can u guys tell me about 2.9 v6's

[bobbywalter]

I've had both. Granted the 4.0L was in a '92 Explorer, and the 2.9L was in an '86 Bronco 2, but the best the 4.0L in the Explorer ever got was 16.5mpg. that was with the foot out of it going 55mph down the highway, with the wind. Both had an automatic transmission. The Bronco 2 got 20-22mpg consistently, and that was with a badly ticking engine and a high school kid driving it. The Bronco 2 I've got now, with a good running 2.9L, manual transmission, and a sane driver will get 23mpg in town and 26mpg on the highway. You can beat the crap out of it and you'll still get about 21-22mpg. Your SOHC 4.0L gets better?

I'm not calling BS, I just want a number.

i dont doubt your numbers at all, but properly setup in a b2...the few points difference in mpg compared to overall usable power is easy to live with with the 4.0.

the b2 does great on mpg compared to the 2.9 in the ext cab....same with 4.0 swaps i have seen/done. seems the b2/explorer setup overall gets superior mileage apples to apples over the ext cab trucks.

i have witnessed 2.9's destroy d44 and d60 shit before so they can run when geared right.

 

[heptofite]

I'm in the process of having a brand new 2.9 put in my b2.

maybe i'm crazy, but i never really cared for the 4.0 swap.

 

[1988Rangerxlt]

i have an 89 bII it starts at -45 calcuis no trouble just plug it in

 

[RacinNdrummin]

Actually, last sunday I went 350 miles on a big loop around the western wa area to pick up some parts and there was some in town driving with the majority being hwy, I used 16.5 gallons. That comes out to roughly 21-22 MPG. The 2.9 that was in it would barely avg 18-19...granted, it was a 180k engine, but at the same time, there is something to be said about an engine with 68 more cubes, 70 more hp, and 70 more lb.ft of torque getting better mileage than the 2.9.

You cant even compare a B2 to an explorer, the explorer is weighs what, another 500-1k lbs?

And as much as I would like to believe the 23-26mpg thing with the 2.9/5-speed bronco2, I just cant bring myself to it... Every good running 2.9 Ive ever been near has averaged right around the 20mpg mark... I could see 22 or so with a grandpa driver all hwy, but not 26 by any means...

 

[Shran]

Yes, you should have, and you still should... The 4.0 is a better all around engine...

I used to be a 2.9 fanatic... until I got a taste of the 4.0... and especially the SOHC. OHV 4.0's are a dime a dozen and are easy as pie to swap in, there is no drawback to putting one in a 2.9's place period, not even mileage.

So roll your eyes all you want....

I'm just saying that I don't care. I had the 2.9, the B2 needed an engine so all I had to do was bolt it in. If/when I break it I would probably do the swap but for now it works fine and I can't complain. I'm by no means a huge fan of them but it works.

As far as mileage... I am getting around 10 or so at the moment. It isn't running quite right and I hope I will be back to at least 15 or so. When I had the engine in my Ranger with no lift or anything I could do 22 in town and 24 on the highway. My other old Ranger would only do like 19.

 

[rusty70f100]

Actually, last sunday I went 350 miles on a big loop around the western wa area to pick up some parts and there was some in town driving with the majority being hwy, I used 16.5 gallons. That comes out to roughly 21-22 MPG. The 2.9 that was in it would barely avg 18-19...granted, it was a 180k engine, but at the same time, there is something to be said about an engine with 68 more cubes, 70 more hp, and 70 more lb.ft of torque getting better mileage than the 2.9.

You cant even compare a B2 to an explorer, the explorer is weighs what, another 500-1k lbs?

And as much as I would like to believe the 23-26mpg thing with the 2.9/5-speed bronco2, I just cant bring myself to it... Every good running 2.9 Ive ever been near has averaged right around the 20mpg mark... I could see 22 or so with a grandpa driver all hwy, but not 26 by any means...

I never weighed the Explorer, but the B2 weighs 3400lbs on the nose.

You can believe it or not all you want, but I have the receipt to prove it. It was a nice day, no wind, without running the AC, and a 4 hour trip, all highway with several towns in between. Hold the speed down to 55-60mph, don't rev past 2500rpm on takeoff, and cost in gear up to stops as much as possible. I'm also running Redline synthetic in the engine, transmission, and differential. The tires I'm running are P235/75R15 Goodyear Wrangler Radials, on steel wheels. The vehicle has 152,900 miles.

Normally on this trip when conditions aren't as ideal, it'll get 25mpg.

