), unless it's the MAF, I remember reading a while ago about someone watching the spark timing and when it was hot out it was completely dead which would explain a lot...

So, worth an experiment or not? I go through a tank of fuel a week so would be a fair study in driveability and fuel mileage... I can't imagine it hurting anything...

 

[alwaysFlOoReD]

For sure, experiment.
I would think that you would be making it run rich.

 

[scotts90ranger]

Air temp is like the third in line on fuel multipliers so I don't expect a huge change in mixture, it'd just be nice if it didn't accelerate like I was towing 3k pounds... I have 4.10 gears and 28" tires, if you stab it from a stop it is completely gutless until about 2500rpm in this condition, and when I've trained myself to shift by 3000-3500rpm for fuel mileage (makes a reasonable difference, 1-2mpg...) then repeat until road speed is up enough to get the underhood temps down...

I'll figure out the resistance this weekend, maybe I'll "borrow" the resistor set from work for the weekend to bring back on Monday...

 

[scotts90ranger]

It was like 88F on the way home tonight so I added spark advance to my Torque display on the phone and kinda kept an eye but it shows a min and max... for whatever reason the spark advance dipped down to at least -5 on acceleration from a stop at stoplights which would explain a LOT, the rest of the gears were like +15... cruise like 30...

 

[RonD]

Gasoline's air/fuel ratio is a WEIGHT ratio
14.7:1
14.7 pounds of air to 1 pound of gasoline
14.7 grams of air to 1 gram of gasoline

Assuming sea level
At 32degF a cubic foot of air weights 0.8lbs
At 80degF it weights 0.7lbs
That's a 12% difference

So the 1997 2.3l engine with 112HP is now 98HP
Computer does add more fuel when accelerating, but warmer air has less less oxygen per liter so less fuel can be added and less power released

Tricking the computer into using the wrong WEIGHT for air(colder temp) would actually cause less power, too Rich so no full combustion, i.e. smoke out the tail pipe, unburned fuel
Lean mix will get more power, for a short time, then pistons will melt, lol

Adding more air is "the trick" to get more power
Turbo works by forcing more air in, so at the 14.7:1 ratio more fuel can be added and more power released

Higher elevation is the same as warmer air in that it WEIGHS much less than at sea level
Which is why most vehicles sold in Denver(5,000ft. el.) come with turbos, just to break even, lol


Spark timing is related to fuel mix as well as RPM
Richer fuel mix burns much faster so spark has to be closer to TDC to get full combustion by 8deg After TDC, otherwise its closer to 15deg ATDC and very little power is added to crank
So when you accelerate(richer mix) you should see spark timing moving closer to TDC
Thats what the SPOUT wire is for
Load Spark Advance, used to be done with vacuum to rotate distributors internal points or sensor
Computer has access to RPM, Throttle position, and air/fuel mix, so it changes spark timing based on engine Load

The TFI, ICM, or EDIS only does RPM spark advance, so it needs the SPOUT signal as its "vacuum advance"

 

[scotts90ranger]

I'm with ya Ron, but let me tell ya, a 2.3L is GUTLESS at -5ish degrees of spark advance in first gear accelerating from a stop... normally acceleration fuel is a small multiplier especially at low rpm, you would have to get in the 11:1 area of mixtures to really get into the unburned fuel, again, we're just talking the couple seconds in the mid range of first gear from a stop not trying to pull really stupid tricks... I'm just trying to dumb the thing down to drive less bad... . Believe me, I've tuned engines (to meet emissions and pass transient emissions tests even), but never have I once put negative spark advance in a spark table unless I was REALLY trying to make a rev limit work...

 

[Lindel]

I've got the same setup that you do, 2.3L, manual, extended cab and my issue is at the other end of the spectrum. 65 seems to be the top end and it just runs out of steam. I'm thinking a basic tune up and probably a new catalytic converter is in order.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Could always swap in a 2.9

 

[scotts90ranger]

I would suggest getting an OBD II reader and watching some things, specifically air temp, coolant temp, MAF and fuel trim both long and short term. I couldn't find air temp on the Torque app and not sure it has the MAF reading but the fuel trims and coolant temp have been fairly useful on my '97...

Dustin, not sure how easy it would be to swap a 2.9L into a OBD II rig

Oh, and resistors are still in my lunch box, haven't gotten to tricking the IAT yet... maybe this weekend...

 

[Lindel]

I'll try the tune up first, and I'll hook up my OBDII scanner and see what Torque says. I may have to get a better scanner to see all of it. I'll probably swap out the catalytic converter, just based on the milage. I'll have to crawl underneath and get a look at the exhaust anyway.

 

[PetroleumJunkie412]

I would suggest getting an OBD II reader and watching some things, specifically air temp, coolant temp, MAF and fuel trim both long and short term. I couldn't find air temp on the Torque app and not sure it has the MAF reading but the fuel trims and coolant temp have been fairly useful on my '97...

Dustin, not sure how easy it would be to swap a 2.9L into a OBD II rig

Oh, and resistors are still in my lunch box, haven't gotten to tricking the IAT yet... maybe this weekend...

I mean.... microsquirt splices in easily...


Tap tap tap... dial your AFR.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

What happend to the one guy that swapped a 2.9 into a 3rd gen? Is he still around?

 

[scotts90ranger]

Catalytic converters don't just "go bad", they only melt down because of misfires (unburned air fuel mixture being ignited in the catalytic converter causing more than 900C temperatures melting the ceramic substrate), and they only plug up from carbon from running way too rich (extra fuel but no air to burn in the cat with the catalyst reaction) so it's all caused by something else. Whether it has had a bad misfire (less common when there are redundant spark plugs on a '89+ lima) or something is another thing... I like Ron's idea of a vacuum gauge to troubleshoot a cat, vacuum should likely increase with engine speed in neutral, if it doesn't then probably plugged cat.

Nothing against a 2.9L, but if I went through that trouble I'd just swap in a 4.0L or 5L

 

[Lindel]

That's the plan, to use a vacuum gauge, mine has disappeared over the years, so I need to buy a new one. My premise is that I don't know how the engine has been treated over the years, but it seems to have adequate power at lower speeds. This isn't my first dealings with the 2.3L, I've owned a few of them over the years, and my Dad had a '85 Ranger with a 2.3L and manual.

As far as an engine swap goes, my last one was to swap out a very anemic turbo'd 2.3 in a fox body Mustang for a warmed over 289 out of a '64 Mercury Comet that I couldn't get parts for.

 

[Blmpkn]

This is going to be the best idea anyone has ever heard, ever... ok... ready?


Pipe the intake into the AC ducts, run that bitch on max/recirc, and let it eeeeeeeeat