The old Ford Ranger is a legend in the truck world. These compact trucks will happily take all sorts of abuse for years while for many being far more practical than going full-size. Yet, those old trucks have long had a problem: You could get fuel economy in a Ranger or more power, but not both at the same time. The solution comes from somewhere you wouldn’t expect. Ranger owners are tossing out their old Ford engines and instead, they’re lowering in little diesel engines from Volkswagen.
The Ford Ranger was birthed out of Project Yuma, Ford’s plan to make a compact truck centered around a small engine, but still designed to be a real truck. At the same time, Ford knew that truck buyers of the 1980s weren’t going to buy the same poor-quality garbage that was shoveled out of the 1970s, so the new truck had to be as sturdy and well-built as a full-size truck. The new truck had to be aerodynamic, light, and frugal.
The first-generation Ford Ranger hit the road in 1982 and it smashed expectations. This was a truck that could still do real truck things, but when paired with a 2.0-liter four was able to get 28 mpg. The first-generation Ranger was also the first and only time Ford gave us a diesel Ranger. At best, Ford offered the Mitsubishi 4D55-T 2.3-liter turbodiesel, which netted 86 HP and 134 lb-ft of torque. Ford advertised as high as 41 mpg with the diesel, but EPA corrected numbers put that number down to 28 mpg.
Yet, even back then the Ranger had a bit of a problem. You had a choice of power or fuel economy, but not both. For example, a Ranger fitted with the 2.0-liter four got well over 20 mpg, but it had just 73 HP on tap and accelerated to 60 mph in a glacial 18.9 seconds. I don’t even want to imagine how much slower that would be with a trailer. That faster diesel still took 13 seconds to get the job done.
Ford did sell a more powerful version with the 4.0-liter Cologne OHV V6. These Rangers, which were sold during the 1991 and 1992 model years, made 160 HP and 225 lb-ft of torque. In my experience as someone who has owned a couple of Rangers and driven more, these trucks were great. There wasn’t an overwhelming amount of power on deck, but more than enough to get some mud on the tires, tow a trailer, and haul in the bed without worrying if you were going to make it up a hill.
A side benefit was a 60 mph acceleration time of around 9 or 10 seconds, which isn’t fast, but does practically halve the time of the oldest diesel and the 2.0-liter four. Unfortunately, all of that power came at a cost of fuel economy. A 1991 Ranger with that 4.0-liter engine and an automatic transmission got 19 mpg on the highway, which means some pain at the pump with a load, mods, or off-road driving.
The old-school Ranger got two more generations, one in 1993 and the other in 1998. Those future generations killed the diesel engine but continued the conundrum presented with the other engine choices.
Ford simplified the second-generation engine choices and now there were just three engines. At the bottom was the Pinto 2.3-liter engine, which made up to 112 HP and 135 lb-ft of torque. The middle engine was the 3.0-liter Vulcan V6, which made up to 145 HP and 165 lb-ft of torque. Finally, the 4.0-liter Cologne V6 punched out 160 HP and 225 lb-ft of torque.
In theory, you’d choose an engine based on what you were looking for. The Pinto was gutless, but it got great fuel economy while the Cologne sacrificed some fuel economy for power. I owned a 1997 Ranger with the 2.3-liter four and can confirm it was gutless. My Ranger was slow when it was empty and snails would beat it to 60 mph when it was loaded.
Yet, it was a charming truck. On one road trip home from Nevada I scored 30 mpg on the highway because my convoy went no faster than 60 mph. But even when we were doing 80 mph my truck still did a solid 22 mpg. Unfortunately, fuel economy and reliability were all my truck was good for. I tried to mount 30-inch all-terrain tires to the truck and the engine wheezed so hard my new top speed was 60 mph, and that was if I didn’t go higher than about fourth gear.
The third generation Ranger arrived in 1998. Once again, engine choices were limited. The base engine was a new 2.5-liter Pinto four good for 117 HP and 149 lb-ft of torque. However, by 2004 the Ranger got a 2.3-liter Duratec four making 143 HP and 154 lb-ft of torque. The top engine was initially the Cologne OHV 4.0-liter V6 making its return with the same power numbers as before. In 2001, it was replaced with the Cologne SOHC 4.0-liter V6 making 207 HP and 238 lb-ft of torque. The Vulcan V6 also came back as a middle child, but the third-generation Ranger was weird for the Vulcan because at times it made similar power as the four-cylinder.
