1998 Ranger XLT Purchase Advice Please

[1990RangerinSK]

Close, 4.0 appeared in ‘90 I believe and I think 2.9 was still an option along side the 3.0 for a year or two. Think the 3.0 changed at some point too.

Thanks. I knew if I got it wrong somebody would correct me.

 

[Josh B]

An 87 with a V6 came with a 2.9.

83-85 was a 2.8 V6 (Cologne).
86-90 was a 2.9 V6 (Cologne).
91-11 was either a 3.0 V6 (Vulcan) or 4.0 V6 (Cologne OHV until 2000, S0HC (unknown engine family) 2001-2011). Both engines were available as options through those years, you could choose either the 3.0 or 4.0.

Actually they had put a new motor in it, at one time I had the papers on it, around $3k. I'm not positive they did a straight replacement or not, but it would be fairly easy to lean toward deducing as much. They weren't publicly extravagant that I could tell, but not dirt poor either. The young man had came N.D. to Nashville to study physics at Vanderbilt

And yes, it had the Tach

 

[rusty ol ranger]

If there was a 2.9 with 300k, it would be in the junk yard, no longer running.

Highest mileage RBV i know of on TRS was a 2.9. An 86 BII with a 2.9 and 656k. Still was in daily service delivering papers in california. Original 2.9 and 5sp trans.

C_Marshall was his SN. Rusty #1 went over 300k too.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

No. He needs to downshift. An automatic, when cruising at 60 in Overdrive, will drop at least one gear When you accelerate up to 80.

My 2.9 doesnt take that long to accelerate in 5th

 

[kngelv]

I was in 4th gear when accelerating past 45-50. I’ve been driving a stick since 1981. That’s why it was so weird. It was totally normal till I hit 60 then took a bit to hit 70 but it was the 70-80 that was super slow. I know some changes were made 97 to 98 but it looks like the doors will swap over. One sucky thing is the 97 has ok tires but they are 14’s while the 98 tires are dry rotted and are 15’s. I’m leaning toward getting it.

James

 

[Ranger850]

I think, for $1500, you can remedy anything wrong with it for fairly cheap and shouldn't add too much to the purchase cost. $500 or so for tires and you're still at $2,000.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

You could possibly have a plugged cat on the 98.

 

[scotts90ranger]

That's what I was just thinking, if someone ran with misfires long enough to melt the cat it would do just that...

 

[kngelv]

I thought that too but the guy just replaced the whole exhaust and it has a new Cat. Cost him $650.00.

James

 

[1990RangerinSK]

I was in 4th gear when accelerating past 45-50. I’ve been driving a stick since 1981. That’s why it was so weird. It was totally normal till I hit 60 then took a bit to hit 70 but it was the 70-80 that was super slow. I know some changes were made 97 to 98 but it looks like the doors will swap over. One sucky thing is the 97 has ok tires but they are 14’s while the 98 tires are dry rotted and are 15’s. I’m leaning toward getting it.

James

It could be timing. If the timing isn't advanced far enough, you'll have no power. I learned THAT with a gutless little Subaru Justy. My brother in law had timed it by ear. I took it in, had it timed to spec, took it for a drive, and couldn't get it over 50. So, I went back, had them advance it a couple of degrees, and got it to 60. I went back again, had them advance it to where it was when I took it in the first time, and I was back over 70. Spec for that engine was 5*. He had it at 12.

 

[Lefty]

Just wondering... Does anyone know the 0-60 times for the 3.0 Reg cab? 3.0 xlt? 4.0 Reg cab? 4.0 xlt?

 

[mtnrgr]

Check the throttle cable at the pedal end, there may be slack..that will cause slow acceleration if the cable is stretched. There is a do how to fix this. Driving in 4th gear at 45-50 is lugging thus engine. If I am around town or getting on the interstate I am in 3rd at that speed. I usually go into 4th around 55 to 65..4th from there, and 5th around 75..can get up to 90+ in 5th..I usually do 70 to 80 in 5th all day, and has alot more acceleration when needed. I would start with the throttle cable and perhaps change your shift points. Does this ranger have a tachometer?

