2.9 opinions, or better yet, truths?

[rusty ol ranger]

For a late 80's small V6.....they run awesome. For anyone who doesnt think that drive a 87 S10 with the 2.8L (the 2.9's main competition) and see whihc one is better.

later,
Dustin

 

[Psychopete]

For a late 80's small V6.....they run awesome. For anyone who doesnt think that drive a 87 S10 with the 2.8L (the 2.9's main competition) and see whihc one is better.

Yeah, those 2.8Ls were slugs.

The "get up" isn't where the 4.0L is better though, it's making more torque at lower RPMs. Good for pulling stuff. I have nothing against it, I imagine you could get one moving pretty good with some mods.

My 2.9L cam has more lift and duration, ultimately moved the power band higher (I don't pull stuff, or move anything more than 600lbs). 4th and 5th are actually not bad at all, god forbid I had to maintain 85mph before... I'd love to make some small adjustments on my cam grind and get a stick for it. I want roller rockers, but they're just too expensive.

2.9L is a pretty good engine, it's never totally just died on me with out some warning (never been towed). Head cracking is a problem, but is usually caused by other underlying problems, they tend to crack under slight over heating and the stock temperature gauge is inaccurate. It would be ideal if you could find one with a set of good heads. My stock '88s cracked, but I bought new aftermarket replacements that are less prone to crack (and they haven't).

Mileage - I'd be suprised to see more than 20-21 hiway.

Pete

 

[rusty ol ranger]

The 4.0's ive drivin didnt feel all that stronger even down low.

later,
Dustin

 

[rustbucket]

I have had my 84 ranger for a year now. when i bought it it had 204,365 mileson it. It now has 320,000 miles on it. I have nothing bad to say about the 2.9. That motor is a beast when it comes to being used and abused!

 

[g_ville_4life]

had mine for about 2 years and the only thing that has gone wrong is the steel gas tank rusted out and the resivor crapped out i have run the shit out of it and it still keeps coming for more and man it moves but i wouldnt consider getting a 4x4 2.0 you will have little to none gas milage

 

[volrath]

i love my 2.9 it does every thing i need it to. but i did the heads before. and i did split a rod once. but it always starts and drives.

 

[djurs]

My neighbor has a second gen ranger almost like mine, the difference is his is 4.0... I've driven his, there is a notable difference in power. I think they put out a fairly similar peak HP rating, but torque is a totally different story, and the 4.0 I believe has a much flatter power curve... which makes it much nicer to drive. My 2.9 ticks, I'm considering replacing it.

As far as reliability... it is a very reliable engine, the problems it has this forum has fairly pinpointed... Timing gets off if someone screws with the distributor and doesn't know what they're doing, the stock ignition control modules fail (cheap), heads crack internally if poorly maintained (don't put bars-leak or similar in your engine, or a block heater.) Gas mileage wise, I had an 86 dodge ram 50 when I bought my first ranger, which was carbed and impossible to tune, I was getting 10 mpg.

So as someone said, if you look at the era, it was a great engine. Look at the number still on the road, I see old rangers everywhere.

 

[Hahnsb2]

Mine's ok, never left me anywhere, I've owned it for 2 years. Still holds 60PSI oil pressure at 1500RPM+... Ticks on cold startup but that's it. I want to swith to a 4.0 as soon as I can find a wrecked 5 speed sploder though, 2.9 doesn't cut it in the balls department anymore. I managed nearly 23MPG on a trip to the coast when it was stock 3.45 geared with 235-75-15 tires and 17-18 normal driving, I now average 14-16 normal driving with 31s and 4.10s.

 

[Jspafford]

Gas tank has nothing to do with the motor, mid 20's mpg is NOT bad for a 4x4 truck with a 20 year old motor.

Changing gears and running bigger tires is going to affect any vehicle, not just the 2.9.

 

[holyford86]

mines a little doggy but 268k miles, a heavy foot, and 31 inch tires aren't kind to a small mill in the power department. it will hold 55 in 5th for all but the steepest hills , it works well offroad and gets about 18.5 mpg in combined driving. the only real complaint I have with the truck isn't engine related.

 

[177CIOfPureLove]

I love the simplicity behind the 2.9. I had never swapped a motor before I put my old BII 2.9 in my ranger, and i got it done in a weekend taking my time cleaning everything as it went back in. Was Driving it immeditaly afterwards with no problems whatso ever. Sure, there a little crude, but for the era...I dont think you could find a better alternitive. I enjoy my 2.9, shes never let me down, and is great on gas and just runs and runs and runs. I would put another in in a heart beat. (The previous ranger engine's head was cracked before i bought it, but it never went into the oil or anywhere, and the truck never over heated despite the crack and the disappearing coolant, it was my dd and i only swapped the motor for future peace of mind..)

 

[jon_herr]

I have over 188K on my original 2.9L - still runs like a top, no ticks or anything.

Doesn't puff smoke or use oil either.

IMHO it's a good engine.

 

[AllanD]

Every gripe I hear is about cracking heads, which is not an engine problem anymore than a lack of upkeep on the owners part. Run the 4.0L with with no oil and then complain that they tend to lock up.

I get great mileage with my 2.9 for a 4WD truck.

"upkeep" has little to do with it.

My 86 bronco2, no air, manual trans and an HD radiator and
it still cracked for no apparrent reason at 120K

I swapped several 2.9's into my ranger and got varying
ammounts of service before they cracked and died.

I also had several 2.9's that died from lubricaton system issues
(oil control, I.E. throus main resulting in oil loss)

And two others that simply seized and I still don't know why, I wasn't the least bit interested in tearing them down to find out.

I now have a 4.0

Frankly a 4.0 is what everyone wants the 2.9 to be.
Not what they THINK they want but what they ACTUALLY want.

AD

 

[armyets2003]

my 87 2.9 has been more reliable than any other vehicle i have ever owned (been driving it for 12 years). sure it ticks on startup sometimes, and it could use some more power. but when i need to go somewhere, it gets me there. when i need it to tow something heavy, it gets the job done. (tractor, 12 miles backroads, 2 ricks of green wood 30 miles highway, and yes it did hold the 65 mph speed limit, 1000 pounds worth of yard junk to the city dump ect ect....) if i had everything here to drop in a 4.0 would i do it...sure i would. but as long as my 2.9 gets the job done, i aint gonna worry about it.

Shawn

 

[Jspafford]

"upkeep" has little to do with it.

My 86 bronco2, no air, manual trans and an HD radiator and
it still cracked for no apparrent reason at 120K

I swapped several 2.9's into my ranger and got varying
ammounts of service before they cracked and died.

I also had several 2.9's that died from lubricaton system issues
(oil control, I.E. throus main resulting in oil loss)

And two others that simply seized and I still don't know why, I wasn't the least bit interested in tearing them down to find out.

I now have a 4.0

Frankly a 4.0 is what everyone wants the 2.9 to be.
Not what they THINK they want but what they ACTUALLY want.

AD

Thanks, but no thanks.. I will gladly keep driving my 2.9L while enjoying mid teen MPG, as opposed to swapping in a 4.0L just to say I have "mo power"

If and when my 2.9l blows, I may think about it. But with the price of gas, I can't risk a used 4L getting worse MPG than I am now.