2.3 Poor Power

[eazrider]

My daughter has a 1997 Ranger with the 2.3 liter, 5 speed. when I first picked up the truck for her, it had 65K miles. I drove it, and thought it was a turd, maybe the timing belt had slipped, etc. I swaped a new belt in, making sure everything was installed correctly...no difference...still a turd. It seems to have more power on first start up, before the engine comes up to temp, when it is running open loop. After it goes closed loop (computer takes over when it is warmed up) it is difficult to pull into traffic without excessive clutch action, sometimes I even turn off the AC to help get going. Runs well at higher RPM, just a turd on the bottom end. Personally, I think the timing needs to be bumped up a bit, but not quite sure how to do that. could I slot the crank sensor and move it around to advance the timing. Is this a common problen with the 2.3L engines.?..Is there someone familiar with these engines that can help..? Are there any chips/computer preconditioners that can "fool" the computer into a more agressive profile..?
Thanks

 

[tbirdsps]

In my case mine was doing the turd act when using the a/c and the temp gage half way around the O in Normal. It would barely move away from a stop. A new fuel pump cured the problem....Not saying that it your problem. My fuel pressure was pretty low around 19 psi when the pump was on for about 15 minutes or so. Cold it was fine.

 

[feellnfroggy]

This is common for 2.3l motors that I have owned, one in a ranger 1992 and three or 4 in mustangs. And the autos are worse. But I think the primary problem is what your used to driving when jumping into the ranger. WHat is your DD. The difference there I would bet is enough to convince the most diehard 2.3 owner that its a turd. RUn some seafoam through it, properly, check for some codes. If no codes then Check that the clutch is not too worn. A worn clutch will amazingly resemble a lack of power and almost stall a vehicle when taking off. I would recommend pulling apart the intake and cleaning as much carbon out by hand as you possibly can, but a 97 might not need that like my 92 did. Read up on other posts and you might get some ideas as well.

Timing wise its all electronic, no matter what you do the crank the DIS will set it to the programmed numbers, and if it detects a problem it will default to 10*BTC which will really throw you into a pickle, especially if you modified the crank.

Other than all this just drive it around for a while and get used to it, then start looking for the glitches. You might be surprised what you wont find.

 

[Ranger Dave (B25)]

The 2.5 is no better, particularly if you have the a/c on.

Check everything: TPS, O2 sensors, coolant temp sensors, all of the little electonic gizomtchies. Make sure it's tuned up. Fresh fuel and air filter. Yes, check the fuel pressure, injector flow, etc.

These are not powerful engines on their best days, and even a couple minor sensor issues will make them worse.

 

[eazrider]

re:

This is common for 2.3l motors that I have owned, one in a ranger 1992 and three or 4 in mustangs. And the autos are worse. But I think the primary problem is what your used to driving when jumping into the ranger. WHat is your DD. The difference there I would bet is enough to convince the most diehard 2.3 owner that its a turd. RUn some seafoam through it, properly, check for some codes. If no codes then Check that the clutch is not too worn. A worn clutch will amazingly resemble a lack of power and almost stall a vehicle when taking off. I would recommend pulling apart the intake and cleaning as much carbon out by hand as you possibly can, but a 97 might not need that like my 92 did. Read up on other posts and you might get some ideas as well.

Timing wise its all electronic, no matter what you do the crank the DIS will set it to the programmed numbers, and if it detects a problem it will default to 10*BTC which will really throw you into a pickle, especially if you modified the crank.

Other than all this just drive it around for a while and get used to it, then start looking for the glitches. You might be surprised what you wont find.

Good point. My daily driver is an '85 turbo-coupe T-Bird that I put a '94 5.0 H.O. motor into, and it gets with the program. I remember when I had the original 2.3 turbo in the 'bird, it was a little doggy on the bottom, but not as pronounced as the '97 Ranger. I have checked fuel pressure while driving...(never drops below 30psi) and none of the on-board diagnostics are flagging any faults. The way I understand it, the crank position sensor is what everything keys off of, and if I can slot the heavy aluminum bracket and move it around a bit, the computer will be folled into following that and I can "fudge" the timing a few degrees. It just seems like it needs more initial timing for a bit more oomph off the git-go..

 

[The Toolman]

Make sure the cat converter isn't starting to get plugged up also............

Years ago when I owned a garage, I fixed a lot of "no power anymore" cars by replacing the converter.......

 

[eazrider]

RE:

I'll check that, but, generally, a plugged cat will show up by the inability to rev out, as well as present a heating issue. This motor revs out well, and heating is not an issue, even here in Az with the desert heat. I took it to the local Ford dealer when we first picked it up and had them look at it, and they found nothing wrong. I could never get an answer as to if this was typical performance from the 2.3...I suspect it is.... I will check the cat.....

 

[The Toolman]

Hey, I was just throwin' that out for another thing to look at. I have a 94 5 spd 2.3 an it is about the same as yours power wise. Just like the guy up a few said, its just not a power house, an with the air on its even worse.

What my trouble is, is they put a 3.45 rear end in a stick to get good mileage. Since my trk has a overdrive, I would have preferred a 3.73 or whatever ford uses. It would have took off from a stop a lot easier with the lower geared rear end.

 

[eazrider]

Funny thing, my son has a 2002 Ranger with the newer dohc 2.3, and it has plenty power, and even gets better mileage..!

 

[The Toolman]

Well, since you seem to want to one up everything I say, good luck!

 

[eazrider]

RE:

Well, since you seem to want to one up everything I say, good luck!

Not sure about your "one up" comment, but thanks for your inputs...Can never get enough perspectives when trying to solve a problem..

 

[The Toolman]

dang internet, thought ya was being a smart azz, sorry.
His 2002 2.3 has 135 HP, an the 97 has 100 HP, thats over a 1/3 less than his does

 

[Harris]

My '94 2.3L has the same issue with low power. I SeaFoam it every few months and use Premium fuel about once every 4 weeks. I replaced the clutch last year, hoping that was it, but no change. There don't seem to be any vacuum leaks and I suspect the valves just aren't seating very well anymore. Short of rebuilding the head I don't see anything else to try.

I thought about what Feelnfroggy said about the difference just being a 2.3 vs something bigger, but my other option is a '96 Plymouth Breeze, which does better, even with the AC on HIGH.
My whole point is, your older 2.3 may just be worn out.

 

[Mader86]

I didn't see it mentioned, so I'll try it out there for discussion, but a faulty MAP sensor can really affect power. I understand that it [ultimately] affects both mixture and timing! Might be worth a diagnostic look

 

[eazrider]

RE:

I didn't see it mentioned, so I'll try it out there for discussion, but a faulty MAP sensor can really affect power. I understand that it [ultimately] affects both mixture and timing! Might be worth a diagnostic look

I'll look into that...Thanks...would that flash a fault code of some sort..?