Adding A/C no a 1998 ????

[Daytonatunnel]

Adding A/C to a 1998 ????

I've been on the hunt for some time now for the right Ranger. Went on a more than a couple wild goose chases, only to turn around and go home. Needless to say, finding what I want has not been easy.

I'm looking for a late 90's Supercab 2wd, 4cyl., with A/C. I know they exist, but hard to find in good condition. I have located a nice 98, but it does not have A/C.

Can it be added ? Has anyone here done this ? What choices do I have ? Thanks for any help

 

[97RangerXLT]

one thing I can tell you, there was a change in how the condenser and hoses hooked up between 97 and 98. so if you get a system, you might want to stay with all 98+ or all 97- for your parts. (found this out when I redid my a/c last year on my 97, and was looking at parts in the junkyard...)

and if you go with 97 or older, I am not sure if the brackets are different or how much engineering will need to be done to get it all to work.

Good luck,

AJ

 

[Chris_North]

I know this probably isn't what you're looking to hear but TBH as long as you have the sliding rear window I don't think you need the AC. Here in PA typically the hottest weather I see is upper 90s, but not too often. Still as long as I'm not going to be stuck in traffic with all windows open at anything above 30MPH it almost feels like you're in a convertible.

I have working AC (at least I think I still do, haha) but I only ever use it to circulate the oil and when I'm going to be stuck in traffic for a while on a hot day. It uses to much gas IMO. I'm cheap...

 

[adsm08]

Hey Chris, it's been proven that using AC uses less fuel than the windows being down.

 

[tinman_72]

Hey Chris, it's been proven that using AC uses less fuel than the windows being down.

This is due to the fact that there is more drag created when the side windows are down. Having the windows up improves the aerodynamics so much that it offsets gas use of the air conditioner. I haven't run any tests but it doesn't seem like the back glass would make that much of a difference.

 

[Daytonatunnel]

So no one has done this ?

 

[97RangerXLT]

You say you are looking for a supercab ranger...expand your search to regular cab rangers and regular cab Mazda and supercab Mazda b2500 of the same year. Should have the same parts

Do you really care where this was sent from?

 

[Chris_North]

Hey Chris, it's been proven that using AC uses less fuel than the windows being down.

This is due to the fact that there is more drag created when the side windows are down. Having the windows up improves the aerodynamics so much that it offsets gas use of the air conditioner. I haven't run any tests but it doesn't seem like the back glass would make that much of a difference.

IIRC, and FWIW this is all from watching Mythbusters, there is a certain speed where AC becomes the more efficient option over windows but I think it's like 55 or 60. Typically I stay under 50 because I only do local driving, though when I get on the highway I'll use the AC but primarily because the wind buffeting gets way too noisy to be bearable.

You wouldn't think having the back window open would add that much drag but I'd bet it does going solely on the amount of air that circulates through the cab. Regardless I prefer the fresh(ish) Pocono Mountain air over the closed cab AC most days. That and I really feel the compressor's load on the 3.0 when accelerating.

I only got about 2 months where I could use the AC after I fixed it the second time so I don't recall how much of a difference I noticed but I'm pretty sure there was a benefit to windows with my driving. I'll pay better attention this year.

So no one has done this ?

You might have better luck looking around in the air conditioning subforum. It would seem to me to be an awful lot of work and probably considerable expense especially if you don't have the equipment and license for refrigerant handling. But that's just in my humble opinion, heaven knows I've had my share of projects that cost a lot of time and money but I was willing because it was what I wanted...

 

[OilPatch197]

It's a truck, for a thousand bucks you can get one of those "universal" AC systems, intended for "classic" cars, but should work great in your truck.
http://nostalgicac.com/ Now you will have to custom a lot of stuff!! It might be better to find a AC ranger at junkyard and swap 'em out, on second thought it might be better just to buy the AC parts from FORD service counter!!!$$$$$$$$$

Wait, a 4 cylinders Supercab WITH A/C!!!...... You want one with a slide in camper? towing a loaded car trailer? along with a 400lb passenger? Just kidding!

 

[adsm08]

Regardless I prefer the fresh(ish) Pocono Mountain air over the closed cab AC most days. That and I really feel the compressor's load on the 3.0 when accelerating.

I hear that. I much prefer the fresh air over the AC as well, and on the BII with the 2.9 you KNOW when the compressor engages.

 

[Road Angels]

a/c

Chris I have a regular cab 2.5-5spd with ac/ and I would say the 2-3mph per gallon difference between it and the 6, I would have gone with the v6, I to live in washington and use the ac, but the extend cab plus an auto trans mission would just be to much on that 2.5, expand your search down to Oregon

 

[Daytonatunnel]

Chris I have a regular cab 2.5-5spd with ac/ and I would say the 2-3mph per gallon difference between it and the 6, I would have gone with the v6, I to live in washington and use the ac, but the extend cab plus an auto trans mission would just be to much on that 2.5, expand your search down to Oregon

I've been looking in Portland area, Spokane area, and here in Seattle. The reason for the 4 cyl is fuel mileage, the entire reason for the Ranger in the first place. I have plenty of other trucks, but nothing that gets good MPG's. I've had a car for a commuter, but really miss the truck. I want a manual trany only, again for best MPG's. A regular cab won't cut it, I'm 6'6", and occasionally take my kids buddy to ball practice, that's why I'll need the jump seat here and there. My choices are anything that has a Blue Oval on it, Mazda may be Ford under the skin, but I will only have a the Blue Oval in my possession.

I've considered the 3.0L, but all I seem to read is how poor mileage they get........

 

[adsm08]

I've been looking in Portland area, Spokane area, and here in Seattle. The reason for the 4 cyl is fuel mileage, the entire reason for the Ranger in the first place. I have plenty of other trucks, but nothing that gets good MPG's. I've had a car for a commuter, but really miss the truck. I want a manual trany only, again for best MPG's. A regular cab won't cut it, I'm 6'6", and occasionally take my kids buddy to ball practice, that's why I'll need the jump seat here and there. My choices are anything that has a Blue Oval on it, Mazda may be Ford under the skin, but I will only have a the Blue Oval in my possession.

I've considered the 3.0L, but all I seem to read is how poor mileage they get........

^What you said^

V What I heard V

I want a truck for a status symbol when what I really need for this application is a car because it's just for running around and I want good mileage. Also, I am too bull-headed and stuck in my ways to buy the exact same product because the manufacturer let someone else put their name on the side of that given unit.

Also, do you realize that having that much load on an engine that small can cause it to get WORSE mileage? Max weight, almost max drag, going up hills.... I wouldn't want a 4-cyl pickup in Kansas.

You want to sit up high? Find an AMC Eagle and lift it.

 

[hank857]

The 4cylc may get a couple miles better than a v6, but the v6 will outlast and carry more than the 4. I have a 4.0 ohv, get consistent 15 mpgs around town with/without ac, used to get 19-20 on hwy (75 mph) when I used to commute 150 mile rt.

At any rate the SC will weigh close to 4000 lbs and thats a lot to pull with the ac. I would recommend the 4.0 ohv as a better option, but ypou may have to go out further in your search. Most of the 4 cyls I have seen looked at were trashed, mine has 300000+ and still runs strong. The 3.0's are not all that much to brag about, friend had one and UHAUL would not rent him a tow dolly for his chebby cavalier! Said it was not rated to tow that much, I know buts its just an example. He sold it last year for around 2500 it was a 93/4.

 

[Daytonatunnel]

.....Also, do you realize that having that much load on an engine that small can cause it to get WORSE mileage? Max weight, almost max drag, going up hills.... I wouldn't want a 4-cyl pickup in Kansas.

You want to sit up high? Find an AMC Eagle and lift it.

A Ranger for a status symbol, REALLY ? Like I said, I've had commuter cars, and find myself using it like a truck, so why not get a truck. Having the ability to take scrap wood home from work, taking brake rotors to the machine shop, or piling baseball gear isn't to much to ask of a 4 cyl truck. If I want to tow my boat, or haul a cord of wood, I'll use my big truck(s). Don't remember saying anything about sitting up high, got plenty of lifted trucks for that. If the load was so great all the time, then the 4 cyl. would be rated for worse MPG's wouldn't it ? It's not like I drive up hill with the AC on every day.