Hi, future Ranger owner here

[Elway3233]

Hey Everyone,
I've been looking at getting a Ranger for a while now. As soon as I sell my car I hope to snag a cheap '90s Ranger and learn as much as I can so I can fix minor stuff down the road.
I'm hoping to get a 4x4 and don't necessarily need a huge engine. I'm pretty much set on anything earlier than a '98 because from what I've seen the cheaper steel frames they switched to in '99 have major rust problems.

I have my eye on this one but I'm not sure about the 4 speed a previous owner installed. Seems like most of the truck is in good shape except for the starter issue. I guess the idea is to buy one for cheap that needs a major job like replacing an engine or transmission but is decent shape otherwise.

1991 Ford Ranger Truck w/ Camper Topper - 2wd & 4wd - cars & trucks...

Selling my V6 2.9l 1991 Ford Ranger XLT pickup truck (6ft bed) w/ camper topper included. The...

fortcollins.craigslist.org

first time posting, not sure the link will work but it can be found googling:
fort collins craigslist 1991 Ford Ranger Truck w/ Camper Topper

 

[sgtsandman]

Welcome!

One with a 2.9 has a good chance of needing an engine. Mainly because the casting department did a poor job of clearing the passage ways in the block.

Outside of that, that vintage will have many of the good and bad things that any other Ranger will have.

 

[RonD]

Welcome to TRS

1994 and earlier Rangers used the older computer, 60-wire EEC-IV, OBD1, external spark module
1995 and up used the 104-wire computer EEC-V, OBD2, internal spark module

2.9l V6 was used in Rangers from 1986 to 1992, they were always fuel injected in Rangers, and all used a distributor with TFI module for spark
1986 to 1988 heads liked to crack, 1989-1992 were better but could still crack

It was a good running engine but did "tick" as it got older and cam bearings wore down, oil pressure for the lifters came from cam bearings so as they wore down less oil pressure at the lifters and "ticks" were the result, not an issue except for the noise

If automatic it is an A4LD model, not a bad trans at all but since it was one of the FIRST OverDrive automatic transmissions, Trans shops had to "go to school" to rebuild them and they "learned" by their mistakes, so as many poor workman do, they blamed the design, lol
"Not my fault, I have been rebuilding automatics for 30 years(none were OD, lol) so if it failed again it must be a bad design"
Samething happened with fuel injection and pretty much any new technology

But this "bad design" is still working just fine in many 1994 and earlier Rangers, they just need to be rebuilt CORRECTLY
And the same internal parts were used on the 4R and 5R Ranger automatics to 2011

Yes, you need to find a Ranger with "good bones", good frame and body, engines and transmissions can be repaired

 

[Elway3233]

Thanks sgtsandman!
Yeah, so I had previously done a little research and thought a 2.3 or 3.0 engine was my best bet. I'm just learning about the 2.9 and just read PetroleumJunkie412's hilarious build post and can't tell if I'm terrified or excited about a 2.9
Reminds me of my old 1992 SAAB 900. Apparently when they switched from 2.0L to 2.1L they started routinely blowing head gaskets at low miles which was a huge hit for SAAB and a major factor in why they were bought by GM around 1993. A potential buyer who was looking for a 2.0 told me that...

 

[PetroleumJunkie412]

Thanks sgtsandman!
Yeah, so I had previously done a little research and thought a 2.3 or 3.0 engine was my best bet. I'm just learning about the 2.9 and just read PetroleumJunkie412's hilarious build post and can't tell if I'm terrified or excited about a 2.9

Youre excited.

Very, very excited.

 

[Elway3233]

Wow, thanks for all that great info RonD. That is super useful for someone like me just getting started!

 

[PetroleumJunkie412]

the 3.slow is trebuchet ammo.

A 4.No is a great spot to pee.

I have two 2.9s, a 2.3, and a 4.0 SOHC.

The SOHC is a noisy pile of crap.

2.3 is a good little engine, but is severely underpowered.

Buy a 2.9. Flush the crap out of the block and rad. Refill with G05. Drive happy.

 

[Elway3233]

Then 2.9 must be fine!

 

[sgtsandman]

Thanks sgtsandman!
Yeah, so I had previously done a little research and thought a 2.3 or 3.0 engine was my best bet. I'm just learning about the 2.9 and just read PetroleumJunkie412's hilarious build post and can't tell if I'm terrified or excited about a 2.9
Reminds me of my old 1992 SAAB 900. Apparently when they switched from 2.0L to 2.1L they started routinely blowing head gaskets at low miles which was a huge hit for SAAB and a major factor in why they were bought by GM around 1993. A potential buyer who was looking for a 2.0 told me that...

I see you met part of the 2.9 Mafia. They aren't wrong but they also aren't right (in the head). Still great to be around. Petroleumjunkie412 won't seer you wrong. He's probably more excited about bringing another person into the fold than you are about getting the truck.

 

[Elway3233]

Hah, I think the 2.9 matches my personality, I've always been a little cracked. Maybe it's meant to be...

But can anyone tell me why someone would replace a 5 speed with a 4 speed?

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Hah, I think the 2.9 matches my personality, I've always been a little cracked. Maybe it's meant to be...

But can anyone tell me why someone would replace a 5 speed with a 4 speed?

How do you figure its a 4speed?

Dont let the naysayers scare you. The 2.9 is a damn good little engine...and not all of them crack, 89+ were less crack prone then 86-88s.

Ill lay you 10-1 that he popped the intertia switch when he hit that pothole. 2 second fix.

Either way...for 1000 bucks id jump on that thing...quick.

There have been numerous high mileage 2.9s around this place, i myself put over 300k on one without a lick of trouble....the highest mileage RBV i know of was on here....an 87 BII with a 2.9 that was still burnin up miles at 660k on the clock.

Keep it cool...they'll run forever. They got much better giddy up then a 3.0, and get better MPG then a 4.0.

Buy it. You wont be disappointed

 

[PetroleumJunkie412]

Agree with what rusty said. Mine had 286k on the clock when I tore it down for turbocharging.

Cylinders were 0.006 out of round, and cam was shot. I very easily could have cammed it left the bottom end alone, and put it right back into service.

but nooooo, I wanted forged pistons and H-beam rods.....