Nothing on my ranger is stock, yet a stock 3.0 5spd is a good combination in the ranger, the auto behind this engine sucked in the Aerostar and ranger...in the Taurus it's great. An old friend had a 99 3.0 Taurus and I drove it often..this 5.4 expedition wanted a peice of it one night on the interstate long ago..I put in drive from overdrive, heavily accelerated..left that expedition far behind.

People rag on this engine, yet thier ranger is an auto or they don't drive it properly. People forget that the 3.0 was also put into the Aerostar in 86..not just the Taurus. From 86 to 90 there were many 3.0 5spd Aerostar vans..most were worked hard..they are still used to this day. For those who say this is only a car engine...wrong, the 3.0 has been a work horse from the day it was made.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Check the throttle cable at the pedal end, there may be slack..that will cause slow acceleration if the cable is stretched. There is a do how to fix this. Driving in 4th gear at 45-50 is lugging thus engine. If I am around town or getting on the interstate I am in 3rd at that speed. I usually go into 4th around 55 to 65..4th from there, and 5th around 75..can get up to 90+ in 5th..I usually do 70 to 80 in 5th all day, and has alot more acceleration when needed. I would start with the throttle cable and perhaps change your shift points. Does this ranger have a tachometer?

Nothing on my ranger is stock, yet a stock 3.0 5spd is a good combination in the ranger, the auto behind this engine sucked in the Aerostar and ranger...in the Taurus it's great. An old friend had a 99 3.0 Taurus and I drove it often..this 5.4 expedition wanted a peice of it one night on the interstate long ago..I put in drive from overdrive, heavily accelerated..left that expedition far behind.

People rag on this engine, yet thier ranger is an auto or they don't drive it properly. People forget that the 3.0 was also put into the Aerostar in 86..not just the Taurus. From 86 to 90 there were many 3.0 5spd Aerostar vans..most were worked hard..they are still used to this day. For those who say this is only a car engine...wrong, the 3.0 has been a work horse from the day it was made.

Actually the first aerostars ran the 2.8L. Some were even offered with the 2.3 athough ive never seen one.

The 3.0 started in them in 87 IIRC...after it was in taurus use for a year. So it was a taurus engine pushed into truck service.

Im not sure why the 2.9 never saw aerostar use, im guessing due to the tall upper intake making clearence issues?

Either way....i just had to give you shit dude lol. The 3.0 isnt a bad engine...i just rag on it for A) it replaced the 2.9 and B) It really does feel nutless atleast off the line compared to a 2.9.

 

[sgtsandman]

Even a 3.0 should be able to accelerate better then a lima from 60-80. Athough most 4 banger trucks had 4.10 gears...that 98 probably has at best a 3.55. That would probably account for the difference.

As for the 2.9 vs 3.0....im not gonns hijack the thread but....

If there was a drag race between a 2.9 with 300k, ticking lifters, cracked heads, and a rod knock racing a factory fresh 3.0....id have my money on the 2.9.

That being said though yes the 3.0 is a solid engine. Just the wimpiest of the ranger 6's.

My ‘98 four banger had a 3.45:1 in it until I swapped the axle. The damn thing couldn’t get out of it’s own way until the 4.10:1 axle got installed.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the OP’s 3.0 they are asking about is geared the same.

 

[sgtsandman]

An 87 with a V6 came with a 2.9.

83-85 was a 2.8 V6 (Cologne).
86-90 was a 2.9 V6 (Cologne).
91-11 was either a 3.0 V6 (Vulcan) or 4.0 V6 (Cologne OHV until 2000, S0HC (unknown engine family) 2001-2011). Both engines were available as options through those years, you could choose either the 3.0 or 4.0.

The 4.0 SOHC is German. I believe based on the Cologne, if not a Cologne block.