think 2.3's cant be powerful?

[Mikel89us]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kvUFwV3hBH4&desktop_uri=/watch?v=kvUFwV3hBH4

Check out the videos of this guy, then stop hating on our 4 bangers.

 

[bobbywalter]

cost effective reliability



its conditional as always...


light weight 2wd, its the best way to go in general.....


if your running a 6 k behemoth like the turd i roll down the road in....

2.3 not so good...

 

[Mikel89us]

You can cost effectively make 400 hp, what's not to love??

 

[bobbywalter]

300ish hp 300ish ft lb from a 2.3 for 200k miles is not cost effective in a 6k vehicle. the way you would need to gear it in a mild lift 35 in tire extended cab that was close to normal weight would be a toss on economy


cost effective is buying a 5.3 powertrain and swapping that in. its cheaper then getting 300 hp and ft pounds from a 2.3 and properly tuning it for max efficiency.....because the stock 2.3 transmission is not gonna like that shit if you use it.


in a reg cab short bed 2wd...it would be ideal though.


the 2.3 is a venerable engine and well known for its potentials. i have seen variations from 500-1000 hp drivers in fox platforms.

cost effective and reliable are not long term descriptions i would use for any of them.

 

[rangerbum]

I have learned to love my 2.3 liter for what it is. With my first one I dropped money in it trying to make more respectable power, and all I got was less mileage, a cooler sound, and a lighter wallet.

With my current 2.3, I just take care of it. Change the oil, flush the coolant on occasion, and keep it in proper running condition. It has never let me down other than the neglected timing belt when I first got the truck. It can haul and tow a respectable amount for a truck it's size, its not that painfully slow, and its fun to drive down dirt roads.

Its a domestic four cylinder, built heavy and tough. I'm more than happy with whatever is left of my original 112 hp.

 

[kunar]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kvUFwV3hBH4&desktop_uri=/watch?v=kvUFwV3hBH4

Check out the videos of this guy, then stop hating on our 4 bangers.

where's it say that's a 2.3? if its anythign that originally came in a probe, its a mazda engine. a 2.0 or 2.2, something like that. its very obviously extensively modified though, so who knows what 4cyl he's running.

dont get me wrong, i own a 2.3t myself. its a fun engine, im not knockin it at all. all im saying is that this video doesnt mean anything without proof that it's actually a 2.3t

 

[Mark_88]

All I want for Christmas is 100 to 120 HP out of mine...

I know they can be beefed up but, like Rangerbum, I headed down that road only to find the same result...it takes money to make HP...and all I can afford is the HP Sauce...

 

[Mikel89us]

where's it say that's a 2.3? if its anythign that originally came in a probe, its a mazda engine. a 2.0 or 2.2, something like that. its very obviously extensively modified though, so who knows what 4cyl he's running.

dont get me wrong, i own a 2.3t myself. its a fun engine, im not knockin it at all. all im saying is that this video doesnt mean anything without proof that it's actually a 2.3t

Stock probes are also FWD, this is why I said to watch his videos, not video. He has it on a dyno, and it sounds amazing, 9500 rpm and massive boost.

 

[Mikel89us]

cost effective reliability



its conditional as always...


light weight 2wd, its the best way to go in general.....


if your running a 6 k behemoth like the turd i roll down the road in....

2.3 not so good...

They never made a 6000 pound ranger with a 2.3 anyway. My long bed reg cab 4x4 was4400# curb weight stock ? Mustangs were 3400-3600# cars in the late fox chassis.

 

[stmitch]

They never made a 6000 pound ranger with a 2.3 anyway. My long bed reg cab 4x4 was4400# curb weight stock ? Mustangs were 3400-3600# cars in the late fox chassis.

This is kind of off topic, but if your regular cab 4X4 is anything close to stock, it didn't have a curb weight of 4400#. A 2011 extended cab Ranger 4X4 had a curb weight of 3741lbs, according to Ford's website: https://www.fleet.ford.com/TRUCKBBAS/topics/2011/2011_Ranger.pdf
Your squarebody, 4 cyl, regular cab truck would be substantially lighter than that. My 2000 regular cab 3.0/auto was 3300lbs with a heavier cab, trans and engine than your truck.
Also, I thought SVO Fox body cars were around 3100lbs? Fox body cars were definitely lighter than the SN95s right?

 

[scotts90ranger]

I'm quite happy with the performance and reliability of my 2.3T... jump in and go, starts right up and has a decent amount of go for being all stock parts with a home port job on the head...

My 4x4 reg cab short bed with me in it and a quarter tank of gas is 3960lb, but that's with a D35, expo 8.8 and 35" tires...

 

[Mikel89us]

I wasn't sure exactly, but after my last trip across a junk yard scale, it was over 4000 lbs, that was bone stock with 30" tires.

 

[bobbywalter]

This is kind of off topic, but if your regular cab 4X4 is anything close to stock, it didn't have a curb weight of 4400#. A 2011 extended cab Ranger 4X4 had a curb weight of 3741lbs, according to Ford's website: https://www.fleet.ford.com/TRUCKBBAS/topics/2011/2011_Ranger.pdf
Your squarebody, 4 cyl, regular cab truck would be substantially lighter than that. My 2000 regular cab 3.0/auto was 3300lbs with a heavier cab, trans and engine than your truck.
Also, I thought SVO Fox body cars were around 3100lbs? Fox body cars were definitely lighter than the SN95s right?

that web deal is bullshit or we are interpreting it wrong somehow...theres listing for dodge 2500 ext cabs with 4x4 and cummins rated at 4500 pounds..i mean come on man....4500pounds with an ext cab cummins...fawkers argue it to this day...

i dont remember seeing an ext cab ranger 4x4 under 3900 pounds on actual scales in real life....my truck with the stock retarded ranger shit on it and v6 and lift with tires was 4000's. sometimes a bit lighter. with road gear it was always over 4500 and winter pushed 5. since i owned it.

lightest i ever could get it on 29's for draggin and a 302 was 4200's...


lightest i can get it now is about 5800 with it totally empty and me in it. with as much rust and metal i have cut off of it i would think it to be lighter




scotts truck is a great example imo. it works good.


if it gets 25 mpg on the freeway at 75 mph then its the best setup i have seen...and will prowl around fine with jeeps. but at 75 mph it likely only gets 18-20 with a good tune. pretty damn impressive either way.




i know what the 2.3 can do. i dont think anybody knocks the potentials of them, i am sure they will be a popular swap when the new generation 2.3 ecoboost critter powering the current stangs start getting out there.

i would put dollars to donuts they out pace the coyote in value in the salvage market.

 

[scotts90ranger]

I wish it got over 20mpg, it's at 15ish if I behave or cruise 55 for a long time... but it only got 19 with 31's and 4.10's stock, it might get better if I switched to the LA3 and put on an intercooler... but I keep up with anything offroad that I hang out with (other than the crazy stuff, but I can still play with them), on the twisties in the brush I do better than them with the TTB

Before the lift and bigger tires it was at 3600lb, back in the day when it was 4x2 with tiny tires it was 3200lb