replacing timing belt tension pulley '93

Scottomatic

Scottomatic

New Member
Hi All. I'm no pro. I am learning as I go. I need to replace the timing belt tensioner pulley on my 93 Ranger 2.3L. I have everything off and I am trying to release the tension on the spring so i can get the belt off. I have not been successful. Everyone talks about how easy it is to take off the belt, so I'm certain I'm missing something basic. I saw a Youtube where a guy made a tool out of a pipe to do this. I asked about a tool at the autoparts store but they have no idea what I'm talking about. Any advice would be appreciated. Image of tensioner spring attached.
 

Attachments

  • timing spring edit.jpg
    timing spring edit.jpg
    162.5 KB · Views: 5
found this. Gonna give it a try. Any comments still appreciated. Found this tool $20. (they wont let me post the link yet.) Gonna give it a try. Any comments still appreciated.
2.3 OHC TIMING TENSIONER TOOL - MC2 RACING
 
Scottomatic said:
found this. Gonna give it a try. Any comments still appreciated. Found this tool $20. (they wont let me post the link yet.) Gonna give it a try. Any comments still appreciated.
2.3 OHC TIMING TENSIONER TOOL - MC2 RACING
Click to expand...
When I replaced the water pump on my splash, all I did was use a socket and a breaker bar. A standard ratchet, not 1/4 but 3/8 or 1/2 inch will also do.
 
Thanks Zappy, thats what I ended up doing to get it off there. I couldnt get quite enough range of pull to release the tension the first few times i tried, but after some ozarks engineering i got it off. I did get that tool though, and it works great. I had to replace the tensioner spring bolt to use it, because the previous owner broke a bolt off inside the threaded portion of the original one.
 
Yeah, the real fun is putting the belt back on. I get the belt on there, then had to put the ratchet on the tensioner, swing the ratchet over and hold the tensioner while I quickly return the ratchet to finish getting it up enough to put the belt under it.
 
Thats where that tool comes in super handy! Attach the tool to the spring bolt and rotate the tensioner with a ratchet and the belt drops right on. You can see in the pic i uploaded previously that my spring bolt has a screw broken off in the threaded center hole where the tool screws on so i couldn't use the tool to take it off. But putting it back i replaced that bolt. It was worth the $20 cost of the tool just for that.
 
Oh... I went back and read your original post. I'm not exactly sure how I missed the words "Timing belt" and "2.3l". I thought we were talking about the serpentine belt tensioner here. But I could see the same method I use for the serpentine belt tensioner working on a timing belt. How's the 2.3l ranger as far as gas mileage and ability to climb a hill? I bought a '99 gmc sonoma to drive while I fixed up my 93 4.0l. I like the gas mileage of a 2.2l, but the thing won't climb a hill or pass someone on a highway. (Which is why I drive a ford ranger, not a gmc sonoma) I'd like to get a 2.3l ranger to replace the 2.2l sonoma.
 
Honestly, both are a bit lacking on mine. It may just be engine age or something. This truck sat in a field for several years before i picked it up. I get probably 22 mpg around town at best. I live in a town built on big hills so that's part of it. I can't pass vehicles on two lane roads either. Going up a hill on the highway I pretty much always have to downshift to make the hill. The truck is great for me tho since i basically just use it to go to and from work, run daily errands, and to haul the wife's recycling. I like beating around in the Ranger to keep all those city miles off my gigantic Expedition.
 
Scottomatic said:
Honestly, both are a bit lacking on mine. It may just be engine age or something. This truck sat in a field for several years before i picked it up. I get probably 22 mpg around town at best. I live in a town built on big hills so that's part of it. I can't pass vehicles on two lane roads either. Going up a hill on the highway I pretty much always have to downshift to make the hill. The truck is great for me tho since i basically just use it to go to and from work, run daily errands, and to haul the wife's recycling. I like beating around in the Ranger to keep all those city miles off my gigantic Expedition.
Click to expand...
I know my 4.0L will fly past someone no problem. When I had an '88 s15 it climbed hills without downshifting and passed other vehicles if I downshifted out of OD. This sonoma though, if I take it out of OD into 4th it still doesn't climb a hill without loosing speed. And 22 mpg around town isn't bad, for me at least. My Sonoma gets 20mpg, where I live, the backroads have steep hills, town is mostly flat and the highway into the towns I visit around here have a mixed flats and hills. Must have been an emissions change somewhere in the early 90s that made small engine vehicles less efficient and under powered.
 
Thats interesting! I figured something was wrong with mine. It starts without fail though, and runs like a top. Just no power. Some of the hills here i have to floor it to get up them at 35mph in 3rd gear. I've seen forum posts where people talk about swapping one of the transmission rings in the Ranger for a different size to give it more torque. That kind of project is way above my pay grade, but interesting to read about. Maybe its something you could try if you have that kind of expertise. I just (today, actually) got the timing belt back on my Ranger, and feeling pretty pumped about pulling that off. I also replaced the harmonic balancer and crankshaft sensor, but a friend helped me figure out how to get the sensor extricated from the engine. (Had to pull off the air compressor mounting bracket which was a major pain the rear for a noob like me). Hoping to get the new water pump on and the radiator back in this evening.
 
Actually, I wouldn't try that in my GMC. The transmission isn't worth tearing down. I had to replace it due to New Venture Gear not offering parts to diy-ers. The ring you're talking about may actually be the in the rear differential. The final ratio determines your torque and mpg. But, more torque means less mpg most likely because adjusting it for more to torque mean a higher cruising rpm. I think my ranger has a 3.27 which mean 3.27 turns at the input for 1 turn of the rear wheel, which is pretty low. But since the engine is a 4.0l, it's got enough torque to handle it. Something like a 4.10 ratio would give you more torque, be able to haul more, and pass people. I would swap ring gear and pinion on my GMC for something like a 3.55 ratio, but it's damn expensive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top