Dude its a genuin Ford engien...................... Who ever told you that is an IDIOT... Mazda is a subsidiary of Ford and in those trucks the name is Mazda but the engiens are Ford. Take a hard look at your block It`ll say Ford or Motorcraft some where.
not exactly the 2.0l disel mazda engine was an option in sum of the tempos ford made, mostly 1st generation though. it was also avaible in the excort/lynux with this in mind there is a small chance this engine could still be used by ford in sum applications but like mad said this is probably not the case.
Bottom line: there were 2 different 4 cyls, the Ford 2.3L and the Mazda 2.5L. The Mazda engine was actually worse than the Ford engine; tends to burn oil more, lousy mileage, etc. BUT, I dont believe the 2.5L was used until 1998.
Mad is right, the 2.3L is all Ford, as is the '98 to 2001 2.5L which was just a displacement increase of the old 2.3L. These engines are an updated version of the old Pinto 2.3L overhead cam engine that Ford used in so many Mustang II's, Pintos, and later the Fox body Mustang. I beleive the engine was actually designed in Europe, Ford refers to this as the T88 engine family, it was used in several Euro only cars as well as the Mercur XR4ti and Turbo Coupe. It was introduced in or about 1974. There was also a fairly rare carburated turbo version that came out in the early Fox body Mustangs around 1979/80.
The newest 4cyl. engine is an alloy block, double overhead cam engine, and not the tried and true old Ford 2.3L OHC engine. While I see that the newer engine makes good power, it will have to go a long way to convince me to buy one. I currently own two Rangers and an '80 Pinto with the 2.3L, All are well over 100K and still going strong. There was also a 2.0L version of this engine used in some Rangers in the 80's as well. These engines had cast iron block and heads and used metric specs.
(Also, Ford's 4.0L that was used for so many years in the Ranger, Bronco II and Explorer is a derivative of the older Capri and Mustang II 2.6L V6 engines as well, another engine with European roots).It appeared first in the Ranger?Bronco II as the 2.8L V6. Displacement slowly increased over the years as well as the addition of Fuel injection as it became the 2.9L and then finally the 4.0L.
My 1998 Ranger has a 2.5 liter Ford Engine in it. It was a displacement of the 2.3 liter which was discontinued in 1998. On my engine block like mad said it say Ford Motorcraft. Your truck should have the 2.3 liter ford engine because in 1998 ford started 2.5 liter engines. Which I Have and They are Die-Hard.
My first "New" car was a 1980 Pinto.
It had the 2.3 4 cylinder that had (4) spark plugs.
My 96 Ranger XLT (original owner) also has the 2.3 4 cylinder,
only it has (8) spark plugs - (2) per cylinder.
Even with a 5 speed manual, its just as slow as I remember the Pinto.
I seem to have the slowest moving vehicles - all fillies.
My 65 Mustang Fastback has the 200 CID Inline six, with a
3 - speed manual on the floor.
It has a 1 barrel Autolite and it still gets me 21-23 mpg with 76,000
on the clock. Just consider though, that little 2.3 moving that 2WD truck.
That's a lot of metal to move. Is a "Grandpa" truck for sure. Slow as
molases. That's ok. With 115,000 miles, she still sips the gas,
to the tune of 25 mpg.
I can't complain about any of my 2.3L engines, while my '94 is by far the slowest, mainly due to the rear axle ratio, the Pinto is by far much quicker.
The Pinto has a rear ration of 4.11:1 and has no problem with get up an go with a 4 speed manual. With that gear ratio it will move out just fine. I am considering making a rear change in the truck, the 3.08:1 rear just don't cut it. But it does give me an average fuel milage of 29 mpg. The Pinto does just as well, maybe better and there's far less tech in that car than in the 94 truck. The Pinto is lighter, and the gear makes pulling pretty effortless. The truck seems to always struggle a bit.
I've driven a '98 with a 3.55:1 rear and 5 speed, and it's at least three times faster than my '94, but probably not as quick as the Pinto. The Pinto has well over 600K on it (original engine as far as I know, got it showing 60K in 1984), and it's still going strong, I don't doubt that the engine will outlast the car.
The Ranger if anything seems to lack torque, but alot has to do with the tall gears, with the 3.55:1 rear in the Pinto, it's nearly imposible to stall, and it pulls like a tractor, but it's top speed is limited to about 75 mph, and at that I would assume that the engine is past it's redline. (Most Pintos with the 4 speed that I've seen came with a 2.73:1 rear).The 94 Ranger cruises in 5th gear doing 65 mph at around 1100 rpm or so. It doesn't feel comfortable in 5th until at least 75 mph, and at that speed, the truck starts feeling a bit light if the road isn't super smooth.
i think im the only one with a 2.0L. its pretty much the same as the early 2.3 just different crank. engine is the most reliable ive ever had. 20 years old and drove it a total of 2500 miles to florida and no problems. not exactly the most powerful though. but very easy to work on.