Basic Engine Question from a Newbie!

[Midyearguru]

Hi,
I am looking to buy my first Ranger. I'm interested in anything from 1989 thru 1997, 2-WD, extra cab, 5-speed, and am trying to decide between the 2.3L I4, and the 3.0 & 4.0 V6. I'm more interested in dependability and ease (and cost) of maintenance. I plan to use the truck for everyday drivingwith some light hauling and maybe SMALL trailer towing. Any insights will be most appreciated.

Thanks.

 

[almostclueless]

Hi,
I'm more interested in dependability and ease (and cost) of maintenance. I plan to use the truck for everyday drivingwith some light hauling and maybe SMALL trailer towing.

3.0, 5SPD, 4.10 gears

 

[rangerjr]

dependability

3.0 5 spd its between the 2 of them and thay are good motors

 

[Bill]

Welcome to TRS. You will find the Sacramento Valley is well represented in our membership here.

Anyway, reliability of all the engines are similar. They each have slightly different personalities. There is also a 2.8L and 2.9L V6 available in the Ranger, although I'm not sure if they were available as late as 1989. Don't limit yourself to those years either. Someone down the street sold a 1987 Ranger last year w/75K miles for around $1500. It was in excellent condition. If you look hard enough you could probably find a later Ranger near $5K. It all depends on the condition you are looking for.

If you aren't going to be towing much and don't need the extra power, an I4 would be a good choice. People are claiming around 26mpg on the highway with those. All the V6 engines have fuel economy in the low 20's.

 

[ozzy85]

Welcome to the site! I have an '89 with the 4 cyl., it does fine for me as a daily driver and light hauling. The fuel economy is in the mid-high 20s on the freeway. They have a good reputation for durability. The sixes are good also, it just depends on how much of a hurry you are to get somewhere and how much stuff you haul. Have fun.

 

[HAPPY_RANGER_GUY]

...There is also a 2.8L and 2.9L V6 available in the Ranger, although I'm not sure if they were available as late as 1989.

Don't leave out the 2.5L as well. Sounds like you're needing the I4 engine to me. The 4 cyl does just fine as long as you have 3.73 rearend or better...4.10 etc...

T.

 

[almostclueless]

The 3.0 is so gutless it's difficult for it to blow itself up....and I wouldn't want to bother with a 2.3 or 2.5

 

[MAKG]

2.8Ls were long gone by 1989. They are carbureted. 2.9Ls were still around until 1991. They are multiport fuel injected. Unfortunately, a number of them come with badly designed transmissions (though the interchangeable Mazda transmission is decent). If the transmission has a removable pan on the bottom, you don't want it....

 

[86ford]

bill said it best. all of the motors are great in there own ways and all of them if properly maintained will last long past 150k and if your lucky past 250k. with the proper gearing any of these motors and trannys can take a significant amount of hauling without being gutless. imo a truck that has oblivously we cared for is all you need. a well cared for truck will serve you best no matter what tranny (except a4ld) and no matter what engine it has in it.

86

 

[Crazy_Bronco_2]

If the transmission has a removable pan on the bottom, you don't want it....

why? what is wrong with those kind of transmissions?

 

[MAKG]

why? what is wrong with those kind of transmissions?

Ball bearings used to hold off thrust loads.

Thrust loads are generated by helical-cut gears in any forward gear but 4th.

 

[Hawker]

I had a 94 I4/5 spd and it was a decent little truck. Reliable and got good gas mileage. Once I got used to it, it performed well enough. I then got a 02 extended cab 3.0/auto w/4.10 axle which I still have. It gets 20 mpg mixed driving and has performed flawlessly since day one. Guess I didn't know it was gutless until almostclueless told me. It holds its own in traffic without too much effort and I've hauled some really heavy loads of drywall and gravel that didn't seem to phase it.

Don't think you'll be making a mistake regardless of which you choose.

 

[Sevensecondsuv]

Sounds like you need a 2.3. After 240,000 miles mine still gets a combined 28 mpg average. It's perfectly capable of hauling anything you can fit in the bed and it'll even tow a pretty good sized trailer (relatively speaking) if you know how to drive a stick. The 2.3 became a 2.5 in 1998. If you're going to get a 2.3, try to get an 89 or better as they got DIS ignition in 89 and picked up a few hp, ft-lbs, and mpg's.

Reliability? Well, I've replaced an ignition coil, exhaust system, and egr valve, that's it!

Then again the V6s are good motors too. I've had real good luck with the 4.0 in my explorer. 3.0's have a repuation for being indestructable. The 2.9 is also a good motor (and closely related to the 4.0) but some have head cracking issues.

You definately want the mazda manual trans. They came behind all 3.0, 4.0 and 89+ 2.3 motors.

 

[AllanD]

a lot of people talk about the 3.0 being gutless.

Well, it's revvier than any other stock ranger engine EXCEPT the
4.0 SOHC introduced in '01.

The 3.0 simply needs to spin to do it's job.
The 2.9 also needs to spin, compared to say... a 4.0OHV.
The 2.9 just needs to spin less than the 3.0.

If you plan to tow forget any of the 4cyl engines.

AD

 

[Hahnsb2]

Givin the choice Id take a 2.9 or a 4.0. 4.0 preferably because it will get similar milage to a 2.9 and overall is a better engine. Although, my 2.9 has treated me damn well and has 230,000+ miles on it, and I drive the piss out of it. As far as 2.9s having crappy transmissions, I think youd only have to worry about that with an 89. My mitsu ("crappy") tranny has been good to me to. It had motor oil in it when I got it, it has some input bearing noise but it has never gotten louder, I also over filled it by about 3/4 of a quart for peace of mind. The only drivetrain component Ive had go bad was my transfer case, it would pop and "slip" in low range and was overal "sloppy" on the street, Im not mad about it because it gave me a perfect excuse to swap in a manual t-case...
EDIT: My dad has a 89 2.3 ranger 5 speed. It was my first "car" for a few months until I got my b2. I really didnt care for it much, to gutless for me (even though its a shortbed reg cab 2wd) and 4 bangers just arent very smooth engines, my 2.9 is FAR smoother than a 2.3. I will admit the 2.3 deffinatly does get better milage, but Id rather drive my 15MPG 2.9 than a 25MPG 2.3, but thats just me. Weve both beat the piss outta that truck, my dads put 50,000 miles on that thing since he got it just over 2 years ago and were sure it had over 200k when he got it, hes not made a single substantial repair (he put a u joint in it when he got it and a windshield and a headlight, thats about it) on that thing.