I owned a 2000 Ford Ranger with a 4.0-liter V6. The power provided by the engine was great and I never really found myself asking for more. It even had enough ponies in the stable for me to mount 33-inch mud tires to the truck and still be able to go highway speed. Unfortunately, my truck was thirsty. It got 16 mpg stock and the big tires brought it down to 13 mpg. It was a small truck that drank like one of the big boys.
My friends with Vulcan trucks complained even more because as I said before, some model years made about the same power as a four-cylinder Ranger, but came with the penalty of V6 fuel economy. What’s worse is that some of them had to fight blown head gasket problems, something that the smaller fours and the larger sixes didn’t have as much trouble with.
According to the EPA, my truck achieved about the same fuel economy it should have before I added the tires. A guy with a Vulcan V6 in 2002 made 11 more HP and 27 more lb-ft of torque. However, 2×4 Vulcan trucks did about 20 mpg when the four-cylinder got as high as 25 mpg. Make that a 4×4 and the Vulcan drank as much as my 4.0-liter, but still had four-cylinder-ish power.
Diesel Power
So now you have a good idea of what’s going on here. For the first three generations of Ford Ranger, you had the choice of power or fuel economy, but never really both. That’s where Volkswagen’s infamous TDI diesel engines come in.
Volkswagen sold diesels in America for decades, but the company’s TDI engines really took off in the 2000s. Diesels became so common that in 2009, Volkswagen reported that 81 percent of all Jetta SportWagen sales, about 40 percent of Jetta sedan sales, and 29 percent of Touareg sales were diesels. That year, Volkswagen claimed 26 percent of all the vehicles that went home with VW customers were diesel-powered. Volkswagen diesels continued to gain momentum into the 2010s, all the way up to the Dieselgate revelations.
Throughout all of that time, TDIs gained a reputation for reliability, power, and frugality, even if the cars they were bolted to fell apart.
I’ve noticed a wide range of reasons why people have turned toward Volkswagen diesel. Some people just want to have a small diesel truck, which you just weren’t able to get from Ford. Some people wanted the fantastic fuel economy offered by TDI power, which was even more fuel efficient than the smallest Ranger engine. Finally, some people love how much you could tune a TDI for more power while still keeping some of the fuel economy. In other words, when done right, you could toss your Ranger’s gas engine out, put a Volkswagen diesel in, and get what could be a sort of ultimate small truck.
Now, Volkswagen has sold a bunch of different diesels in America over the years so Ranger owners are spoiled for choice. There’s the very common ALH 1.9-liter turbodiesel four. This engine was sold in the Golf, Jetta, and Beetle, making its availability pretty good. These engines were good for 89 HP and 155 lb-ft of torque. Yep, with no tuning at all these engines already make just a little more torque than a Ranger four-cylinder. These engines have iron blocks, forged rods, and die-forged steel crankshafts. They’re hefty units known for being able to have their power doubled while still on original internals.
There are also choices like the BHW 2.0-liter turbodiesel, which was put into the B5.5 Passat. That one’s making 134 HP and 229 HP stock. Or, maybe you want a newer common rail diesel like the CJAA, which makes 140 HP and 236 lb-ft of torque. Based on my research, it seems like a lot of folks go for the ALH out of a Beetle, Golf, or Jetta, the BHW out of the Passat, or a CJAA out of something like one of my Volkswagen Jetta SportWagen TDIs.
There’s a lot of appeal to going diesel. The CJAA will easily get 45 mpg on the highway and some of them exceed 50 mpg. It’s also super easy to get an ALH to do in the upper 40s for mpg and even the BHW can still hit about 40 mpg. Diesel can sometimes be cheaper than regular gasoline, too. Diesel is regularly cheaper than regular where I live, making my 2010 Volkswagen Jetta SportWagen TDI an easy choice for drives.
Each has its advantages. The ALH has a strong modding community, is known for its durability, and isn’t as complex as a common rail diesel. The BHW makes more power than an ALH and is a little smoother, but has a fatal problem with its balance shaft module. Of course, going with something like a CJAA means you benefit from newer common rail technology. Sure, none of these engines are in production anymore, but they aren’t hard to find and parts remain largely plentiful. All of them offer more promise than the old lumps Ford originally sold in these trucks.
For a peek into what a swap like this is like, watch Mechanic Dave explain what he did to his truck:
In the video, he explains that he mounted an ALH TDI in the engine bay, and integrating it with the original transmission was actually relatively easy thanks to adapter plates being sold by aftermarket supply companies. The engine is stock and everything works from the truck’s gauges to the four-wheel-drive system. Small upgrades came in the form of a bigger intercooler and a European-spec turbo.
