2.9 q

[89DANGERANGER]

how are the 2.9's performance wise. do they suck or can they be givin torque. can they have power at all?

 

[Psychopete]

how are the 2.9's performance wise. do they suck or can they be givin torque. can they have power at all?

Given what what it is, it's not bad performance wise. Whether they suck or not is based on what you're used to. There are some that claim they are powerful, others say they are gutless. It's all a matter of your opinion. Drive it and see if it will be sufficient for what you need.

N/A, you'd probably never get over 200hp out of it, and probably exceed a budget of a V8 swap. Anything can be force inducted, but that's opening a can of worms as far as engine management.

Pete

 

[Shran]

2.9s in front of a manual are alright but throw an auto in there and it becomes a turd.

I hate them because of the head cracking problem, ticking, oil leaking, and stupid looking intake. I am never happy with anything though.

 

[bro2]

The problem with most 2.9s is that most of the bII and rangers you get ahold of for a decent price the bottom end's are wore out either from abuse or from over heating . The 4.0l is a big inprovement in power and don't leak oil as bad .

 

[89DANGERANGER]

well im used to driving my bronco with a 5.0 k7n intake and msd ignition?
and yea i have already found that the valve cover gaskets leak

 

[4x4junkie]

(calling Rusty ol Ranger... )


My opinion:
The bottom end is probably the 2.9's biggest strength, you really couldn't hurt the thing even if you try (well, not including running it out of oil or something lol). Its weakness is in the heads though, like was mentioned. They do not like to be overheated one bit, but will run forever & ever as long as the cooling system is in good order.
The 2.9 makes excellent power given it's displacement (more HP per CI than most V8s). It WILL fall flat on it's face if you don't run the proper axle gears for your tire size though (this is why people complain about it's "lack of power"... it's not so much a lack of power, more a lack of RPM).

I have the 2.9L in my BII with 5.13 gears & 35" tires. It's more than adequate (it'll hold 60+ MPH on most long grades no problem). I don't see any need to swap it out at least until some major issue comes up that would require a teardown. If such a time comes I would use the opportunity to swap in a 4.0L however.

 

[mrecoolgar]

This is a good thread for me as I just purchased a 90 Ranger 2.9.
It has coolant in the oil.
I wasn't sure if it's a head gasket failure, cracked head or what.
The guy stopped driving it when he noticed the problem.
Thing is, it still runs with no bottom end noise.
However there is a ticking from the drivers side head, rocker?

 

[rusty ol ranger]

The 2.9 is a lil powerhouse givin its displacement and era it was built in.

It makes more HP per CI then a 5.0L H.O or a 351 Lightning, so techinacaly it could be called a high performance engine.

They run alot harder then the 3.0 does, and in my opinion not much less harder then a 4.0. They do tick and leak oil, but keep them cool and they will litrally run forever.

The 2.9 doesnt really need a whole lot of RPM to be happy. Obviously trying to turn 35in tires with stock 3.45 gears is going to result in a turd. But a reltivly stock truck with 31's or 33's and some 4.11 gears and they have more then enough giddy up to get you in trouble.

IMO the 2.9 is probley the best rounded/most suitable engine in a ranger, it gets better mileage then a 4.0, has more power then a 3.0, and is as reliable as a 4banger.

later,
Dustin

 

[89DANGERANGER]

well i bought the truck for 400 $ it had a bad transmission. i bought a tranny for 400 and put it in. it runs great and drives ok. guess the tranny isnt really broke into the truck yet. its not like driving the bronco. 0 to 60 is nothing for the bronco. but 0 to 60 in the ranger takes a minute or two.lol i guess it has the stock gears in it but i probably wont be running more than a 31 or maybe 32s if i get the money but more than likely 31s. would i be ok with the gears stock? it only has 149,000 miles on it. not a spec of rust. 4x4. locking hubs. tinted windows. brand new jvc cd/mp3 radio. interior is good. only one tear in the seat.

 

[89DANGERANGER]

and i doubt that the 2.9 makes more hp to ci than my boss 302

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Whats your boss 302 making?

later,
Dustin

 

[89DANGERANGER]

not sure what total hp it has but i only got a k&n intake, msd ignition kit, exhaust but i got 4:10s too

 

[holyford86]

what gears you run are completely irrelevant in a horsepower rating. Horsepower per CI is the horsepower (2.9= 140HP) / Cubic inches (2.9 = 177) so the horsepower per cubic inch of a 2.9 is about .8 which isn't too bad.

 

[Shran]

What are you running a Boss 302 in? Your Bronco?

And what did you get it out of in the first place?

 

[89DANGERANGER]

yes my bronco and it came out of an old 60's mustang. got it off ebay