Our "OTHER" ford IDI

[david85]

This truck is actually my sister's but I rebuilt and installed a 2.3 turbo diesel in it (my first engine actually). I've mentioned it a few times before but never posted pics until now since I borrowed it to run an errand.

Dad and I were going to head over to home depot for some bags of cement. Last time we used my truck since his is always packed with tools under the canopy. Then looking at the tight walkway in the yard I figured I could thread the needle and drive the truck right to the gates of the court yard where we had to carry them last time. There is a steep climb up to the walkway and a very tight turn at the top - not gonna happen with my big 2wd truck but I figured the little ranger could do it.

Ended up buying twenty 30kg bags (1300lbs) and it was just barely enough to level the truck. Yup - its a ford

Was funny because I drove up to the loading zone and there was a Suzuki crewcab pickup (Nissan frontier clone by the look of it), the guy bought 2 bags of cement and an tiny little potted plant while pop and I were heaving our load in.

In fairness, the truck is sitting on near new F150 springs in the back. Same length and width as original but they have a taller arch and higher spring rate compared to the original ranger springs. The original springs were utterly trashed thanks to the PO's use of "helper" springs.

Poor little thing doesn't get driven much lately now that sis is out of the country, but I exercise it for her when ever I get the chance. Some day it may be sporting a full iron MB engine but for now its still a fun little helper to have around and has enough power to get the job done. Just put it in low range and it turns into a nice little tractor that can pull and maneuver better than any other truck or even compact car. Of course, once the snow hits.........heehee it does ok, but the mall security guard wasn't impressed

You must be registered for see images attach

You must be registered for see images attach

You must be registered for see images attach

You must be registered for see images attach

You must be registered for see images attach

 

[fx4wannabe]

That is a sweet little truck. I have a ranger that body style but mine is a reg cab 4 banger. Good truck though. I may have to look into a diesel swap though. Nice rig.

 

[GOOSE]

Yeah, our government won't let us have those trucks here in the states. Some free country. Looks really clean for its vintage. Betcha it doubled the rice rockets fuel mileage on 25+ year old technology.

 

[david85]

The truck was redone about 8 years ago. Originally it was some typical 80s 2 tone brown/yellow. Colors on it now are hand picked out of a dodge color book. I've actually seen the odd dakota that has the same color scheme. Problem is we did a few things wrong and some rust is showing through again now. Box will probably get replaced some day.

Fuel economy is ok but keep in mind we're running 235 tires on it, with taller springs, a high rise canopy AND rack on top. I think it averages 25 MPG but can pass 30 depending on the conditions. The original 2.9 EFI (non EGR) gave up to 25 MPG on a good day, but that was on smaller tires. I put new injector nozzles in it, but have no way to know what the pop off pressures are. Chances are they are far from ideal. But it still runs ok. Really clean with the aneriod on the injector pump......or really dirty if you mess with the external fuel screw. It will roast the tires with the fuel turned up but without a pyro and an expensive aluminum head I figured it was better safe than sorry.

Rangers from late 1985-1987 had the turbo diesel as an option. To my knowledge 4wd was an option but extra cab might not have been, and 5 speed was the only available transmission. Something original thats 2wd and uses stock tires with a should be able to pass 40 MPG with the right driver.

Its really hard to get good tips on this engine compared to the 6.9/7.3 series though. Hardly anybody bothers modding them because they are so rare in our hemisphere. The more I learned, the more I realized that while its not a poorly designed engine, its not what I would call bullet proof or easy to build up on the cheap.

 

[The Warden]

Yeah, our government won't let us have those trucks here in the states. Some free country.

Actually, there was a time in the '80's when a diesel was an option in the Ranger in the U.S. I think the availability was in the same year range in the U.S. as in Canada, and IIRC Ford stopped producing it due to lack of demand, not any government crackdown. If the Wikipedia article means anything, you could get one in the U.S. from '83 (when the Ranger came out) until at least '85...

IIRC you could also get a diesel in the early Escorts and Tempos...and, again, they were discontinued due to lack of demand (note how rare it is to find one these days...I've only ever seen 3 or 4 of them)

 

[towcat]

Actually, there was a time in the '80's when a diesel was an option in the Ranger in the U.S. I think the availability was in the same year range in the U.S. as in Canada, and IIRC Ford stopped producing it due to lack of demand, not any government crackdown. If the Wikipedia article means anything, you could get one in the U.S. from '83 (when the Ranger came out) until at least '85...

IIRC you could also get a diesel in the early Escorts and Tempos...and, again, they were discontinued due to lack of demand (note how rare it is to find one these days...I've only ever seen 3 or 4 of them)

they didn't die due to the lack of demand, they died due to the fact they were built in the shadow of the GM passenger diesel debacle. Ford decided it was a really good idea to do the same thing in producing a unreliable POS.

 

[The Warden]

they didn't die due to the lack of demand, they died due to the fact they were built in the shadow of the GM passenger diesel debacle. Ford decided it was a really good idea to do the same thing in producing a unreliable POS.

Oh, didn't know they were that unreliable I've never worked on one, so no idea how stout they were or weren't...but I still stand by my intended point that, contrary to what some may think, they weren't regulated out of existence.

One way or another, I still contend that the GM diesel debacle set North America at least 30 years back in terms of accepting diesels (and, yes, I'm still mad at GM over that). I hope all of these new offerings mark a turnaround in that, but I'm not holding my breath, either...