Mechanic Dave mentions that the engine uses a standalone ECU with an aftermarket wiring harness that ties into the truck’s original harness. He’s even using the VW’s power steering pump and it’s just connected to the truck’s rack and pinion. He didn’t need to use that pump, but the Ford Ranger was known for having a particularly noisy pump, so going with the VW pump makes sense.
There are tons of videos out there and forum posts about these swaps.
I won’t say these swaps are easy. There’s an excellent build thread over at the Ranger Station if you need evidence of that. Remember, these engines aren’t meant to be mounted into a truck, so there will be some custom fabrication with some cutting, welding, and experimentation to get things to fit. At the very least, the good news is that there are adapter plates out there and wiring harnesses, so you’re not left doing the whole thing by trial and error.
There’s even a guy putting TDI engines into darn near any truck he can get his hands on:
As you’ll note in these videos, people then tune the TDI engines to make more power than even the V6 engines offered in the Ranger. People who own these rigs often report fuel economy above 30 mpg, which is believable when you remember that these engines were able to sip at 40, 50, or more mpg when put into smaller Volkswagen cars. If you stick with older TDIs you don’t even have to worry about diesel exhaust fluid or diesel particulate filters.
In theory, a build isn’t too expensive either if you do it yourself. You can find a running TDI for sale on your local marketplace for around a thousand dollars, more if you have to buy the rest of the car with it. You can get a Ford Ranger for a few grand, too, less if you find one with an engine that’s already blasted. It looks like a harness will cost you another grand and you’ll spend another grand on an adapter plate. I reckon if you do it yourself you can make a super Ranger for under $10,000.
Forget a diesel-powered Jeep Liberty. I want to get back into Ranger ownership again with a TDI swap. I don’t have the time or skill to do it myself, but maybe I’ll find one already finished for sale.
In other words, if you’re crafty with your hands and have the space to take on a project like this, you could build your own ultimate Ranger with either more power or better fuel economy than Ford originally put into your truck. Unfortunately, TDI-swapping a Ranger isn’t nearly as easy as bolting a Ford Fusion engine into your Mazda Miata, but owners say it’ll totally be worth it.
Here’s a novel idea, if you want a work truck, buy a full sized truck. If you want a little run about to haul a few small items, buy a half sized, half powered truck.
“tried to mount 30-inch all-terrain tires to the truck and the engine wheezed so hard my new top speed was 60 mph.”
That 2.3 was very down on horsepower. 30s are not big at all, 112hp is more than enough to turn them.
How do I know? David’s J10, on 31s, with like the same horsepower, is capable of a lot more than 70mph. So is my identical J10, and my identical CJ, and my F150 that has 150 buff ponies but can go 80mph+ with a trailer AND 30″ tires.
Anyways, don’t expect all 2.3s to be that hopeless. That engine had carboned up ports or shot rings or something.
It’s not necessarily the power, it’s the gearing. In my experience, the Ford 2.3/2.5 Pinto engines just did not have very much available power down low, and the gearing was already a bit aggressive. 5th gear was pretty much a “maintain speed” gear with those engines. It was possible to order the trucks with more favorable axle ratios, but not many seem to have them.
4-cylidner rangers of that era came with tiny wheels and tires – as small as 25″ total diameter (195/70-R14). Going up to 30″ tire is effectively increasing your overall gear ratio another 20%. That effectively turns 4th gear into the same ratio that 5th used to be.
Weird is cool, But I want my truck to be as easy to service as possible, and not give the guy at the parts store an aneurism when you need a part.
Give me this instead, for 60% less $$, and 100% less headaches.
https://sfbay.craigslist.org/pen/cto/d/san-mateo-2003-chevrolet-s10-pickup/7776213271.html
Not to mention if/when time comes to sell, which will have a bigger market? Bone stock, low mileage, clean, renowned reliable S10 with no added diesel complication, or some Frankenstein that no shop will touch for service, and your buyer pool is about .02% of the S10 market. You want a work vehicle or a conversation piece?
There is no shortage of buyers for sweet diesel Ford Rangers. But you don’t typically build a custom car with any intention of selling it, ever.
Not everybody sells their car and gets a new one every three years.
No one who spends the time and effort to buy a ~20+ year old Ford ranger and swap the engine to a VW diesel is going to be in any huge rush to sell it.
Secondly, it’s not difficult to say “I have a Volkswagen Golf TDI” if you need engine parts and “I have a Ford Ranger XLT” if you need chassis parts.
