1st gen daily drivers?

[racsan]

I think a 2.0 could do 30 mpg, but no power, forget about towing and downshift at the hint of a hill and hold it to the floor. my 88 supercab, 2.3, 3.73s did 28 mpg at best but had the tourque of a haurbour freight cordless drill.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

I think a 2.0 could do 30 mpg, but no power, forget about towing and downshift at the hint of a hill and hold it to the floor. my 88 supercab, 2.3, 3.73s did 28 mpg at best but had the tourque of a haurbour freight cordless drill.

I remember a buddy of mine had an 88 4wd 2.3 with a 5 speed. Not sure what gears were in it, but it wasnt *horrible* as long as you didnt try to haul or tow anything. Definatly didnt go like my 2.9/5sp/2wd but got a few mpg better.

 

[racsan]

the 4wd 2.3’s most likely had 4.10’s Ive found 4.10’s to be a good gear with a 2.3 The truck I have now had 3.45’s originally, thats way too steep for my useage

 

[rusty ol ranger]

the 4wd 2.3’s most likely had 4.10’s Ive found 4.10’s to be a good gear with a 2.3 The truck I have now had 3.45’s originally, thats way too steep for my useage

They geared a 2.3 with a 3.45?

Thats about as dumb as the old 150s with the 300 and a 2.47

 

[Bird76Mojo]

I think a 2.0 could do 30 mpg, but no power, forget about towing and downshift at the hint of a hill and hold it to the floor. my 88 supercab, 2.3, 3.73s did 28 mpg at best but had the tourque of a haurbour freight cordless drill.

That's a VERY ACCURATE statement about the 2.0

 

[sgtsandman]

They geared a 2.3 with a 3.45?

Thats about as dumb as the old 150s with the 300 and a 2.47

They did it with the 2.5 Lima too. Your assessment is very accurate.

Granted, this is only an example of one. When I regeared my 1998 from 3.45 to a 4.10, get up and go got a lot better and the mpg never changed. Gas mileage may have gotten a little better with a 3.73 in it but with the hills around here, it was just begging for a 4.10.

 

[Zapper]

the 4wd 2.3’s most likely had 4.10’s Ive found 4.10’s to be a good gear with a 2.3 The truck I have now had 3.45’s originally, thats way too steep for my useage

I have 3.73s which are not meant for hills because it slows down even with my foot to the floor, they seem to be meant for towing on flat ground instead, well very little towing to be exact

 

[rusty ol ranger]

I have 3.73s which are not meant for hills because it slows down even with my foot to the floor, they seem to be meant for towing on flat ground instead, well very little towing to be exact

Ive kicked around dumping my 3.45 for a 3.73 with my 2.9. but im scared what itll do to my mpg.

 

[racsan]

it might not change much, engine wont be working as hard and can stay in overdrive where before you would of needed to downshift sooner. (and if its a manual) will help clutch life

 

[sgtsandman]

I agree with racsan. I think they put 3.45 gearing in to help their overall corporate mpg numbers and since most of their testing is done on flat land or on dynamometers, such gearing would help their numbers. In the real world, unless you live where it’s flat, reality is different.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

it might not change much, engine wont be working as hard and can stay in overdrive where before you would of needed to downshift sooner. (and if its a manual) will help clutch life

I never have to shift out of O/D as it is. Its pretty flat around here and its got plenty of spunk to yank out into traffic, but the whole saving the clutch thing is the biggest reason, espicially in reverse.

 

[Zapper]

Ive kicked around dumping my 3.45 for a 3.73 with my 2.9. but im scared what itll do to my mpg.

I'm getting like 15 mpg with the 2.3 because i treat it like shit because it doesn't have much longer to live since the piston rings are shot and i live in the country where i sometimes stop often because i work on a farm, and it isn't flat here so i go uphill and downhill a lot.

 

[Shran]

I've had several 2.3 powered trucks including the one I have now...best I have ever gotten was 22mpg. They are thirsty, heavy, underpowered... but quite durable. Gearing doesn't seem to matter much, I've had them with 3.45, 3.55, and 3.73 ratios.

As much as I hate on the 2.9, it was kinda the sweet spot for mileage with the right parts behind it. I was pulling mid 20's all the time before I V8 swapped my '86 - in stock form with the FM145 trans, 3.45s and 205-75-15 tires. I don't think any other Ranger would have it beat.

 

[PetroleumJunkie412]

Been dd’ing mine as the F-150 has a weird misfire that will not set a check engine light/code. Probably a coil pack dying, it would be nice to know which one...

Ha. I know that feeling so very well, only with an F350 that won't shift.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Ha. I know that feeling so very well, only with an F350 that won't shift.

it is making a distributor ignition system look really good right now, it is getting pretty irritating.

the way it is missing I am pretty sure a cap and rotor would fix it on any other engine I own.

This week I have been driving my wife’s Edge which is starting to get a little soul crushing. I miss my trucks!