I can say for certainty that Ford 2.3L vs Volvo B2.3, rod/stroke ratio had nothing to do with it.
The best thing about the Volvo is the cylinder head (which is why they get swapped on to the 2.3L Lima). The Ford 2.3L beats it everywhere else. It's possible to port/valve a 2.3L head to get decent performance.
Reliability-wise, a 2.3L Ford will way outlast a Volvo 2.3, which were known to have weak bottom ends. One of the tire stores I used to work for had a fleet of 2.3L Rangers, all of them had in excess of 200k miles, some in excess of 300k miles, all on their original engines (and third or fourth transmissions, but that's another story).
The last 2wd Ranger platform I owned got 26 MPG highway. My 4wd Bronco II when it was 2.3L-powered averaged 20 MPG with a high of 22 MPG.
The Ranger started out at 17 mpg, mainly because someone installed a high performance fan clutch (bad idea). I installed thermostatic electric fans and swapped the auto for a manual, and put a bed cover on it to get it to 26 MPG.
The 2.3L Ford turbo I built for my '87 Mustang had a 3.4" Ranger crank with 2.3L rods, and custom Wiseco pistons to deal with the non-standard pin location. The rod/stroke ratio of that engine was a palsy 1.53:1, and it was one of the smoothest engines I've built. That engine got 28 MPG highway.
Rod/stroke ratio is way over hyped, especially on street engines that never see the high side of 6500 RPM.
Are you sure of that Ranger weight? I've never seen one that light.