What problems with 2.9 engine

BlaineM · Nov 21, 2007

I have found a nice '87 with 2.9 engine. 425,000 kms but the engine still runs beautifully. Auto trans appears to have been rebuilt or replaced but the engine appears original. How long are these engines expected to last and what if any weakness do they have?

Sunk · Nov 21, 2007

That's pretty high for mileage, but if its taken care of, they can last. They're known for ticking, but it's doesn't necessarily mean anything. They're known for cracking heads due to poor design, if it does happen, they're not too hard to come by. I had 165,000 mi on mine until it overheated and cracked a head. I swapped it for one with 105,000 mi. I know many on here have much more than that.

holyford86 · Nov 21, 2007

263k miles and change, still runs good and it isn't babied either.

rusty ol ranger · Nov 21, 2007

315K here.....runs like a champ.

later,
Dustin

90B24wd · Nov 21, 2007

Rocker arm shafts clogs up with sludge which then causes restricted oil flow from the rocker arms which then causes ticking.

almostclueless · Nov 22, 2007

Wouldnt want an auto vehicle, but I've owned a couple of 2.9's, they all ran great.

BlaineM · Nov 22, 2007

I'm not that thrilled about an automatic trans either. I have had a couple lunch on me although neither left me stranded. The auto trans is for my wife :haha:

. She doesn't drive standard.

Is the 2.9 generally considered to be a tough and/or torquey motor?

I haven't had a lot of experience owning Fords although I was a ford partsman in the early '70s. That was the dawning of the age of emission control. The main issue of the day was the problems the embryonic emission control systems were creating for engine performance. Every new vehicle that came to the dealership drove like it had an elastic band connecting the gas pedal to the carburetor. Was enough to make me give up on cars and turn to motorcycles for snappy performance.

I'm not looking for spine snapping performance in a truck. I just want reliablity and reasonable fuel economy. Is the 2.9 the engine for me?

Sunk · Nov 22, 2007

Yeah the 2.9s are pretty tough motors, and fairly torquey, especially for the size. For only 177 ci, they crank out 170 ft. lbs and 140 HP. Somewhere on TRS in one of the threads it defines that as a H.O. motor....

2ranger87 · Nov 24, 2007

My '87 has 435,000 kms on the original motor and still runs strong. Ticks on startup or if you really push it. Was hoping to make the 500,000 mark but the clutch is starting to go.......

Natedog · Nov 24, 2007

almostclueless said:
Wouldnt want an auto vehicle, but I've owned a couple of 2.9's, they all ran great.

Yup, I killed four a4ld's and not really beating them too hard...lol! My truck is alot faster with the manual, we'll see hoping mileage goes up to.

Rangers are great trucks I love mine.

almostclueless · Nov 24, 2007

BlaineM said:
I haven't had a lot of experience owning Fords although I was a ford partsman in the early '70s. That was the dawning of the age of emission control. The main issue of the day was the problems the embryonic emission control systems were creating for engine performance. Every new vehicle that came to the dealership drove like it had an elastic band connecting the gas pedal to the carburetor.

Youre right that the early days of emission control was bad, but interestingly enough, the only added control that killed performance was the pellet type cats. The other controls didn't really affect power.

Most of what killed power, especially in fords, was their across the board grand idea to retard cam timing several degrees.

Will · Nov 24, 2007

almostclueless said:
Youre right that the early days of emission control was bad, but interestingly enough, the only added control that killed performance was the pellet type cats. The other controls didn't really affect power.

Most of what killed power, especially in fords, was their across the board grand idea to retard cam timing several degrees.

Whaaa???

A WHOLE bunch of stuff killed the performance in those cars. It's hard to decide where to start the attack on those things.

To lower the NOx they had to lower the combustion temperatures. They did that by lowering the compression, retarding the cam timing, retarding the ignition timing and introducing exhaust gas into the combustion. Then to get rid of CO caused by crappy combustion, they put on a pump that pumped air into bosses cast into the exhaust port--which clogged about 1/3 of the cross section of the port. Then they put the catalytic converter on the exhaust pipe--which gets really hot and burns up more of the unburned carbons. The catalytic converted did the LEAST damage to your performance in those cars.

Most of the shit they did in the past has been undone with fuel injection doing a hell of a lot better job of using the fuel. Compression is back up to 10-1 from 7.5-1, the engine controller can move the timing around wherever it needs to be etc., etc. etc.

almostclueless · Nov 24, 2007

Will said:
Whaaa???

A WHOLE bunch of stuff killed the performance in those cars. It's hard to decide where to start the attack on those things.

To lower the NOx they had to lower the combustion temperatures. They did that by lowering the compression, retarding the cam timing, retarding the ignition timing and introducing exhaust gas into the combustion. Then to get rid of CO caused by crappy combustion, they put on a pump that pumped air into bosses cast into the exhaust port--which clogged about 1/3 of the cross section of the port. Then they put the catalytic converter on the exhaust pipe--which gets really hot and burns up more of the unburned carbons. The catalytic converted did the LEAST damage to your performance in those cars.

BZZZZT!!!!!

Each point of compression lost kills approximately 4% of the power. Compression is nice and all, but a lack of it IS NOT the kiss of death. Hell, the 5.0 Mustang GT engine only has 9:1

I don't know how you figure 1/3 of the exhaust ports' cross section was "clogged" by the thermactor setup. The bump in the exhaust port of most ford V8's is miniscule and the air that enters the port in inconsequential.......You do realize many vehicles still inject air into the exhaust tract.

The cats were bad because the early ones with pellet beds didn't flow anywhere near as well as the monolithic honeycomb elements in later converters.

purpony · Nov 27, 2007

my 92 ranger has 223,000miles on the 2.9 and original AUTO tranny....

only things i did to it was a timing chain and oil pump at 200K and run amsoil atf in the tranny. Truck is a little underpowered with the 31" tires, but it still gets me to and from work just fine. It has just started have a somewhat rough idle though, time for a tune up.

What problems with 2.9 engine

New Member

New Member

Some guy with a problem

2.9 Mafia-Don

Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Member

New Member

New Member

Forum Staff Member

New Member

Member

Sponsored Ad

Sponsored Ad

Today's birthdays

Member & Vendor Upgrades

Truck of The Month

Recently Featured

Follow TRS On Instagram

TRS Events

25th Anniversary Sponsors

Check Out The TRS Store

Sponsored Ad

Sponsored Ad

Sponsored Ad

Amazon Deals