going for economy, weird f'n numbers.

[millermayhem]

The more I learn the worse it gets... The rig is an 84 B2. with the 2.8. I am getting about 16 mpg freeway on an enine that defies the laws of physics. I dont want to rebuild the 2.8 and from what I had read is that the 4's get much better milage. I oriinally wanted to go with the turbo diesel, which from estamates could have given me about 28-30mpg. Unfortunaty something about them being rare as hell makes it a difficult choice. On to the 2.3 OHC. while looking at the fueleconomy.gov's database of ranger's with the 2.3 (no broncos listed) here is what I found:

for the 4wd ranger with 5 speed and 2.3 ohc engine...
1985=26 mpg
1986=25mpg
1987=26mpg

then in 1988 we drop to 24 mpg

even stranger is when ford went to the distributorless ingnition and dual plug s it falls to 22 mpg.

As the trucks got newer the economy fell. WTF . As I understand it the 85's had EFI on the 4 bangers. so all trucks had the same engine, with efi the same chassis for the most part. I would have expected the 89-95 2.3's to be the most efficient.

what is the most efficient 2.3 engine? I should mention that I want to set up my b2 as a light camping rig. I drive like an old man so power is not important. As long as I can drive at highway speeds. I usually only do 60. I need to be able to afford to get to the destination.

any Ideas?

 

[fastpakr]

The ratings vary a little bit year to year simply because of imprecise testing results. However, there is a consistent decline as the power levels went up. I'm seeing slightly different numbers than you are, though.

79hp:
85: 24/29

90hp:
86: 25/27
87: 24/26
88: 22/27

100hp:
94: 21/25

112hp:
96: 20/25

These are all the original EPA scores, not the corrected versions. With a 2wd 94 I see around 23 city, 27 highway. Weight would have increased slightly over the years. Not sure if the testing procedure changed. Either way, as weight and power increased there was a slight dip in ratings. I suspect, though, that at 60mph you can probably see 25-28mpg on any of these. My encouragement would be to find the lowest mileage/best condition donor you can for the price and not worry too much about the rating. Paying extra for an older/higher mileage motor would take years to balance out against the 1-2mpg difference you might see.

 

[millermayhem]

thanks for the reply

 

[Beanmachine7000]

Ah, please document this, I almost dropped a 2.3 into my BII... I love the Lima!!

 

[Hahnsb2]

My dads 89 2wd 2.3 gets 27-29MPG freeway all year long. His 90 2.3 4wd gets about 25MPG. Pretty much any RBV engine will get better MPG than the 2.8.

 

[Frank The Tank]

My 4.0 ext cab 4x4 gets a mere 3 miles less than my 2.3 2wd the 97 2wd gets right at 25 city highway average.

The newer bigger, 4 wheel drive truck gets 22!!!! and it will pass a neon going uphill.

My old 2.9 got about 16/17mpg..... in a 2wd reg cab long bed.

I'm pretty proud of that 4.0 for sure.

I would just find a well maintained 2.3..... and do spark plugs airfilter, mandrel bent exhaust and take good care of it.

Frank

btw: I run all 5speed manuals except the 88 2.9 had a slush-box.

 

[millermayhem]

this won't happen soon. I just like to research way in advance. I need to finish off my RX-7 first. The Mazda dosen't run, the bronco does.

I think I will try to document this. There are a lot of v8 swaps and a few turbos, should be entertaining