CJB

"Tom Adkins" <newton5@remove.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:E6mdnVj4aKNPo3_eRVn-uQ@comcast.com...
> Adam wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>>
>
> I had a 94 standard cab, standard bed, 2.3L. It seemed to have pretty
> good power for a 4 cyl and was rather "peppy". On the other hand, my
> father has a 95 standard cab, short bed, unsure if it is a 2.3 or 2.5.
> That poor thing can't get out of it's own way. It's just plain wimpy. I
> suspect a differnce in the rear gearing. Both are/were 5-speed manual.

My 97 is the same Lima, 8 plug, 2.3 you guys are talking about. Mine is 4x2
with 225/70R14 tires and a 4.10 rear gear. Also, I have A/C, P/S, SuperCab
and a fairly heavy fiberglas topper. It pulls all that around very well,
imho, even with the A/C on.

It winds up a little at highway speeds, but not what anyone would consider
high rpm. I think that some folks are used to more torquey truck engines,
and aren't used to revving up a truck engine, which you have to do a little
on this one.

I think if it had a 3.73 or higher gear I'd be much less pleased. In fact,
I nearly bought a new one just like the one i have now back in 1995. It
had, iirc, a 3.73 and seemed very underpowered. Of course, at that time, I
was used to driving a shortbed 4x2 5 speed Ranger with a 4.0, so just about
everything else seemed underpowered. ;-)

CJB