|
Post by 83rangerguy on Dec 24, 2013 19:51:20 GMT -5
Why did Ford switch from the Mazda built 2.2 Perkins to the 2.3 Mitsu after only 2yrs of production? was it simply a matter of more HP/TQ that was available with the turbo powered 2.3 Mitsu?
I realize the 2.2 Mazda/Perkins is a bit underpowered for the Ranger application, but IMO it's a much more bulletproof diesel than the 2.3 Mitsu, built for longevity and dependability.
Is the 2.2 better suited for a tractor, forklift, skid steer, etc., probably so, but I think it's pretty cool they found their way into Rangers (and B2200's) for at least a few years.
|
|
|
Post by westcoaster on Dec 26, 2013 1:54:13 GMT -5
I think it's a case of ford just being ford...
Even in their larger trucks (f250/f350) they seem to have difficulty making a commitment to any sort of displacement
Then again the 6.0 fiasco really set them on their heels. One can't really blame them for dumping that and going with their own....
|
|
|
Post by montana on Dec 26, 2013 14:28:26 GMT -5
The 2.3 Mitsubishi didn't last much longer than the 2.2 Mazda, just one year longer. In the early 80's diesels were a hard sell, they just never really caught on with the American public, they had a reputation for being noisy and dirty, gas was still less than a dollar so fuel economy wasn't a factor. That's my best guess why Ford abandoned the diesel Ranger, at least in the American market. www.therangerstation.com/tech_library/Diesels.htm
|
|
|
Post by mazdadieselsrewl on Dec 26, 2013 14:37:25 GMT -5
This is a no brainer. The Mazda engine is far superior to the crap Mitsu engine that was prone to issues. Head gaskets being the worst. The Mazda engine was simpler but Ford even screwed that up by using their own garbage alternator with a vacuum pump piggy backed on top of it instead of using the Mazda alternator and keeping it simple, not to mention all the other garbage they piled on it. The trouble with the Mazda engine in the Ford was although it was slow in the B2200 truck it was dismal in the Ford and I think that hurt sales. The turbo Mitsu engine had more power and was a little lighter I think but it wasnt smoother. They had to use it once they offered the diesel in 4X4 which would have had moped like power in a 4X4 if they still used the Mazda engine. Of course this all could have been avoided had they turbo charged the Mazda engine from the start. The Mazda engine is best all round but even though Ive had both B2200 and Rangers I still prefer the Mazda truck as its lighter and tighter and drives better than the spongy Ranger and seems to be more reliable over time and is simpler all the way around.
|
|
|
Post by 83rangerguy on Dec 26, 2013 16:16:43 GMT -5
Good info guys....there's no doubt the 2.2 Perkins is superior to the 2.3 Mitsu, but what are the weak links to the 2.2, if there are any?
After reading a lot of the old threads on here I don't really see a common failure of any one specific component. If I had to choose something I suppose the glowplug system is a weak link, it seems to fail on a lot of trucks, but it's not really engine specific.
|
|
|
Post by tempforce on Dec 27, 2013 8:28:31 GMT -5
weak links.... the need to adjust the valves on a regular schedule... lack of power in a road vehicle.
if ford would of installed the mazda/perkins turbo engine, they wouldn't of needed to do any upgrades.... but they didn't want to spend the money. thus the lighter, more powerful, un-reliable misubishi engine...
the big push was due to the price of fuel doubling.... just as it would today if fuel prices doubled... remember inflation, prices go up along with any wages.. but the oil prices shot up, making it almost impossible for paycheck to paycheck workers able to afford to get to work. it was cheaper to swap vehicles than mess with fuel lines and extreme high priced fuel... (minimum wage was around 3.50/hr back then.).. hamburger in a nice restaurant was only a couple bucks... steak dinner for just over $5.... in case you never heard, during the embargo, we could only buy 10 gallons per every other day... unless you had time to sit in a line twice... the lines usually were so long, it would take between 1/2 to 1.5 hours to get your 10 gallons.. then when fuel became available the prices jumped from 42 cents, to 55, then to 75, then up to 1.05 and in some places 1.20/gallon all within a year... with no increase in wages.. interest rates went as high as 18% for house loans and for appliances it was even higher... up to 26%... so things wasn't fun financially...