 

[david85]

I suspect it was a little of both. The original truck that came with the diesel engine had absolutely no emission controls just like it's 6.9 powered big brothers of the era and we know that the full size diesels of that era got a free ride from their higher GVWR in terms of emissions all the way up to 2007 when the final crackdown happened. Vehicles below 8600 GVWR however had to meet tougher standards. I suspect it was possible to meet those standards but chances are ford (and others) figured it wasn't worth their while to even try anymore. Keep in mind, this was not a ford built engine but instead built buy an off shore supplier so it likely was not as profitable as the ford engine powered counterparts while still having a higher price.

What should also be mentioned is the ranger was powered by a 2.2L mazda diesel before using this turbocharged mitsubishi diesel later on. The 2.2 was naturally aspirated and hopelessly underpowered and probably even "stinkier". By reading the experience of people that still own rare survivors of those trucks they are very slow and have a hard time even reaching 60 MPH let alone setting a respectable 0-60 time.

By the time this newer turbo powered diesel ranger came out, no doubt there was some skepticism as to weather it could possibly have enough power and was clean burning enough to be worth buying in an era of increasing EFI gas engines. Having compared it directly to the best gas engine available at the time, the EFI 2.9 V6, the answer is absolutely, but it was introduced in the shadow of the GM diesels as well as the shadow of its own earlier version.

I seem to remember that there was a rule change in terms of emissions/GVW rating that would have made the diesel rangers more difficult to sell right around 1987. We know the EPA is notorious for doing this and it s one of the reasons that light duty pickups like the F series had a way to get larger and heavier over time. A lot of people may not realize that but its one reason the F100 was phased out in the early 80s and why the more recent F150s became half tons in name only by the time the 2004 F150 was introduced.

As far as reliability is concerned, they were not unreliable and the mitsubishi 4D5 series of engine have powered light pickups, cars and vans almost anywhere in the world for nearly 30 years running. This series of engine is actually more successful than our beloved IDI series. Just anywhere but north america is were you can still find them running around.

 

[david85]

Well we did it again this long weekend.

Although after looking at the level stance of the truck with 15 bags, we put another 15 in. 900kg or 1984.5lbs total - No idea what the stock payload is supposed to be . Once again we were the smallest truck at Home Depo hauling the biggest load. I know its not much compared to a heavy F250 diesel and it will never be able to move as much as my beast, but considering this thing is about as nimble as a jeep I think its done alright. Don't care what you say, they don't make compact trucks this small that can still be worked so hard anymore. Note the lack of frame flex despite being loaded down so much. Thats not a boxed frame under there either.

Now the truck was squatting but still ok with nearly 2000lbs in it. Biggest problem was the tall 1st gear and getting it moving was a bit of a challenge on uphill starts. The last 2 stop signs I moved off in low range and that helped a lot. Felt like driving a mini-mac with so much shifting just to get to 25 MPH. Much easier on the clutch though and it will do up to 35 in 5th gear in low range so its fine for stop and go traffic in my town.

Crawling up that ramp to the walk way in our yard took 2 attempts but it pulled it off like before.

First picture shows it loaded while the second last picture shows it resting empty for reference.

 

[dudly]

Hi
I've got two of these Rangers with the 4d55t engines in them. I can't believe someone would call them an unreliable pos. Both of these trucks have over 300 000 k on them and have never been rebuilt. Maybe that's why the engines fetch such high dollars on Ebay etc. (as high as $2500) As far as rebuild expense I recently purchased all the parts to rebuild a 4d55t for just under $200. That's rods, mains ,rings, gaskets, two sets of timing belts, and more. Just shop around the deals are out there. All the parts are north american brand name and not Chinese junk.

 

[david85]

Welcome to the forum.

Not sure if you are refering directly to remarks made on this thread, but I think these are pretty good engines. Only knocks I have against it are the timing belt setup and the aluminum head but as you point out, they can still run a long time as long as they are well cared for. I do wish I was able to find a rebuild kit for that cheap though. Part availability has gotten a lot better in recent years with all the japanese delica imports though.

 

[87crewdually]

Where's the underhood shots?

 

[SparkandFire]

I like the iron MB engine idea! i would like to get my hands on a diesel ranger and do the same thing, unfortunately there aren't that many diesel rangers out there, and in california you could never get away converting a gas vehicle requiring smog checks over to diesel... at least I SURE wouldn't want to try and get that past the DMV...

 

[Agnem]

This thread makes me miss my 86' Ranger with a 2.3L gasser. That truck was at 280K and running strong when it was scrapped at age 17 due to excessive rust and the inability to pass state inspection. Reliability of that rig was tremendous. Very little maintanance was done on it, I'm ashamed to admit. I once went 10,000 miles on an oil change. I chased trains in it, or dirt rutted and pot holed roads at 60 MPH, did Dukes of Hazzard style jumps with it and it survived 2 or 3 wrecks. You could NOT kill that thing. And while it was not real good at getting out of its own way, the low end torque was such that it would idle up hill in first, and you could count the individual power strokes at 300 RPM. Multiport fuel injection (first generation too). Changed the spark plugs twice. The clutch and trans fluid... never. Put a timing belt on it every 50,000 to appease the gods. It ate a lot of exhaust systems though. The Rangers had all the good qualties of the F-series, but since they were lighter, they were like ants. Very strong for their size.

 

[david85]

Very tough for their size, they are basically a scaled down F150 but a lot of the parts are not really scaled down by much. The truck that the engine came out of was a 2wd and shared the same ball joint style twin forged I beam as my F150 but scaled down. I've heard of stamped steel channel beams even on 2wd trucks but to date have seen none in the flesh.

I've heard good things about the 2.3 but no first hand experience with them. Sounds to me like the ranger equivalent to the 4.9L six.