These have been the go-to alternative for engine swaps in Suzuki Samurais, too. The most popular is swapping the 1.3l for a 1.6l 8v or 16v out of a Sidekick/Tracker/Vitara, but the IDI/TDI Jetta diesels aren’t much more work and can be better suited for more heavily modified offroad builds.
They’re compact and light enough to not really ruin the overall dynamics while offering more power, torque and better fuel economy than the stock 1.3l (or the 1.6l). Plus, the TDI versions make tiny tractor noises, what’s not to love?
https://youtu.be/mQHpRFUCy_Y
I love engine swaps and diesels, but I’m just going to leave this link here to warn people of the high pressure fuel pump problems that cost $8,500 in 2009 to fix.
https://forums.tdiclub.com/index.php?threads/official-list-of-hpfp-failures.299854/
I’ve heard of TDI swaps in Jeeps as a cheaper and far lighter diesel swap compared to a 4BT.
The price of diesel is higher than Premium around here though, so I wonder if the fuel economy argument really pans out in the long run.
Swaps are cool, though I feel like at this point we really shouldn’t be swapping diesels into things based on how dirty they are. If you could somehow get the Maverick hybrid powertrain into an old Ranger that would be pretty cool and much cleaner.
I think a hybrid is going to be a lot more complicated
Definitely! But it would be neat. 😀
Dirty? People swap diesels into things to improve fuel economy. Less fuel burned=less emissions. This is cleaner than the stock Ranger.
Not necessarily. If what is burned for instance is turned into soot and nitrous oxides at a higher rate than gasoline.
Nitrous-Oxide is 265x worse as a greenhouse gas than CO2.
I snagged a Ranger for $900, and am almost done with rust mitigation. If the 4.0 ever died, I was thinking V8, because V8 everything, of course.
But this seems intriguing.
Please put in a 2nd gen RX7 engine instead… Give us the updated Mazda RePu we were never blessed with.
Ford Ranger had a 2.3 liter in 1989. I had the Super Cab. So I’m not sure what you are saying when you stated second generation was 1991 with the 2.3. I never had a problem with acceleration with a 5 speed manual. I loaded a pallet of sod on this truck and it got me home fine without any speed worries. I got 25mpg average and around 20 when loaded, but it wasn’t meant to be an F150.
I love swaps and watching someone go through a build like this. But if I were looking for a modern, diesel powered mini truck that is reliable, efficient, comfortable, and reasonably powerful I would do a Smyth conversion on a TDI Jetta. It’s the inverse to the Ranger conversion: we don’t touch the mechanical we just make a Jetta more “trucky”.
this is the way
As a long-time Ranger driver and a long-time diesel enthusiast (I’ve done multiple diesel swaps), I want to like this idea. I really do. I’ve studied this swap several times prior to reading this article. However, I cannot agree with either of your conclusions.
Fuel *economy* is not directly reflected in MPG. It should be measured in dollars per mile. In my area diesel is about 30% more expensive than regular gasoline. With it offering approximately 30% less fuel consumption, the fuel economy on paper would be about the same for a diesel swap. Spending $10,000 up front to save $0 per tank isn’t economical.
However, in this case it’s actually worse than that. At a 30% price difference, 30MPG diesel is roughly the same cost as 21MPG gasoline, which is slightly worse than you should expect from the 4.0L trucks (at least, on the highway). And it’s significantly worse than the 4-banger trucks. So my fuel cost would actually rise with this swap.
You said your area has gas and diesel at the same price. So let’s plug in some numbers (tweak the math as needed). If gas and diesel were both $3/gallon, a 17-gallon fill up would cost $51. 30% savings here would be like having a $15 discount per tank of gasoline. At this rate the $10,000 investment would be paid back after 654 trips to the gas station. This is about 11,000 gallons of fuel. Enough to drive 290,000 miles. Even at price parity (which I cannot get in my region), the math doesn’t add up. And that’s ignoring that a TDI will almost certainly have higher lifetime maintenance costs than a Cologne V6.
If you want the power, a 4.0L Ranger already has a good German engine which uses cheap and available parts (old TDI engines have less support). If you’re wanting more power than that, you’re getting outside of what a stock Ranger drive train will reliably support. So now you’re down the rabbit hole of sourcing stronger transmission/transfer case/axle components.
TL;DR – There are numerous good-but-not-rational reasons for diesel-swapping a Ranger. But fuel economy isn’t one of them, and power gain is more complicated than you imply.