when i was a teenager, i could fill a 25 gallon fuel tank for less than $5. and i made $6/hr. throwing bales of hay... i was in heaven..... (a friend was making $3.75/hr working in a store)....
just think, filling your full sized vehicle with fuel and (getting 15 mpg) for less than a hours work... being able to stomp on the gas and be pushed firmly back into the seat. while your tires were shredding.... tires were cheap and didn't last more than 10,000 miles... until radial tires came on the market...
|
|
mike
Junior Member
Posts: 86
|
Post by mike on Dec 28, 2013 12:30:50 GMT -5
weak links.... the need to adjust the valves on a regular schedule... lack of power in a road vehicle. if ford would of installed the mazda/perkins turbo engine, they wouldn't of needed to do any upgrades.... but they didn't want to spend the money. thus the lighter, more powerful, un-reliable misubishi engine... the big push was due to the price of fuel doubling.... just as it would today if fuel prices doubled... remember inflation, prices go up along with any wages.. but the oil prices shot up, making it almost impossible for paycheck to paycheck workers able to afford to get to work. it was cheaper to swap vehicles than mess with fuel lines and extreme high priced fuel... (minimum wage was around 3.50/hr back then.).. hamburger in a nice restaurant was only a couple bucks... steak dinner for just over $5.... in case you never heard, during the embargo, we could only buy 10 gallons per every other day... unless you had time to sit in a line twice... the lines usually were so long, it would take between 1/2 to 1.5 hours to get your 10 gallons.. then when fuel became available the prices jumped from 42 cents, to 55, then to 75, then up to 1.05 and in some places 1.20/gallon all within a year... with no increase in wages.. interest rates went as high as 18% for house loans and for appliances it was even higher... up to 26%... so things wasn't fun financially... when i was a teenager, i could fill a 25 gallon fuel tank for less than $5. and i made $6/hr. throwing bales of hay... i was in heaven..... (a friend was making $3.75/hr working in a store).... just think, filling your full sized vehicle with fuel and (getting 15 mpg) for less than a hours work... being able to stomp on the gas and be pushed firmly back into the seat. while your tires were shredding.... tires were cheap and didn't last more than 10,000 miles... until radial tires came on the market... didn't happen to be sitting in a rocking chair smoking a pipe doing violent hand gestures while you told that story did ya gramps? ;D A times they have a changed.
|
|
|
Post by dieseldawg on Dec 29, 2013 4:34:35 GMT -5
weak links.... the need to adjust the valves on a regular schedule... lack of power in a road vehicle. if ford would of installed the mazda/perkins turbo engine, they wouldn't of needed to do any upgrades.... but they didn't want to spend the money. thus the lighter, more powerful, un-reliable misubishi engine... the big push was due to the price of fuel doubling.... just as it would today if fuel prices doubled... remember inflation, prices go up along with any wages.. but the oil prices shot up, making it almost impossible for paycheck to paycheck workers able to afford to get to work. it was cheaper to swap vehicles than mess with fuel lines and extreme high priced fuel... (minimum wage was around 3.50/hr back then.).. hamburger in a nice restaurant was only a couple bucks... steak dinner for just over $5.... in case you never heard, during the embargo, we could only buy 10 gallons per every other day... unless you had time to sit in a line twice... the lines usually were so long, it would take between 1/2 to 1.5 hours to get your 10 gallons.. then when fuel became available the prices jumped from 42 cents, to 55, then to 75, then up to 1.05 and in some places 1.20/gallon all within a year... with no increase in wages.. interest rates went as high as 18% for house loans and for appliances it was even higher... up to 26%... so things wasn't fun financially... when i was a teenager, i could fill a 25 gallon fuel tank for less than $5. and i made $6/hr. throwing bales of hay... i was in heaven..... (a friend was making $3.75/hr working in a store).... just think, filling your full sized vehicle with fuel and (getting 15 mpg) for less than a hours work... being able to stomp on the gas and be pushed firmly back into the seat. while your tires were shredding.... tires were cheap and didn't last more than 10,000 miles... until radial tires came on the market... Thanks, Tempforce, for reminding me of the time in my life when we all worked, except for a few older folks who were retired. You remind me of the type of person who was asked for advice, you know, the older, experienced guy. I appreciate your input, it has saved me time, money, and made fixing these old trucks a lot easier.
