2.3L ('83-'97) What’s your max cruise speed?

[Chapap]

I’m fixing a badly missing engine with 5MT, reg cab, empty bed. I replaced the right coil pack (forgot to order two), plugs, and wires. It’s 90% better but I still get occasional misses. I’m wondering how much power I should expect. It seems that 65 in 5th on flat ground is all I can manage comfortably. If I get to a decent hill I can’t maintain speed at WOT. Is that normal, or do I still have a problem?

 

[Blmpkn]

Id say definitely some sort of issue.

My 98 reg cab 5mt 2.3 would do much better than that, and my 2010 rc 5mt 2.3 would do 100mph no problem while over its legal payload (2 passengers, 700lb wheeler, steel flatbed that weighed 2-300lbs more than the factory bed)

 

[RustyShackleford94]

What gear ratio is in your rear end and what size tires are on it? Also when is the last time it had a full tune up?

 

[scotts90ranger]

What rusty said... depends on a lot, they put silly gear ratios in these things here and there, then there's my '97 that has 4.10's I'm assuming from the factory and does fine wherever, I just stop at 3000rpm for cruise in hopes of better fuel economy, which apparently worked, my last trip on the freeway at 3000rpm for ~150 miles netted 25mpg instead of the normal 24mpg...

 

[Chapap]

Door sticker axle code is 84 which is 3.45. Tires are 225/70/14. It has a new tranny, but assuming ratios are the same as what I googled, rpm should be the following. I have no tach to verify. I do have a leaky cat so it could sound faster than it is. Only tune up I know of is me changing those ignition components. I randomly chose 2500 rpm as shift speed in the excel sheet. That’s how I got these numbers. Probably a low choice but at least gives numbers to look at

gear - speed - rpm - my take on ratio
1 - 18 - 3000 - mine seems higher
2 - 26 - 1770 - mine seems lower
3 - 38 - 1700 - about right
4 - 57 - 1670 - mine sounds higher but feels close
5 - 72 - 2000 - mine sounds higher but feels close

 

[RustyShackleford94]

You would be at about 2300rpm @65, so you shouldnt have much problem maintaining speed on a small hill. Bigger hills its normal to have to downshift. At 2300rpm your maybe making 60hp and 95ftlbs to the wheels, combine that with an overdrive gear and its not going to move 3100lbs up a hill very well. But if its not running correctly then obviously another factor.

 

[Chapap]

I guess this does make sense now that I look again. I guess 5th isn’t a cruise gear for under 70. Definitely will be getting a tach to verify.

 

[RustyShackleford94]

I guess this does make sense now that I look again. I guess 5th isn’t a cruise gear for under 70. Definitely will be getting a tach to verify.

Yeah it wouldnt hurt. 5th gear is a fine cruising gear but if your pulling a big hill just throw it in 4th and let it eat or slow down a bit if your concerned about the milage.

My truck is a 96 with 31s and 4.10s, 2.3, 5sp that runs smooth as silk. With my tire size and gear ratio im identical to you in speed and RPM at 65 and have the same trouble with hills. Its just a little 4cyl thing you live with, ya know, unless you want to turbo it lol.

 

[Dirtman]

Id say definitely some sort of issue.

My 98 reg cab 5mt 2.3 would do much better than that, and my 2010 rc 5mt 2.3 would do 100mph no problem while over its legal payload (2 passengers, 700lb wheeler, steel flatbed that weighed 2-300lbs more than the factory bed)

1998 should be a 2.5 which had a decent power advantage over the 2.3, and the 2010 is a duratec so not even in the same ballpark as a Lima engine.

 

[scotts90ranger]

You have 27" tires and 3.45:1 gears, I have 28" tires with 4.10:1 gears, the drivability is way different with different gear ratios... the 2.3L just doesn't have the horsepower to run at normal rpm's... even when I changed to 235 75 15 tires I didn't like how mine drove on the highway at 55-60, 5th was useless up a slight grade and took too much throttle to hold 60 on flat land so I went with 225 70 15's and it drives much better, and in 5th 3000rpm is at like 73mph so not bad for freeway cruising in my neck of the woods...

It probably drives better in 4th on the highway, being less load it might even get better gas mileage...

 

[Dirtman]

I honestly don't think the 2.3 lima should have EVER had less than a 4.10 ratio. I know why they put crap gears in to make it look good to the EPA but in real life they don't work. At some point those tiny gears just go beyond what the engine can do and have the opposite effect. You end up flooring it to maintain 60mph because you have no torque...

My duratec (I know different engine) with 4.10s and 27" tires is doing around 2,500 rpm at 65mph and in a great power zone, I can hit the gas and overtake with ease. At 70 it's near 3,000 and gets what I think is best mpg. 25-26mpg.

 

[Blmpkn]

1998 should be a 2.5 which had a decent power advantage over the 2.3, and the 2010 is a duratec so not even in the same ballpark as a Lima engine.

IIRC I had thought it was a 2.5.. until I saw its cast header which came on the 2.3 right? I may have those backwards though. It was a dual plug truck if that makes a difference.

 

[Dirtman]

They were all dual plug since the late 80's and the manifolds are the same. My 2000 has a cast "header". 97 was the last year of the mighty 2.3.

 

[scotts90ranger]

back in the day my '90 had 3.08 gears and 195 70 14 tires, if my memory is right that's somewhere around 25" tall, stupid as it sounds cruising on long trips that thing got 28mpg, then I started driving harder and screwing with things... but that said, going 65 there was no acceleration in 5th and to get it to go fast you had to go to 4th... those little tiny car tires that were on it were just easy to spin...

As stupid as it sounds tires make a big difference in mileage apparently... I've put 20k miles on my '97 in the last year and a half so I'll use it for reference since I've had 3 different sets of tires on it, all 3 the odometer was verified with the odometer check section of the local freeway... With the 27" light truck tires I had on it when I started driving it it got 22mpg no matter what, I wanted to get the rpm lower so I found some 235 75 15's that were actually round and that didn't change squat but they were snow rated so somewhat aggressive. Now I'm running some car tires I got for $65 for the set with good tread, they're Hankook for what it's worth... somehow these dang tires took me from an extremely consistent 22-22.5mpg to 23.5-25mpg... and they're not balanced or anything fancy like that... the auction picture "looked" like 5 on 4.5 Ranger wheels but they're something stupid so I scrounged... I'm running two first gen Ranger steelies in the front and two Jeep alloys in the rear... I took all weights off the wheels and mounted the tires on my HFT tire dealie...

 

[Chapap]

I spent some time on the Highway today. Think I figured it out. I was really lugging the engine before. I naively thought the gearing would be tuned to the engine.

I’d think I’d like to change my 225s to 195s at the next tire change. Would be cheaper, possibly better mpg, and slightly better gearing. That’d throw the speedo off a tad tho. Is currently spot on according to gps.