Post by DieselDangerRanger on Sept 11, 2021 8:06:23 GMT -5
Never in my travels have I seen or heard of a diesel '84 4x4 Ranger in canada. Perhaps any literature was alluding to the 4x4 mitsubishi that was to come.
Though it's what you call a necropost to wade in so far on, it's an interesting question and conversation. Surprised I hadn't chimed in already. And, I'm undertaking a mitsubishi 4x4 Ranger build project. And though I haven't jumped ship from the s2 (I get to start her up from time to time while she awaits a new cab), I, like Ford America's light pickup division in 1983, am eyeing the zippy turbo diesel mitsubishi for powering a 4x4 Ranger.
Although largely unpalatable to most people, the post-oil embargo drive for efficiency was motivation for amoung other things, the S2 in mazdas and rangers. The modern mitsubishi was supposed to broaden the appeal with it's silent shaft vibration reduction and turbo power and was stuffed in the Ranger as well as the mitsubishi/Dodge.
Managment at ford must have been kicking themselves when eying the D50/mighty max and the Chev LUV/PUP in '83. But sticking with the S2 would have been a better option to plant the seed of diesel small cars in the north americas. You know, there was no period hereabouts where perkins diesels powered taxis in New York to "condition" folks. Motor city America was gasoline, and diesel was for working and farms equipment.
But, the tractor like truck could have expanded from it's niche with farmers and country folk and better maintenance success would have expanded the capacities for diesel in automotive repair industry. But we got to muse over the 4d55 with its scary looking injection pump and associated claptrap (on the ranger especially). There was this wax motor driven cold start/high idle doohickey that was a rats nest of coolant hoses, levers, springs and leaking diesel, and what was a cold start advance anyway? The belt driven pump/valvetrain and silent shafts are hardly accessible. Ford had some funky stuff on there that made it a more expensive and complicated option, while the mighty max and d50 did better design work. It was a huge departure from the simplicity and accessibility of the s2 in the ranger and failed many a penny pincher. They thought they had to play catch-up and said, "we'll do it more better". diesel ford 1/4 ton vehicles lost at that juncture because of the lack of general capacity for maintaining the scary modern diesel they had created.
The Chev luv, Chevette. The Ford Tempo/Topaz diesels have faded from consciousness. The mazda built hackney carriage engine thanks to some expediency, resides here pretty resolutely. Just not in a convenient 4x4 form.... unless you've got a dana 20 kicking around and an eye for fabrication.
The 4d55 evolved into a broadly successful and reliable powerplant still built and sold today. I will have skipped some of the learning curve when I started with a 4d56t powered japanese market van, perhaps, and I hope to avoid some of the pitfalls of the version offered in the Ranger with a blend of the two 4d5 iterations. the 56 along with being stroked, got roller rockers and cam improvements on it's improved aluminum head, an updated oil pump, better turbos. But also pesky EGR. This improved version didn't make it to the North Americas, why? perhaps in part due to the experience with the 2.3l.
The follow up question is, "What was the reason for dropping the diesels altogether"?
Though it's what you call a necropost to wade in so far on, it's an interesting question and conversation. Surprised I hadn't chimed in already. And, I'm undertaking a mitsubishi 4x4 Ranger build project. And though I haven't jumped ship from the s2 (I get to start her up from time to time while she awaits a new cab), I, like Ford America's light pickup division in 1983, am eyeing the zippy turbo diesel mitsubishi for powering a 4x4 Ranger.
Although largely unpalatable to most people, the post-oil embargo drive for efficiency was motivation for amoung other things, the S2 in mazdas and rangers. The modern mitsubishi was supposed to broaden the appeal with it's silent shaft vibration reduction and turbo power and was stuffed in the Ranger as well as the mitsubishi/Dodge.
Managment at ford must have been kicking themselves when eying the D50/mighty max and the Chev LUV/PUP in '83. But sticking with the S2 would have been a better option to plant the seed of diesel small cars in the north americas. You know, there was no period hereabouts where perkins diesels powered taxis in New York to "condition" folks. Motor city America was gasoline, and diesel was for working and farms equipment.
But, the tractor like truck could have expanded from it's niche with farmers and country folk and better maintenance success would have expanded the capacities for diesel in automotive repair industry. But we got to muse over the 4d55 with its scary looking injection pump and associated claptrap (on the ranger especially). There was this wax motor driven cold start/high idle doohickey that was a rats nest of coolant hoses, levers, springs and leaking diesel, and what was a cold start advance anyway? The belt driven pump/valvetrain and silent shafts are hardly accessible. Ford had some funky stuff on there that made it a more expensive and complicated option, while the mighty max and d50 did better design work. It was a huge departure from the simplicity and accessibility of the s2 in the ranger and failed many a penny pincher. They thought they had to play catch-up and said, "we'll do it more better". diesel ford 1/4 ton vehicles lost at that juncture because of the lack of general capacity for maintaining the scary modern diesel they had created.
The Chev luv, Chevette. The Ford Tempo/Topaz diesels have faded from consciousness. The mazda built hackney carriage engine thanks to some expediency, resides here pretty resolutely. Just not in a convenient 4x4 form.... unless you've got a dana 20 kicking around and an eye for fabrication.
The 4d55 evolved into a broadly successful and reliable powerplant still built and sold today. I will have skipped some of the learning curve when I started with a 4d56t powered japanese market van, perhaps, and I hope to avoid some of the pitfalls of the version offered in the Ranger with a blend of the two 4d5 iterations. the 56 along with being stroked, got roller rockers and cam improvements on it's improved aluminum head, an updated oil pump, better turbos. But also pesky EGR. This improved version didn't make it to the North Americas, why? perhaps in part due to the experience with the 2.3l.
The follow up question is, "What was the reason for dropping the diesels altogether"?