• Welcome Visitor! Please take a few seconds and Register for our forum. Even if you don't want to post, you can still 'Like' and react to posts.

2.3L ('02-'11) New '04 2.3 owner with questions about vibration, torque converter lock-up, and fuel consumption


AllenP

Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2024
Messages
8
City
Portland, Oregon
Vehicle Year
2004
Transmission
Automatic
I'm becoming acquainted with a 2004 2.3 automatic, which overall is working great!
JeffMade.jpg
Three issues have caught my attention so far, though:

1. There's more vibration than I expect. It's at engine frequency (not related to driveline or wheel/brake rotor speed) and most pronounced at lower RPM. Every time I leave from a stop, the tape measure that lives in my center console rattles annoyingly for a while, for example. Yes, I can move the tape measure to a quieter location, but that didn't fix the vibration. Is the 2.3 just a slightly buzzy engine, or should I be inspecting the motor mounts for example?

2. It seems the torque converter isn't locking up as intended. Sometimes I can feel it lock, as I'm accelerating gently, at about 45 mph. That's what it should do, right? Sometimes it's still not locked at 65 mph steady cruise, and other times it seems to unlock—producing a slight increase in RPM with no discernible transmission shift, and afterward the engine rpm changes with even small throttle changes—with small increases in throttle even above 60 mph. Is this normal? If not, what might I do to help the locking mechanism behave as intended? Lock and unlock are both smooth & quiet, so I don't suspect a mechanical problem, but TBH this is my first automatic in 20+ years and I'm not familiar with how the torque converter lock and its controls work.

3. Fuel consumption so far, driving quite gently, is 16/22. The EPA chart here suggests 22/26 is possible, and the previous owner says some years ago (last time he paid attention) he was getting 25 mpg driving to Idaho & back at 75 mph. There are 175k miles on the motor, but it's been carefully maintained and it starts easily & runs smooth & strong (aside from the minor vibration above), doesn't burn oil, etc. so I don't immediately suspect poor compression or an ignition or fueling problem. The tires are stock size and aired up. It's winter, so that's part of the problem, and the lumber rack prob. impacts efficiency a little at highway speeds. I bet limited/delayed torque converter lock-up also contributes to poor mileage at highway speeds... but I'm wondering what else should I look at to figure out if I can improve the mileage, especially around town. Air filter? I'll look, but that's never made a mileage improvement in my experience.
 
Last edited:
my 2005 was always a bit buzzy. so is the 2002 engine that I swapped in a couple years ago.
the same basic engine in some cars have a counter balance mechanism running off the crankshaft so I think Ford knew they are a bit buzzy.

yours being an automatic should have 4.10 gears. not the best for economy and I'm sure the rack doesn't help.
the EPA numbers may be based on pure gas, any alcohol blend will decrease the mileage some.
is aired up at least 35 psi?

I still have the original mounts on my 372,500 mile 2005. it's a manual tranny and I'm a little rough with the clutch.
 
my 2005 was always a bit buzzy. so is the 2002 engine that I swapped in a couple years ago.
the same basic engine in some cars have a counter balance mechanism running off the crankshaft so I think Ford knew they are a bit buzzy.

yours being an automatic should have 4.10 gears. not the best for economy and I'm sure the rack doesn't help.
the EPA numbers may be based on pure gas, any alcohol blend will decrease the mileage some.
is aired up at least 35 psi?

I still have the original mounts on my 372,500 mile 2005. it's a manual tranny and I'm a little rough with the clutch.
Thanks @pjtoledo
We do have 10% ethanol in our fuel here, so I’ll add that to my list of explanations for slightly reduced fuel efficiency, and unless I know it’s a problem, I can learn to ignore a buzzy engine. Kinda like my KTM.
Yes, tires at 35 psi.
 
Truck cap + lumber rack + bed full of tools + bunch of metal for fabrication business = ~1000lbs extra weight maybe?
Plus the aerodynamic drag from the rack and anything on it taking you down another mpg or three.
 
Truck cap + lumber rack + bed full of tools + bunch of metal for fabrication business = ~1000lbs extra weight maybe?
Plus the aerodynamic drag from the rack and anything on it taking you down another mpg or three.
Thanks STMITCH. I'm talking about largely unloaded driving, and the rack & canopy came from the previous owner, so they're not new. At any rate I'm prepared to accept any mileage impacts from heavy cargo, things on the rack, etc.

