why not just get a 150 with a straight 6? mines been blown up for prolly a year and a half now and its my dd
why not just get a 150 with a straight 6? mines been blown up for prolly a year and a half now and its my dd
The SOHC was used on the rangers as well. I agree with the 300 I6. It is a great motor as long as its fuel injected. The 1bbl carbs on these were aweful. This is one of the only engine I know of where you can get one with bad bearings and knocking and in many cases install new bearings and an oil pump ( not cut the crank) and run it for another 100K.
Justin
84 Plymouth Voyager LE 2.5 Intercooled Turbo 5-spd - Only 84 Turbo Van!
89 Dodge Caravan ES 2.4 SRT-4 Intercooled Turbo (46 trim, OS Valves, CP Pistons, Eagle Rods, NPR IC) Built 31th trans
91 Dodge Shadow Convertible 2.5 Intercooled Turbo A555 5-spd
01 Pontiac Grand Prix GTP - 3.8 supercharged! Only 5K miles....
01 Subaru Forester - Daily Driver
07 Yamaha FJR 1300 140+ HP on 2 wheels
85 Honda Nighthawk 450
94 Bobcat 763 Skidloader 2.2 Kubota Diesel
SV-SDAC Member
and they get 20mpg... with that shitty 1 bbl carb
oh yea and they can tow like a mofo
For every day use they are fine. We had one we ran as a glass truck and mechanically it did fine, It was just weak and underpowered. It did nickel and dime us on little stuff. Our Dakotas have needed nothing but normal wear and tear stuff.
For towing the 4.0 would be your best choice. The 97 Ranger i'm driving now has 126K miles on it. My dad bought it new in Sept 96. Only major problem was an intake maniflold leak. Heck the first tune up on it was around 113K miles. As of yesterday the truck is offically mine, since my dad just bought a new 2010 Ranger 4.0. Older 4.0 Rangers were really underpowered. I took this one to the track and it ran 17.4 in the 1/4 mile every time. At least it's not as underpowered as a automatic PT cruiser!! Just rememeber that the older Rangers 97 and older had the TwinIbeam front suspension with the old drag link steering gear where 98 and up started to use rack and pinion steering.
Rangers are really to small to tow much. My bud tries to tow his Pontoon boat with his. Its kinda scary really.The boat/Trailer weigh about 3900lbs and are much longer than the truck. Heck, I dont even like towing with my Dakota too much. I have towed my RT across country from NC to NV with no issues with the Dakota. Thats a trip I would not have done with a Ranger!
You may as well buy an f-150. You get the same fuel economy, better towing and a better ride. The ranger has been extremely outdated for the last 15 years. Feels like your driving a 60's truck that can't pull anything. They're very reliable though. On top of what others have said, the newer 3.0's have trouble with sticking valves.
[COLOR="Red"][B][I]Turbo Cars are like hot women. A little edgy, every guy wants one, some guys can't handle them and if you throw a little alcohol in the mix they'll rock your world![/I][/B][/COLOR] [COLOR="DarkSlateGray"]2005 Dodge Neon - *15.88@85* - Daily Driver[/COLOR] [COLOR="DarkRed"]1985 Dodge Shelby Charger - Project Car[/COLOR]
The 2.3 4 is bullet proof as an engine. I just could not tow a trailer very fast. Of course you could turbo one. I believe ford did this on a couple models that had same motor
Last edited by karlak; 12-04-2009 at 12:52 PM.
is registration cheaper for a ranger than an f 150?
My buddy bought a 80s ranger for like $50, we put a head gasket on it and very few odds and ends but hes been driving it for over 5 years now. Im not ford fan but im impressed with that. Now hes selling it for $250 lol
I dont know how pa is but I registered a 1500 ram as a car to be cheaper just couldnt be cought hauling heavy stuff.
i work at o'reilly auto and i sell more parts for mid 90s rangers then any other vehicle (besides sway bar links for caravans haha)
HOOSIER SDAC vice pres. 1993 IROC R/T 1 of 90 emerald green 1985 DC SHELBY CHARGER 1985 DC TURBO Z DAYTONA
look at how many are on the road
Dont cheap out, Get a better truck.They are out there, Keep looking.
get a 300 dollar fixer upper
the key is research lol
did the ranger ever come with a 2.9? AFAICT the 4-banger always was a 2.3.....
I know 2 people with the 2.3 4-banger 2wd 5sp versions (93 and 96 respectively) and BOTH have pulled my car and the 87 RX-7 just fine. The 93 pulled the 7 from South Carolina to Mansfield OH on 2 cracked coils, bad plugs and wires and we still did about 60mph (trailer whipped a bit if you went over 70ish due to the 7 being rear wheels off the ground) and still got 24mpg TOWINGthe 96 had 4.11 rear end gears and towed my sundance duster with EASE at 70+mph and got mid 20s for mpg
some people say im nuts for towing with it but *shrug* its worked fine so far
Plus teh 93 has 240K miles on it and the 96 had 130K
Ranger did have the 2.9.
I thought the 2.9's were good motors.
Pete Faggella 03 PT Cruiser, 2.4L N/A 5 speed. Daily driver. All stock with baby moon wheels. 85 LeBaron 2.2TBI auto. Hoped I'd see a difference with bumped compression, but I didn't. Still slow. "Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming "Wow! What a Ride!'"
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote