4 cyl. cam timing belt

As far as I can recall it never did... Its always been a belt.. Now are you talkin bout the 2.3L??? There is also the 2.5L in some rangers.. Either way, its a belt, not a chain.. Why would you think it had a chain?

Ford Tech

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.

Ed

Because they changed to a chain when they went to the DOHC head.

Ed

Good grief...

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

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

I was not sure. I am more familiar with Nissan and Toyota and both moved away from cam timing belts some years ago. I was wondering about the current 2.3L offering.

Larru

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

"Larry Webber" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com...

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

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

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

Ed

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

Thanks Ed.

Larry

Thank you for the information CJB.

Larry