I should've been more clear that mileage isn't as important to me as figuring out what's up with the torque converter, in case that's indicating a more serious problem.
 
Have you changed the O2 sensors. As @RonD is fond of saying - they are the only sensor which wears out. And your are about 10 years/100k miles overdue.

If the O2 sensors aren't providing feedback before/after the catalytic convertor, the engine runs rich to ensure it doesn't melt down.
 
Have you changed the O2 sensors. As @RonD is fond of saying - they are the only sensor which wears out. And your are about 10 years/100k miles overdue.

If the O2 sensors aren't providing feedback before/after the catalytic convertor, the engine runs rich to ensure it doesn't melt down.
Thanks! That's a great tip. OBDII doesn't catch this? I did scan with my code reader before buying the truck and there were no fault codes, but it's possible that my reader doesn't pick up everything another reader might.

Do I get to buy a new special tool too,
;)
or are these easy to remove & install? I'm looking into it now.
 
ODBII doesn't catch it :(

Specialized tool isn't "required" but with everything exhaust, can be handy. The O2 sensors are ~7/8" and will be lovingly attached to the exhaust pipe. I disconnect the wires to the sensor so I can slip a combination wrench over the sensor, then get the truck warmed up and usually I can break the sensor free. Once broken free, they come out not too bad. (I usually touch exhaust once or twice..)

Going back in is pretty easy. And it usually helps fuel economy.

Specialized tool: https://www.amazon.ca/Oxygen-Sensor...8-1-spons&sp_csd=d2lkZ2V0TmFtZT1zcF9hdGY&th=1
 
ODBII doesn't catch it :(
Specialized tool isn't "required" but with everything exhaust, can be handy. The O2 sensors are ~7/8" and will be lovingly attached to the exhaust pipe. I disconnect the wires to the sensor so I can slip a combination wrench over the sensor, then get the truck warmed up and usually I can break the sensor free. Once broken free, they come out not too bad. (I usually touch exhaust once or twice..)
Going back in is pretty easy. And it usually helps fuel economy.
Thanks Don and @alwaysFlOoReD! I'll give this a try.
 
I'm becoming acquainted with a 2004 2.3 automatic, which overall is working great!
View attachment 104333


3. Fuel consumption so far, driving quite gently, is 16/22. The EPA chart here suggests 22/26 is possible, and the previous owner says some years ago (last time he paid attention) he was getting 25 mpg driving to Idaho & back at 75 mph.

The Duratec/manaul combo is the one you want for efficiency. The auto trans used in Rangers is inefficient, old tech. Besides robbing some power and economy, the Duratec/Auto trucks also got 4.10 rear gears, which keep RPMs higher on the highway. My Duratec/manual truck got 28mpg highway in cold months and 30 in the summer. Those figures are not uncommon for that powertrain combo. But the vast majority of Duratec/Auto trans fuel economy claims that I hear have highway fuel economy maxxed at 23-25mpg in warmer months.

fueleconomy.gov says your truck is rated at 19mpg city/24hwy/21 combined:


fuelly users show low to mid 20s as very common (their data includes manual equipped trucks which will occupy the higher numbers):



So baseline for a stock, healthy truck is probably 22-24mpg highway and upper teens if you do mostly stop/go, city driving. Now subtract some efficiency for the added weight. And again for the aerodynamic penalty of the ladder rack, and again for winter fuels.

I'm not saying that your truck is definitely fine and nothing needs to be addressed (replacing O2s can't hurt) but I think it's important to realize what the likely maximum efficiency actually is.
 
OK thanks @stmitch. I'd rather a manual transmission for the reasons too, but AT is what I've got now and I can live with it.

Does anyone have any thoughts on the torque converter lockup behavior?
 
the diagnostics in the factory service manual rely on codes.
search ELM327 and an app to read the codes.
 

Sponsored Ad


Sponsored Ad

TRS Events

Member & Vendor Upgrades

For a small yearly donation, you can support this forum and receive a 'Supporting Member' banner, or become a 'Supporting Vendor' and promote your products here. Click the banner to find out how.

Recently Featured

Want to see your truck here? Share your photos and details in the forum.

Ranger Adventure Video

TRS Merchandise

Follow TRS On Instagram

TRS Sponsors


Sponsored Ad


Sponsored Ad


Amazon Deals

Sponsored Ad

Back
Top