Swapping makes more sense on a vehicle with systemic engine/drivetrain failures or that would see a larger fuel efficiency gain. Personally I’d like to see an ALH swapped into an old square suburban. But that’s probably the part of my brain that wishes I hadn’t sold my diesel ‘burb…
The economics should really be compared with replacing a stock engine where this would cost a few thousand more than a standard blown motor swap. Your point still stands, that the extra $3000ish probably won’t pay itself back.
I’d accept that argument if Rangers were prone to blowing engines. But the 2.3/2.5/3.0/4.0 are generally reliable engines. Even the older engines weren’t complete piles. Early 4.0 OHC engines may be an exception to this.
Compare that to the 3.8 Essex engine (in the Taurus/Sable and Windstar) that systematically destroyed head gaskets. Someone wanting to rebuild one of these cars* has already budgeted for an engine rebuild, so that would lower the effective cost of the swap.
*Granted, I’ve never met someone who wanted to rebuild a Windstar, but try to imagine it for the sake of this argument.
When I moved to Texas in 2016 with my 2001 Jetta TDI, diesel would bounce around a little cheaper or a little more than regular gas. The Jetta was 5M, but in Texas, with its 70-75 mph speed
limitssuggestions, it really needed a sixth gear. At 80 mph, it was out of breath and mpg often dropped below 40.Then the price of diesel shot up and diesel was usually at least $1 more per gallon than regular. In 2017 I sold the Jetta and got a new Accord V-6. It was loafing at 80 and still getting 32+ mpg at that speed. I did the math, and I was paying less for fuel than if I had kept the Jetta. Factor in the higher maintenance costs for the TDI, and it made sense to move on.
What “increased maintenance costs” are people experiencing on vw tdi’s bc of the engine?
I drove a 98′ Jetta tdi for 12 years. The only regular maintenance cost bcnof the engine that I can think of that was additional was bc VW’s timing belt change interval was a puny 60k miles, so I ended up changing the timing belt and the accessory belts like clock work every 60k miles and following good vw preventive maintenance ment that I replaced the waterpump every 120k miles, so 1x every other timing belt replacement.
I had my 2001 for 16 years and 160,000 miles.
-Oil and filter changes twice as often with oil that was more expensive
-Bigger and more expensive batteries (three times-never got more than 5 years out of one)
-Injection pump at 101 K (After VW had replaced the original under warranty at 60K. Car limped to the dealer the first time. Wouldn’t start the second and had an expensive tow to the dealer. Dealer and VWOA would not replace it under warranty since I was one thousand stinking miles past 100K and the one they put in only had 41K on it. As a result, I will never buy another VWAG vehicle.)
-three sets of glow plugs when they threw a code at ~50K intervals
-de-carbon intake manifold at ~120K
I don’t count timing belts (changed 2x) because my Honda has one and it will need to be replaced, although not until 100K. They say to inspect the water pump then, but I’ll just go ahead and replace it while they’re doing the belt.
I loved the way the Jetta drove until I moved to Texas, where it really needed a sixth gear for the 75+ mph roads and freeways.
You make some good points I had forgotten about.
I bought mine just past 100k and kept it for 12 years and another 160k miles
That sucks you had injection pump failures that IS an expensive part.
I used Rotella-T full synthetic and changed the oil and the filter every 10k miles
Thats right the battery did require higher.cca I don’t recall the price difference being that large for me.
Things you mentioned I had forgotten about and also experienced… in my case I did the work myself so minimal out of pocket costs other than for parts:
1. Replaced the struts & springs + ball joints just past 100k + rear shocks and springs, then struts and shocks again at 190k
2. Glow plugs replaced
3. Decarbonized the intake at about 100k
4. Plus of course brake rotors and pads in front and drums and shoes in the rear at about 100k too and after as needed.
5. I replaced the rear wheel bearings at least 2x too. I don’t think I ever needed to replace the fronts
6. The stupid worthless dot headlights replaced with e-code (glass lense) hellas and higher output halogen lights
Mechanic replaced parts…
1. Redo the AC system
2. New turbo at about 200k
3..of course tires as needed
So for me overall while it certainly was cheaper (total cost of ownership) than a new car payment, my tdi was my 3rd vw over 22 years and each seemed tonalways need something…
Overall I had my fill of masochism and now our DDs are Toyotas
Hmmm. Maybe my oil changes weren’t 2x as often. I did whatever the manual called for with Delvac 1. The non-turbo Honda doesn’t require synthetic oil, but I usually use a blend and just change it when the mileage minder tells me to. I’ve read and believe that it uses an algorithm of starts, stops and driving patterns to determine when it’s time to change the oil. It has usually worked out to around 10K miles, and I change it at 12 months if it hasn’t gone off (like during the pandemic).