|
|
mike
Junior Member
Posts: 86
|
Post by mike on Dec 29, 2013 6:03:16 GMT -5
Thanks, Tempforce, for reminding me of the time in my life when we all worked, except for a few older folks who were retired. You remind me of the type of person who was asked for advice, you know, the older, experienced guy. I appreciate your input, it has saved me time, money, and made fixing these old trucks a lot easier. [/quote]
You guys sound a lot like one of my neighbors, Though I don't imagine your this old. He's 86 and he is still building houses by himself. I did not witness those times. From what I've heard though, things were much simpler. I do hope my previous message was conveyed with humor not a lack of respect.
|
|
|
Post by dieseldawg on Dec 29, 2013 6:42:00 GMT -5
No, Mike, my response was just one old guy thanking another old guy who lived the same kind of life. I hope I didn't offend any younger folks, I seek advice from young and old, alike.
|
|
|
Post by moroza on Dec 30, 2013 21:19:50 GMT -5
I'm a mechanic who's worked long-term on a couple of Mitsubishis with the 4D55T, one 2WD '84 and one 4WD '83, and more recently an '82 Mazda B2200. Here's my experience and perspective:
The Mitsubishi engine is smoother and quieter than the Perkins, especially with factory injection timing and proper coolant (yes, this makes a difference; liner cavitation appears to cause noise as well as physical erosion). It's no Mercedes diesel, but as far as NVH it's not far behind a typical 80's gasser pickup truck. In '83 the non-wastegated turbo gave it decent but peaky power. In 84 and 85 a wastegate was added, which made it far more responsive at normal driving RPMs. Out of the box, its fuel economy is lackluster. With emissions equipment removed and the pump clocked a bit, the 4WD one would get 32mpg highway (doing 65), roughly 24 city. I've heard of healthy ones with more modern turbos getting over 40.
It's more maintenance-intensive, too. The turbos don't seem to last more than 100k and that's with proper cool-down after driving. The valves need to be adjusted just like on the Perkins, albeit less often and with less frequent consequences (lower compression ratio = more margin of error). When overheated, the headgaskets blow and the aluminum heads can warp. The main timing belt needs to be replaced every so often, as does the balanceshaft belt, which if it snaps will take out the main timing belt and thence some engine internals (rocker arms appear to be the weak link). Piston ring sealing seems another weak point. The '83 4WD had a "recent" (5 years?) rebuild and blows so much oil vapor that it's been decomissioned while the owners save up for another engine rebuild. The '84 2WD has 170k and reasonable maintenance, and is down to 320psi hot, also with a little oil burning.
The Perkins is a tractor engine, noise and vibrations and all. For the average consumer, it is simply too crude a character even back in the early 80's. As for power, mine feels like it's got the same 85hp as the '84 Mitsi, but it blows black smoke so I suspect it's overfueling. Apart from valve adjustments, it appears to be less of a maintenance hog than the 4D55. I suspect that making owners change timing belts and turbos was one of the reasons for the switch to the Mitsubishi, but NVH could've easily been the main one. I also point out the lack of emissions equipment on the 4.135. Even the '83 Mitsi has a "timing retard device" on California models, and the '84 had EGR and other vacuum-powered contraptions. I speculate that getting the Perkins to meet rapidly changing emissions regulations would've pushed its already anemic power figures to downright unacceptable levels.
