Engine Question

[TOFIC]

OK TOFWIC wants a urban cruiser. white, automatic and hardtop
harps at fuel economy (in a Bronco´, yea right!)
my question is how about a ranger pickup 4 banger.
any one done one
any thoughts on this
TOFIC

 

[73stallion]

what year ranger? i had a '91 ranger with a 4 banger, couldn't get out of it's own way. mom on the other hand had a 2010 ranger with a 4, had lots of power surprisingly. had good gearing too with the 5 speed auto.

 

[broncnaz]

Come on TOFIC you know better than that a 4 banger really? Ok I'll throw this out there. The big question is does it have to retain 4wd? If not While I cringe to suggest this you can take the bronco body and graft it together with a car. Might want to research the Focus Bronco there are 2 over in PHX, AZ they say they get mid 20's for mileage. I've seen the focus broncos and talked to the owners neat idea but I could never bring myself to casterate a bronco like that.
But as for a 2.3 trying to push a bronco with 4wd intact and with a auto I say you wont get any mileage increase out of that. Your pushing a brick after all and the auto eats power up as well. Maybe go for a stock 6cyl with a auto tranny conversion you might pull high teens with that.. While I dont run a auto tranny my 73 with a 302 gets 16-17 mpg on the hiway not sure what I get around town I dont pay much attention to that.

 

[TOFIC]

well, one for it and one not so for it.
Nobody else got anything to say??
first time I have seen this board with little to say.
TOFIC

 

[blubuckaroo]

I think if you didn't load your Bronco with a lot of extra crap, a late '80s Ford Ranger 2.3 turbodiesel would be interesting.

 

[Revelation]

I would think the 4.0 v-6 would be a better option.

 

[ugly74]

I would think the 4.0 v-6 would be a better option.

definitely. with a 4 banger, yer foot would be in the throttle ALL the time, and you'd get so frustrated in traffic, you'd be praying for a V8. if you wanna go 4 cylinder, it would have to be a 4BT. or if you were T-totally titched...a twin turbo 2.5 subaru motor.

 

[broncnaz]

I would think the 4.0 v-6 would be a better option.

only slightly better than a 4banger. I have a 03 Ranger 4x4 with the SOHC 4.0(rated at 210hp) runs great and has ok power but its noting compared to a 302. it lacks lowend torque.
Put that V6 in my bronco and I bet it gets the same or less mileage as the current 302. Not to mention that V6 in the ranger does lose some power on some hills in OD with 4.10 gearing and stock tires 29"? and the engine is spinning 3000 RPM at 75mph where the bronco on the same hill same speed running 33's and 3.50 gears doesnt lose any power and only turning about 2800 RPM.

 

[MattW]

I brought it up in another thread and it didn't go over so well But if my 302 ever bites the dust I'd seriously look into putting a 4.7 out of a 4Runner or Tundra in. Good low end power band and lots of torque and good gas mileage. I'd probably go cross eyed in just researching what it would take to work, but I think it would be a good combo.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

TOFIC & MattW , no matter which way you twist , flip or turn this , your enemy is going to be the shape of the classic Bronco. End of story.

It would seem that a good realistic MPG number to shoot for is about 16 mpg.

Physics will prevail in the end. Regarless of how your gear it , power it* , tranny it , etc, X amount of power is required to move the Bronco at Y speed and it takes Z amount of fuel to generate X power . Z does not really care too much if it goes into 4,6 or 8 cylinders.

Personally , I've been wanting to build a torque monster 351 , built to make its power right at hi-way cruise speeds , using a lot of good parts that will work together to make the power and make it efficiently , EFI , good alum. heads , proper intake , cam and gearing , nv3550 ...etc. But I know full well that it will most likely never get 20 mpg.
The 2001 Superduty 7.3 Powerstroke has been getting eyeballed pretty hard now that the body is getting a fair amount of rot on it though . ;D

* Now diesels on the other hand are somewhat more efficient by their nature , so I'm guessing you could see 25mpg from a variety of diesel motors. The swaps are very involved however. 4BT , 6BT , PSD ... etc.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

I didn't even cover the massively negative effects of big tires and lifts. Each are huge killers of MPG's and we normally do both for a good double whammy.