I am impressed with the stuff you did yourself. You are more talented or brave than I was in that realm. I did the “easy” stuff myself… Glow plugs, oil and filters. The driver’s side window fell down into the door and that was covered by a TSB. The part of the wiring harness that handled the remote trunk lid failed from flex fatigue, and I rewired the broken wire myself.
Despite about 75% of the miles I put on it were around hilly Seattle and Tacoma, it was still on the original clutch when I sold it. I never had to touch the suspension or wheel bearings. I never even had to have it realigned, despite the less than perfect roads around there.
I had the rotors and pads replaced at around 100K. Apparently due to EBD and my sedate driving style, the rears wore out first. And the a/c still blew colder in hot and humid SE Texas than my wife’s 2015 BMW X5 without ever being recharged.
So, the rest of the car held up pretty well, all in all. If VWOA hadn’t been such jerks about the IP, she and I might be driving Audis these days. I had very good luck with Hondas in the past (1986 Accord and a 2002 CR-V) and that’s how we ended up with my Accord and her 2018 Acura MDX. (The BMW had its own set of costly issues, but none of them were engine related.)
I was always tempted to replace the headlights with e-codes. The OEM headlights on my car were pretty pathetic to begin with and got worse as the plastic started to fog up and had to be buffed out every year. But that wasn’t just a TDI thing… LOL. I’ve always garaged my cars and so far, my Accord’s headlights haven’t developed cataracts. They’re very good at night, but the MDX’s LEDs are, by far, the best headlights I’ve ever driven with. Great illumination of the road and a razor-sharp cutoff to avoid dazzling oncoming traffic.
Anyway, like you, I’m done with the German masochism tango. Suddenly, I’m 67, too old and tired for that shit, and wondering whether my Accord is the last car I will own before “I shuffle off this mortal coil.” It’s only got 60K on it now, I enjoy driving it and it doesn’t make economic sense to replace it with something more efficient but more complex. And more expensive to insure!
I’ve kind of come full circle. I bought a used ’71 Peugeot 504 with 60K miles on it for $1,500 shortly after I got out of college. It got hit three times by clumsy parkers and they paid me to a) not report them and b) cover the cost to fix the dents. I used the funds for beer money. I put another 90K miles on it with relatively few repairs before it got totaled by an uninsured motorist. I had coverage and received a check for $900. I will never match that deal.
Enjoyed the conversation. God bless and take care.
You had a 504!?! Such a cool car and on the level of reliability of 80s Mercedes or 2000s Toyotas.
1 unique thing to Hondas/Acuras… I have heard even modern ones (i.e. those made in the past 20 years), have “valve adjustment” as part of their long term maintenance (every 60-90k miles depending on the year&model), something to research and think about.
I thought this was something only needed on OLD carberated era cars. I heard it comes from engine design decisions in how the heads work on Hondas’ b/c of their early years as only a producer of mopeds and the motorcycles, which if true, when viewed that way makes sense.
Great chatting w/you as well!
I agree with you all the way down to your comments on the 4.0. The 4.0 OHC engine was a steaming pile while the OHV engine, while much more reliable was not very powerful.
A better comparison would be to compare to the cost of dropping in a 5.0 SBF.
I was talking about the pushrod OHV engine (160 hp and 225 lb⋅ft). The OHC engine produces about 30% more power, but only about 13% more torque through the drive train.
If you fully doubled the 89HP of the ALH engine, you’d only be 18HP ahead of the 4.0 OHV, and you’d be 32HP behind the OHC. Diesel torque is nice. But I personally would not want to run more than stock torque through my stock drive train. So I wouldn’t be able to fully double that 155 lb-ft number.
My answer would be different with suitable drive train upgrades. But now we’re getting away from the simple-sounding engine swap described in the article.
Back when these engines were being sold new, in Europe the price difference between diesel and petrol made them much more economical to run. These days there’s a lot less in it, but they still make sense if you do lots of long distance trips. The additional economy means you can get further between fill-ups, even if you’re not saving money.
I don’t know who is spending $10k on the swap though. I would guess that 3-4k is more normal. Instead of 290k miles payback period, it would be more a long the lines of 100k miles.
Probably still not worth it.
This math depends on what you pay for fuel. Currently, it’s about $6/gal up here in Canada ($1.62/L). So the math starts mathing a lot quicker. Plus, I haven’t really noticed fuel getting cheaper over the last 20 years and I don’t think it’s gonna start now.
