Deciding on which Ranger, need help

[OilPatch197]

I'd Buy the '88, NO AIR BAGS to worry about.

 

[mhughes165]

lol, im one of the defenders of the 2.9 that u hear about on here, the 2.9 even with a minor ticking that they do can and will run for just as long as a 2.3 will, its all about how well the engines were maintained over there life, ive had 2.9's with 300k+ with stock gears and 33's thatll roast up the tires like it was its job, ive had 2.9's get an average of 22mpg, if ur a spirited driver then the 2.3's mileage will HIGHLY disappoint you, but then again, that may just be my opinion......

 

[dragonryder]

Yeah I liked the power the 2.9 had but the body was so much nicer on the 96 that I had to take it. Figure with the 180k-190k mileage on both may as well get the one that would be more worth putting in a new motor.

 

[OilPatch197]

great deal.

 

[bluebikerboy1]

any specific reasons or just a feeling

easier to work on, insurance and registration would be cheaper too. parts may be a slight challenge but thats what ebay motors and the internet is for

 

[bluebikerboy1]

And the winner is ...............
1996 red ranger. Body is in good shape with just a few dings and a couple of small rust bubbles above the rear wheels. Interior is nice. 5-speed shifts well. Still runs smooth for having 191000 miles on it. Seller will get inspected for a year for me but I will have to get the emissions test on it because he lives in an area that doesn't have emissions. I need to get new door lokcs because he never had a key for the locks and didn't worry about because he lives out in the country. Windshield has a decent crack in it but it doesn't affect the drivers line of sight. Front springs are weak so it is sagging some and the front wheels are toe out. Has a slight oil leak at the rear seal and a squeeky pully beside the power pump that is annoying but doesn't seem to affect performance. He dropped the price from 1250 to 900 for me and its sold. Guess now I'll be on here more often for help.

Thanks all

keep up with the maintance on that engine. i will never buy another mid 90's ranger. very bad experiance with my last one. seems they didnt get there act right again till early 2000's

 

[dragonryder]

keep up with the maintance on that engine. i will never buy another mid 90's ranger. very bad experiance with my last one. seems they didnt get there act right again till early 2000's

It seems that with almost every vehicle I have asked about or owned over the years there are people with good luck and people with bad luck with them. I know that some vehicles had glaring common problems but it has always amazed me how you can ask 20 people about a specific vehicle and you will get answers all over the board.

 

[dragonryder]

easier to work on, insurance and registration would be cheaper too. parts may be a slight challenge but thats what ebay motors and the internet is for

I'll give you the easier to work on but in PA our registration is based on GVWR so both trucks will run me the same for plates and I will only have liabilty insurance on it so it won't cost any different either since they won't have to pay for my vehicle in case of an accident, matter of fact the 96 may be cheaper due to anti-lock brakes and air bags.

 

[fordmandan87]

just my .02 96 4 banger is fine for power and you can accelerate pretty good around a corner in second. yes the 2.9 has more power but you go the some speed with both. the 2.9 is not as reliable as an in-line but is still a good engine. i love my 2.9 and i love my 2.3, but for what your doing and the mileage that is on both i would recommend the 96 statistically it has more life left in it. however go with your gut, my grand ma told me if you have a doubt about something dont do and it has served me well.

 

[bluebikerboy1]

I'll give you the easier to work on but in PA our registration is based on GVWR so both trucks will run me the same for plates and I will only have liabilty insurance on it so it won't cost any different either since they won't have to pay for my vehicle in case of an accident, matter of fact the 96 may be cheaper due to anti-lock brakes and air bags.

ahhh yeah different rules for different states, my mazda costs (1989) like 70 bucks a year vs the chevy (1998) that costs 250 a year to register and they just jacked both up again with the budget deals.

 

[OilPatch197]

ahhh yeah different rules for different states, my mazda costs (1989) like 70 bucks a year vs the chevy (1998) that costs 250 a year to register and they just jacked both up again with the budget deals.

wow, I just got a notice that my registration fees ($79) is going up $1 the 1st of July...thank goodness my sicker expires in June!

"The $1 surcharge will go toward upgrading Illinois State Police equipment statewide."

B.S.

 

[dragonryder]

Wow and I thought that 36 for my wifes car, 56 for the ranger and 86 for my ram was bad.

 

[Ranger Sport Honduras]

nothing more to say
we need to see

 

[dragonryder]

Picking it up tomorrow, will get pics as soon as possible

 

[dragonryder]

Well here they are if I can do this