I'm going to look at a 2.0 1984 ranger with a 4 speed today. Appears to be 1 owner (I think he passed away) with lots of records. Allegedly a newer crate engine. From looking around it seems the 2.0 4 speed was an awesome fuel mileage combination. Any thoughts?
Joey
Well, it is faster then a Yugo..... Needs a 5 speed for awesome mileage provided the ground is flat enough.
FYI- it is just a small bore 2.3 Lima motor, not to be confused with the previous 2.0 from the Pinto which was different.
Ranger50 wrote: Well, it is faster then a Yugo..... Needs a 5 speed for awesome mileage provided the ground is flat enough. FYI- it is just a small bore 2.3 Lima motor, not to be confused with the previous 2.0 from the Pinto which was different.
That's what I had thought, as well, but according to the EPA site, the 4 speed got slightly better mileage than the 5...
Joey
Bolt in a 2.3L turbo?
In reply to Ranger50:
About on par with a 55/GV actually, The Yugo having 32.7lbs/HP and the ranger having around 35lbs/HP, a 65/GVX would certainly beat it in a drag race, especially once aero is considered. Just sayin.
16vCorey wrote: Bolt in a 2.3L turbo?
Is that really worth all the trouble considering all threes options. (A good topic for my upcoming radio show. Oh you'll be notified.)
Stay far, far away! I had an '88 2.0 5-speed for my first vehicle. What a sad way to start a life of driving. I think it had all of about 73HP of e-carbed goodness. I sold it with about 110K on it and it didn't last the next owner more than a couple of days before that overworked turd of an engine gave up. While I was happy to have it at the time, I know better now; I'd have the Yugo.
Edit: Make that 72HP.
In other words, it is a giant piece of E36 M3.
I had one of those (same year, etc). Bought it new in 84 and drove it until 1990. Put ~110K miles on it with no problems. It was underpowered but it still managed to haul mulch, lumber, etc. plus giving decent gas mileage on my 40 mile round trip commute.
I drove it. It was horrible. It's exhaust leaked and I think it had all sorts of vacuum issues, reducing its power to negative levels.
Joey
The old 2.8 was the one you want in those years. Then duraspark em.
Hal wrote: I had one of those (same year, etc). Bought it new in 84 and drove it until 1990. Put ~110K miles on it with no problems. It was underpowered but it still managed to haul mulch, lumber, etc. plus giving decent gas mileage on my 40 mile round trip commute.
it's not the power.. it's the gearing
It's the power, too.
Haha re the comment on the '88. A good friend of mine got out of a troublesome 70's Camaro and bought one of those Rangers new--pretty sure it was a 2.0 and a 5-speed. He used to beat the piss out of that thing. It was a gutless wonder, but he got it motivated and thrashed it everyday to within an inch of its life. It never missed a beat and faithfully delivered almost exactly 20 mpg. I'll never forget the call I got from his roommate one evening when he was coming by for a visit. He got T-boned in a major intersection by a drunk who ran a red light in a Volvo 240. My friend's truck was on it's roof in the intersection--he was fine, just a little shaken. The Volvo left the scene--hit and run. The insurance company didn't total the dang thing, and I think he drove it well over 100k miles.
You'll need to log in to post.