Good point!
My numbers are based on my own situation. A gallon of gasoline used to cost me almost a full hour’s worth of wages (>$4/gallon back when U.S. minimum wage was $5.15 before taxes). Back then we were running waste vegetable oil in the summer to save on cost, and contemplating building a biodiesel reactor to save cost in the winter (one of my friends did so, but we didn’t like his results enough to think it was worth copying).
Now a $3.30 gallon of gas is a small fraction of an hour’s wages. So to me it feels a lot cheaper than it used to. I haven’t bothered collecting WVO for a while now. I’m mostly focused on driving less instead of making driving cheaper.
Agreed. It’s my dream to live somewhere walkable with transit to work. Then I can ditch the family crossover and just have fun car(s). Less driving for commutes means more money for weekend shenanigans.
Seems like a lot of work and dollars for very little gain.
Increased horsepower and torque(and the opportunity for 3x greater horsepower and torque) isn’t what most people would call “very little gain”. If you’re not into hotrodding or vehicle modifications, you can just say that
I have the CJAA in my Sportwagen, and while I’ve had a zillion issues with the car itself (Volkswagen) zero of them have been engine related. I have a friend with almost half a million miles on his. They’re great engines, once you cut out the added diesel emmisions stuff they had to add
I get where these people are coming from. I spent a lot of time researching OM606 and OM617 MB swaps. I was heavily considering putting one in one of my Datsun 720s for an apocalypse truck that would still be running when the only things left alive were the cockroaches.
As a previous 720 4×4 owner that truck was just a KA24E swap short of perfection.
This would not be a good swap. Whatever cost you saved by the higher mpg would be offset by the higher cost of diesel. In my opinion you also lose reliability. Don’t know much about the 4 banger but the v6’s are pretty solid little motors. Interesting way to get a diesel ranger though.
If the V6s are getting 20mpg and the TDI swaps are getting 30, I don’t see how that tracks. Surely diesel isn’t 50% more to buy than petrol in the US?
At worst it tends to be the same cost as premium. So yeah, that math doesn’t track.
Right now down the street from my house at the local loves regular is 2.84, mid is 3.29, premium is 3.64 and diesel is $4.00. So not far off. You also have to calculate the cost of the swap and then the lost reliability.
As Mercedes said, price is very regional. The station next to my kid’s daycare is currently $3.69/regular, $3.59/diesel. You can pay off a fair bit of work with prices like that.
Maybe if your idea of regional is a specific town. EIA tracks fuel prices across 10 geographical regions in the USA and there isn’t a single one today where diesel is less than 87 octane gas. Nationally diesel hasn’t been cheaper than gas since 2007.
Fuck me. That’s an insane difference. I mean, I know we pay a shit ton more for fuel in the UK, but the cost difference for diesel over petrol is pennies, not 25% plus.
(I remember when diesel was cheaper as well, til people started using it, and the fuckers realised we didn’t use *as much* of it)
No notes.
I appreciate the lifecycle extension project but up here in the rust belt it’s basically a no go.
We need to get Mercedes a well-equipped shop so that this ranger TDI swap can happen. Now that DT is doing less wrenching a true build series would be excellent!
This is just another reminder that a lot of people in America are eager to buy a small pickup truck with: reasonable power, simple design, light weight, good fuel economy, low price. Yet this does not exist. I blame the chicken law.
You just described the Ford Maverick. Ford is on track to sell 200K of them this year.
Perhaps but with an 8 speed automatic trans, digital display screen, electric parking brake, electronic steering, and “Pre-Collision Assist With Automatic Emergency Braking”, I will argue that this is not a simple design. It’s loaded with electronics that may be prone to failing and could be diffiult to troubleshoot.
Unfortunately in today’s market simple =/= inexpensive.
Removing the screen, collision assist, and even stuff like electric windows and brake etc would only save a couple thousand. The manual transmission costs a manufacturer more than an auto because of the engineering for a low-volume option.
Sounds like you want the Ineos Grenadier which made everything simple and easy to troubleshoot, and costs Land Rover money, or a Nissan SUV where everything is just old.
There is no way I would buy the turbo version with an 8 speed automatic. The 2 motor hybrid with basically a set of planetary gears for a “transmission” is the way to go. 2 motor hybrids have a well earned reputation for being rock solid.
Automatic emergency brakes are required by law in the USA. So is a screen for the mandatory back-up camera.