Maintenance is the key. Fixing the EGR helped a lot. Fixing the TPS helped more. Everything has to be in tip-top shape to get mileage out of it.

 

[gribly]

My Navajo gets 22mpg if the tank is mostly miles where the motor is warmed up. If I do a bunch of short trips, it'll drop to 16-18mpg. I've got a 5-speed and 4.0 on 235/75 michelins. My Ranger was a '90 2.9 with a 5-speed, supercab, 4x4, and it got around the same mileage. One of my friends just bought a 2001 plain jane 4.0 4wd supercab with a 5-speed. When I say plain jane, the only option this sucker has is a/c and a cd player, it's got crank windows and all. He gets 19.5-20mpg, as long as the truck is warmed up, that's only slightly worse than my old 2.9 ranger with the same options. I really don't believe a 4.0 is much worse than a 2.9 on fuel if you drive it easy.

 

[4.0B2]

my 2.9 got 20 in town.. my 4.0 gets 20 in town when its running right...
the 4.0 gets better on the interstate in my b2 than the 2.9 did, and that's driving it harder... i love the 4.0

 

[85rx7_93ranger]

you guys talk about efficent engines? Yes the 4.0 was farly efficent if you count C.I./HP/TQ to MPG's but if you really want to see an efficent engine look at mazdas rotary. 1.1 liter/110HP/120FT.LBS/24MPG's which doesnt seem like alot but when you look at the fact that it makes 100HP per liter and each revolution of the rotor is basicly 3 revolutions of the 4.0's crankshaft. so thats 3 times the RPMS as the 4.0 which results in a absolutley nasty fast motor with decent MPG's. the only fault was their reliablitly, which i will give to the 4.0 which has excellent reliability, my 4.0 has knocked like a S.O.B because of a broken wrist pin for about 30k miles now with 0 problems besides the noise lol.

 

[Shran]

my 4.0 has knocked like a S.O.B because of a broken wrist pin for about 30k miles now with 0 problems besides the noise lol.

No way. Could be the bushing but it is NOT a broken wrist pin that is causing your knock. You would have found your broken wrist pin 30k ago when your engine self destructed if that was the case.

 

[ragajungle]

jeleous also.... Where the heck in MN did you find that rustless gem!? My 89 with 2.9L is my DD no problems going 75 (getting there is another story lol) I put about 200 miles a day on her. Starts up in cold (Wisconsin can be as brutal as MN in Winter) No ticking...Just the usual repairs needed for a 21 year old truck.

Gas mileage with 31's and 4" lift is about 25mpg -wwwwaaaaaaaaay better then my exploder

 

[85rx7_93ranger]

im sorry not broken but loose i droped the oil pan almost a year ago and noticed it. the rod was loose on the pin but not enough for me to worry about it, im guessing when tthe engine was rebuilt at 200k miles they didnt heat that pin up enough or they reconditioned that rod a little too much lol for whatever the reason it just didnt seat right. I always expected something in that cylinder to give out but it never did it just stayed noisey as all hell.

 

[85rx7_93ranger]

jeleous also.... Where the heck in MN did you find that rustless gem!? My 89 with 2.9L is my DD no problems going 75 (getting there is another story lol) I put about 200 miles a day on her. Starts up in cold (Wisconsin can be as brutal as MN in Winter) No ticking...Just the usual repairs needed for a 21 year old truck.

Gas mileage with 31's and 4" lift is about 25mpg -wwwwaaaaaaaaay better then my exploder

seriously 25mpgs with 31's????? do you flintstone that thing in town or something?

BTW shes pretty far from a gem but itll do for now thanks tho

 

[85rx7_93ranger]

im just happy i think i got an awesome deal i tradeed my 93 ranger for this b2. my ranger had a m5od with first gear halfway gone and overdrive whined like a son of a bitch not to mention the engine knocking. althought it did have brand new tires and hitch on it.

but after i got this bronco the dealer paid for a new radiator, belts, hoses, thermostat, air filter, fuel filter plugs, wires, cap rotor, oil change, and all new brakes

damn good deal i thought of course the dealership doesnt know about the engine and tranny history on the ranger lol

so word of advice if your from bemidji, MN DO NOT buy a red 93 ford ranger from a small dealership off hwy 71 lol

 

[shaysman]

i say go for it i have a 2.9 5 spd and it runs very stong anyway cold morning not a problem just crank it and go i have never had a 2.9 over heat and only one out of 10 tick i mean i built them so i mean i did put it stock so thats not a problem anyway the 33's and any performance i have found a bigger intake and bigger exaust like a (dual) exaust works perfect so go for it and the miles not a problem