I've never heard of a factory turbocharged version of the Mazda/Perkins engine. Is there one?
|
|
|
Post by mazdadieselsrewl on Jan 1, 2014 11:27:43 GMT -5
I dont think emissions played a part in replacing the Mazda engine,it was more a performance issue and maybe cost. Im sure the overbuilt Mazda/Perkins was still more than the Mitsu for Ford to buy. Ive always thought the Mazda engines actually burned pretty clean and efficient for non catalyst diesels. When everything is adjusted to specs the exhaust even has a cleaner diesel smell compared to the black puking VW Rabbit, Peugeot, and Mercedes diesels that met emission standards back then but smoked worse than most Jap diesel trucks. Ive said it the last 25 years that the perfect little diesel truck would have been the Mazda had they offered it with 4X4, king cab, and a turbo because the rest of the truck was built so reliably well. The cabs were just too small for tall people and these in 4X4 would have been unstopable in winter. These may exist overseas but Ive never seen anything confirming it. Bear in mind that at the time our trucks were built Mazda was a real Johnny come lately compared to their jap counterparts. They offered one cab size and NO 4X4 until the 1986 model year trucks. Whats also interesting is the diesel was an extra cost option in the Ford but was free in the Mazda. Prob the only time ever in a vehicle it was free. My list of free options on my new 83 Sundowner diesel was long with the only extra cost being $225.00 for that cheap Clarion AM/FM radio. LOL
|
|
|
Post by tempforce on Jan 2, 2014 8:25:37 GMT -5
actually i've seen and visited with someone who had a ranger 4x4 with the perkins engine in it.. he was looking for a transmission.. (4 speed issues have been covered elsewhere) have never seen a 80's mazda 4x4 with a diesel. i bought a 86 ranger with the mitsubishi 2.3 turbo diesel in it... tried to repair it. as someone didn't use lock tite when torqueing the cam retaining nut. to fix it, would of cost over $1000. as it needed a new head along with some valves and valve rockers... i did salvage a few parts off the truck. i found that the transmission wouldn't work with the perkins... :-( as i was hoping for a overdrive gear... the turbo with waste gate is on a shelf waiting for a manifold to be built, for the perkins. the frame and bed became a utility trailer... the perkins engine was available in heavy equipment and marine applications, some of those engines were equipped with turbos, with piston cooling... the perkins and the mazda engine parts interchange.... so if you need to rebuild, buy the rods with piston cooling nozzels.
|
|
|
Post by mazdadieselsrewl on Jan 2, 2014 9:34:17 GMT -5
Ive never seen any material in paper or online while looking up parts that claims Ford used the Mazda in anything 4X4. It simply states 2WD 4spd. In fact One of the Rangers I owned back then came with the owners manual that stated in small letters in back that a 5 spd trans was avail by special order only in the spec chart. And that was for 1984 only, wasnt avail in the 1983 models. That truck may have been a conversion as I have never seen a Mazda diesel trans adapted to a transfer case. Ive heard of a Bronco II 2WD diesel but that was a conversion years ago also.
|
|
|
Post by tempforce on Jan 10, 2014 6:39:52 GMT -5
actually i've seen the bronco II 4x4 (mazda/perkins) diesel sales sheet... never saw one on the road.... i have seen the ranger 4x4 with factory diesel it was a late '84'. if it was a home installed unit. it looked to have all of the factory items. the cold start cable, diesel dash gauges. under hood looked the same as my truck. i didn't look under to see if the transfer case was mated to the 4x2 transmission... the ranger could of been brought down from canada, as they had a larger selection of options, for their vehicles..
|
|