BTW – the 2025 ecoboost Maverick also has a gasoline particulate filter. These will become standard on DI turbo gas engines between now an 2030 due to EPA 2027 finally cracking down on PM from gasoline engines.
The Ford Maverick, apart from the simple design, light weight, and small pickup parts. The Maverick is pretty bad at all of those.
I liked my 88 ranger but the 2.8L (?) v-6 sucked. It would vapor lock and leave me stranded on the side of the road if there was ANY ethanol in the gas and it was above 7OoF.
I had an 86 with a 2.9. I had fuel delivery problems until I figured out there was a “lifetime” filter mounted in the transfer bowl on the frame rail. Low pressure pump in the tank would deliver to the transfer bowl. From there, a high pressure pump delivers it to the fuel rail.
That filter in the transfer bowl was so plugged, I would get hesitation when it got warm. After I removed it, it was a great running truck. At the time I removed it, it had 200k miles.
My dad’s 89 never had those fuel delivery issues. However it had a cracked head like many 2.9 engines did although at 190K, so not too shabby. The engine had the typical 2.9 clacking sound by then.
He got that engine rebuilt and drove it for another 6 years. That’s the truck I learned to drive stickshift with. 1 wheel burnouts were quite easy.
Me too. It was my dad’s daily driver and I got it with 190k on it. I found out the hard way about using that engine restore stuff in the oil. On the bright side, I rebuilt the engine with him, which got me into mechanics.
I ended up passing my driver’s license test with that truck and drove it for a solid 10 years before replacing it with a 2009 model. Sold it with 260k on it.
A couple of years ago, a friend of mine saw what looked like my old truck. Turns out it was and still running strong.
:Diesel cheaper than regular gas” – That hasn’t been a thing in the SE US for like 20 years.
Here is the Midwest diesel has been a buck a gallon over regular gas until recently where the margin is now 50/60 cents or so. With the reduced efficiency of current emission spec diesels, there’s no way to justify them in light vehicles based on operating cost. In the HD pickups you can because of the torque output for towing.
I was puzzled here too. I can’t think of any time I have seen diesel near the same price as gas.
I saw this for perhaps the first time since the introduction of low sulphur diesel. About 10 days ago at the most. It was like 6 cents cheaper that base gas.
The last time the national average price for Diesel #2 was less than 87 Octane Gasoline was the week of July 30th 2007. Since then diesel has averaged 18% more per gallon vs gasoline.
It’s a thing. Diesel is cheaper than standard 87 octane fuel at every station in Alaska.
It’s a thing in my neighborhood right now.
I had two Rangers, the first was the 2.3 and it was gutless, but a great truck. The next one I had was the 3.0, it was still gutless, and I had more issues with it. I am not sure the previous owner cared for the 3.0, so it could have been that. There is no way I would ever put 10K in either of the trucks. Even with more power, they just would not be a truck I would put that much time or energy in.
I owned a 3.0L Ranger and the thing was so gutless I regretted not going with the 2.3 to at least get marginally better fuel economy. Also think the 2.3 had more power mods available.
My first truly new car was a 97 bare bones ranger with a 2.3 and a 5 spd. I guess I didn’t know what gutless was. of course, it was preceded by beaters: 81 Escort, 80 Aspen, 86 Tempo.
Loved that truck and it still holds my record for length of ownership and miles. 176k in not quite 11 yrs, before rust and wear made it truly unpleasant (also my dog couldn’t jump into the cab anymore.) Still got a decent trade in value on a low mile Taurus.
Rangers were great trucks, it’s just too bad that they were so suseptible to rust. My neighbor had a very nice 4×4 Ranger, and I was elected to do all of his mechanical work on it. I have never seen more rust on one vehicle in my life. Working on it was maddening. He finally traded it in on a nice new Honda. That was a good day.
I had a Ranger, a ’93 I think. It was what I needed at the time BUT the seats in that were the absolute worst of any of the 30 or so vehicles I’ve owned. Nothing could make that not uncomfortable.
I bought a 3L extended cab with a bench seat. When it test drove it I told the sales guy I didn’t find the seat comfortable. He told me don’t worry I would get used to it. No No No I never got used to it. Long drives made you feel like you had gone 3 rounds with Mike Tyson. It was bad on gas with no power and was constantly in the shop. It was the worst vehicle I have ever owned
Having owned and tweaked two ALH TDI manual Jettas, I can say they are actually great little diesel motors. I got 47-49mpg all day long even when flogging it hard. That’s 700 miles per tank. So I imagine it would be a great addition to a small ranger…now I will be shopping on marketplace. Great.