Adam

I liked the older rangers with the 4 cylinders that had 8 spark plugs, I had
one and it got really good gas milage, and it had plenty pulling power.


"CJB" <colonyparkwagon@excite.nospam> wrote in message
news:7xqEf.13701$Ix.2116@trnddc07...
> By far, the best fuel economy of the three available powerplants will be
> found in the I-4 engines. The 3.0 V-6 has less power and hardly any
> better fuel economy than the 4.0. I really don't know why anyone who
> wanted a V-6 would get a 3.0.
>
> Be aware that there are basically 2 different I-4 engines. The older
> engine, the cast iron (aka Lima) 2.3 and it's slightly larger twin, the
> 2.5, is rock solid. There are MANY reports of those engines going 300+
> thousand miles without problems. The newer aluminum 2.3 (it might also
> come in a 2.5 flavor) is also a good engine from all reports, and has a
> smidgen more power. For longevity, there's just not enough data to
> compare the two fairly, but I know that the older Lima 2.3/2.5 is a long
> proven, reliable, durable engine.
>
> I have a 2.3 powered 97 Ranger SuperCab 5 speed and like it very much. It
> has enough power for my suburban Washington DC driving, and is barely
> broken in at 105k miles.
>
> CJB
>
>
>
> "bribieboy" <steve@bindii.net> wrote in message
> news:1138870830.906800.261310@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Hi
>>
>> I'm intending to buy a Ranger and would like people's opinions on which
>> engine gives the best fuel economy. I won't be doing any hauling with
>> it, it will be my daily drive. I'm looking anywhere from 1995 to 2002
>> give or take some years.
>>
>> Any help would be greatly appreciated.
>>
>
>