 

[MattW]

Hoosier,

I agree that the shape of our Broncos was designed when the aerodynamics engineer was out hungover. It just seems to me that a modern V8 engine, designed with efficiency in mind can get better MPG than a 302 or 351. Probably costs more, but hey it's different and there's only one way to find out...


Also for what it's worth, the curb weight of a Tundra is about 1k pounds more than that of our Broncos as well. Oh well, just an idea at this point for both my wallet and knowledge say, no!

 

[TOFIC]

you guys are really not getting me revved about this idea
how about the diesel out of the ranger trucks of the 80's vintage??
TOFIC

 

[HoosierDaddy]

No , TOFIC , we are helping you adjust your sales pitch to Momma so that you don't have a bad suprise later.

I want to say that the Ranger diesels are usually ruled out due to lack of balls .... but I'm not really positive on that. I know they have been mentioned in the threads where people are looking for other diesel alternatives.

MattW , I base my statement from a really good article that was posted here by an engineer (aeronautical IIRC) that was really informative and he used the formulas and examples to prove that the biggest detractor was going to be the profile of the Bronco , it wind resistance or drag or whatever you want to call it.
Another statement he made was something to the effect that we are really close to max'ing out the efficency of a reciprocating engine.
So yes , a new mod. motor may be more fuel efficent than a old 302 , but you'd never know the difference in the two brick shaped Bronco. Put an old 302 in one of todays newer super sleek bodies and you'd probably see a big improvement also.

Hmm , think I'm going to go research that a bit more.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

Hmm , here is some interesting stuff I found here



_______vehicle _____________cty/hwy___greenhouse gas emissions tons/year

1985 Mustang GT 5.0 /manual----15/22--------10.2
1995 Mustang GT 5.0 /manual----15/23--------10.2
2010 Mustang GT 4.6 /manual----16/24---------9.6
2010 Mustang GT 5.4 /manual----14/22--------10.8

2010 Expedition__5.4/auto-------12/17--------13.1
1996 Bronco_____5.8/auto-------11/15--------15.2
1985 Bronco_____5.8/auto/3spd--10/12--------16.6
and my favorite - 300 six
1985 Bronco----- 4.9/auto-------15/20*-------11.4

it seems that there has been no major increase in fuel mileage , but they run cleaner.
* after 86 , all the other years of Bronco with the 4.9 six got 13/17 mpg. Not sure what was up with the 85-86 models getting 15/20.

 

[broncnaz]

Hoosier,

I agree that the shape of our Broncos was designed when the aerodynamics engineer was out hungover. It just seems to me that a modern V8 engine, designed with efficiency in mind can get better MPG than a 302 or 351. Probably costs more, but hey it's different and there's only one way to find out...


Also for what it's worth, the curb weight of a Tundra is about 1k pounds more than that of our Broncos as well. Oh well, just an idea at this point for both my wallet and knowledge say, no!

Back in the 60's areodynamics was really only factored into to cars that were used for racing. Trucks are just trucks not expected to get good mileage. In all reality yesterdays engines and today engines are not all that different when you get right down to it. Most of whats different is the control provided by computers. Take a old engine and build it for mileage and add a good EFI setup and you'll find it no different than todays engines.
From what I've seen of the 4.7 tundra it doesnt get that great of mileage 15-19 maybe a little more actual. even with 1K less weight of a bronco you still have to deal with the areodynamics which suck more mileage than weight does. And like so many small engines the 4.7 makes the bulk of its power at 4-5000 RPM.

Sorry TOFIC for getting slightly offtrack. Hard to say what the 80's Ranger diesel would do problem is finding one. Second is that they didnt make much power the early 2.2 only made about 60 hp and 90 ft lbs. the later 2.3 made 86 hp and 134 ft lbs better but still below what even a 170 6 banger makes but gas mileage in the ranger was like 28 city and 32 hiway Still not sure how it would be pushing a bronco but it might get you in the 20's. If you could score one one of the newer rangers sold overseas have a 2.5L diesel thats not to bad.