>>I would appreciate knowing if and when the Ranger 4 cylinder engine
>> changed from a cam timing belt to a cam chain. Thanks.
>
> They changed to a timing chain in 2002 when they went to the DOHC 4
> cylinder engine. Gates doesn't list a timing belt for a Ranger 4 cylinder
> after the 2001 Model year.
Well i'll be, yer right on part of that.. For the 2.3L DOHC they changed to
a chain drive in 2001, but the 2.5L maintained the belt drive of the older
2.3L SOHC engines.
My bad, last night I didnt feel like researching the question and threw
something out off the top of my head... Anyway, there are still belt drives
out there, just not on the 2.3L DOHC engines, only the 2.5L SOHC..
Ford Tech
> Ed
C. E. White - 26 Feb 2007 17:09 GMT
> Well i'll be, yer right on part of that.. For the 2.3L DOHC they
> changed to a chain drive in 2001, but the 2.5L maintained the belt
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> still belt drives out there, just not on the 2.3L DOHC engines, only
> the 2.5L SOHC..
Well you are right, but you are wrong - prior to 2002 both the 2.3L
and 2.5L 4's got timing belts. For the 2001 model , the 2.3L DOHC
engine was released and it had a timing chain. The 2.5L engine was
dropped altogether for the 2002 model year and beyond. So there are no
2002-on Rangers with timing belts. In 2001 if your truck has a 2.5L
engine (vin code C), it has a belt. If it has a 2.3L engine (vin code
D), it has a chain.
2.3L SOHC : to 1997 had a timing belt. (there was no 2.3L engine for
1998-2000)
2.5L SOHC: 1998-2001 had a timing belt
2.3L DOHC: 2001-on had a timing chain
Ed
Larry Webber - 27 Feb 2007 00:02 GMT
>> Well i'll be, yer right on part of that.. For the 2.3L DOHC they
>> changed to a chain drive in 2001, but the 2.5L maintained the belt
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
> Ed
Thanks guys,
From my perspective this is good news and puts the newer Rangers into my
list of trucks to consider. I was never fond of cam timing belts and yes
I have had problems with them breaking before the recommended mileage when
they are recommended to be changed (Chrysler products grr!).
Larry
Whitelightning - 27 Feb 2007 01:38 GMT
> From my perspective this is good news and puts the newer Rangers into my
> list of trucks to consider. I was never fond of cam timing belts and yes
> I have had problems with them breaking before the recommended mileage when
> they are recommended to be changed (Chrysler products grr!).
>
> Larry
I liked timing belts good money makers. Ford 2.3 and 2.5 change in 30
minutes, chrysler
2.2 in under 45 minutes.. And with the exceptinion of one model of the 2.3
in the
mid 80s, they weren't crashers. Eagles on the other hand were a royal pain
in the back side. Hyundais, Mitsubishis were always risky because the
crankshaft was soft and the key way for the crankgear on the crank would
wear, and the "flats" for the gear would round making timing nearly
impossible. I always figured no more than 50,000 miles for belts, thats 10k
sooner than recommended. Some chain driven make work very difficult. Alfo
Rameo chains are bear to work with , two cam gears, two balance shafts,
another running the distributor. Early Datsun motors were a pain because of
the tensioner, if you weren't careful it would fall into the oil pan when
you were trying to remove a head, a common occurance as they loved to blow
head gaskets. They all have their pros and cons. Chains need lube, and
over time they do stretch. Ford used to recommend replace timing chains on
their V-8 engines at 50,000 miles, this all the way up into the 80's. Since
the water pumps usually puked about the same time, and the long bolts going
through the timing cover liked to seize in the housing, just another step at
water pump time since the cover had to come off to repair the broken bolts.
MMM maybe ford was thinking when the bolts siezed. I have seen ford chains
stretched so far that when the cover was removed you could slide a pencil
between the chain and the crankgear, why it didnt jump time is any ones
guess.
I will say this especially with replacement belts, most premature failures
were caused by over tension on the belts.
Whitelightning
CJB - 28 Feb 2007 17:31 GMT
>>>I would appreciate knowing if and when the Ranger 4 cylinder engine
>>> changed from a cam timing belt to a cam chain. Thanks.
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> Ford Tech
He didn't make an excuse, but here's why Ford Tech answered like he did .
The current 2.3 is not technically a Ford engine; not that I'm complaining.
The previous "Lima" engine was a world beater in terms of durability, and
was not an interference engine anyway. That means that it would not break
anything if the timing belt broke. When our friend Ford Tech spoke up, he
was no doubt thinking about the much more familiar Lima 2.0, 2.3 and 2.5
engines, than the newer borrowed 2.3.
Frankly, I'd rather have the Lima 2.3/2.5 for durability than just about any
other engine Ford's produced. They're on par with the 4.9 I6.
CJB
Larry Webber - 01 Mar 2007 02:43 GMT
>>>>I would appreciate knowing if and when the Ranger 4 cylinder engine
>>>> changed from a cam timing belt to a cam chain. Thanks.
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>
> CJB
CJB,
Interesting information on the current 2.3. If it is not a Ford engine,
may I inquire who does produce it? I have been away from Rangers for some
years so I am really out of touch with the current product. I do like the
little truck though and would consider a new one - if the durability and
reliability are there. Knowing who produces the engine will help me
research this important aspect of the truck.
I prefer a manual transmission and would also be interested in how robust
this is. For the record about all I would pull is a little teardrop trailer
with a maximum weight (loaded) of about 800 lbs. My current truck, a 2002
Nissan Frontier 4 cylinder manual transmission, pulls it effortlessly.
Thanks,
Larry
C. E. White - 01 Mar 2007 12:53 GMT
> Interesting information on the current 2.3. If it is not a Ford
> engine,
> may I inquire who does produce it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Duratec_engine#Duratec_23
Ed
Larry Webber - 02 Mar 2007 00:43 GMT
>> Interesting information on the current 2.3. If it is not a Ford
>> engine,
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Ed
Thanks Ed.
Larry
CJB - 01 Mar 2007 23:53 GMT
>>>>>I would appreciate knowing if and when the Ranger 4 cylinder engine
>>>>> changed from a cam timing belt to a cam chain. Thanks.
[quoted text clipped - 45 lines]
>
> Larry
You no doubt saw the link to the engine info.
As to the transmission, it's the same M5OD Mazda unit they've been
installing, with minor tweaks, since the late 80's. Behind your 2.3, it'll
be fine. They used a heavier duty version of the same trans in the F-150,
so it's been around a while. I'm not a big fan of it on more powerful apps,
but I've never had a failure in my 4 Rangers.
CJB
Larry Webber - 02 Mar 2007 00:49 GMT
>>>>>>I would appreciate knowing if and when the Ranger 4 cylinder engine
>>>>>> changed from a cam timing belt to a cam chain. Thanks.
[quoted text clipped - 55 lines]
>
> CJB
Thank you for the information CJB.
Larry