Gonna buy and fix an old Ranger V-6

[MaineRangerV-6]

Hi guys
I'm Patrick. I'm 69, disabled but ambulatory, gonna buy a small piece of land in a couple years, for a homestead, but first I'm gonna buy a V-6 4wd Ranger, maybe one that has problems, fix it up. I want a Ranger with a 7' bed, a V-6, and a posi-traction rear end.

I'll start searching the forums now, to investigate that long bed and that rear end.
Patrick

 

[RonD]

Welcome to TRS

Rangers are good reliable trucks.
3.0l V6 Vulcan engine was used in many Ford cars and in the Rangers, 1991 Ranger was the first year, although in 1995 3.0l got distributorless spark system which has less problems.
1990 Rangers got the 4.0l OHV V6 alot more power than 3.0l and MPG is close, IMO 4.0l would be a better choice, it was distributorless since first used.

2.9l V6 was a good engine, rangers had these from 1986 to 1992, they did get low oil pressure as miles got higher.

In 2001 Ranger got the 4.0l SOHC V6, this was a completely new 4.0l, no relation to the 4.0l OHV, early years had timing chain issues.

Ranger leaf spring hangers tend to rust out, so check those.

You can look here, just click on this>>: http://www.therangerstation.com/tech_library/axle_codes.shtml

On the door tag there will be an AXLE code, that will tell you the gear ratio and if it is OPEN, or L/S(limited slip), Ford calls it Trac-lok, Chevy calls it posi-traction, samething
A letter then a number is L/S, like F6 or R6, two numbers like 86 or 96 will be OPEN(car differential), that should save you some time when looking.

Also click on this>>: http://www.therangerstation.com/Magazine/Summer2009/federal_sticker.htm
This is the rest of the info from that door tag, if you have to drive a bit to see a Ranger have seller take a picture of the door tag and send it to you.
VIN is also there so you can check that out as well.

And don't forget the Mazda B-series, same truck but often sells for less used, B2300/B2500 had 4cylinder engine, B3000 has 3.0l, B4000 has 4.0l

Super cabs or extra cabs won't have 7ft beds, 7ft beds were only available in regular cab models, I think pre-1998 long beds had 114"(113.9") wheelbase, and 1998 and up long beds had 118"(117.5") wheel base

 

[MaineRangerV-6]

Thanks for your post!
Would a L/S diff make a 4wd truck even better? Does L/S come standard with 4wd?

For pulling stuff on a regular basis, I'm probably right to eliminate the 4-cyl for a truck, right?

Sounds like 2001 and newer V-6 is the best one.

 

[RonD]

Most 4WD Rangers had rear L/S axles, but have to check door tag to be sure, and yes, L/S is better on any car or truck, 2WD or 4WD.

4cyl isn't best option if using a trailer, in any vehicle, unless it is a Diesel 4cyl.

So yes, V6 would be best if you are going to be hauling any weight, in the bed, or with a trailer.
Same 3.0l V6 was used from 1991 to 2011 in Rangers, Vulcan 3.0l, so year wouldn't matter with that engine, 2004 to 2006 3.0ls did have bad valve seats.
3.0l was rated as 150HP average over these years

2001 and up Rangers got 4.0l SOHC, it was rated at 207HP, but did have timing chain issues until about 2005, once new timing chains and parts are installed the pre-2005 engines were fine, so if it has been done then 2001-2004 Ranger with 4.0l SOHC engine is OK

 

[MaineRangerV-6]

Thanks for your info!
A 4 wd with a L/S axle and the 4.0L SOHC engine sounds like a workhorse. Now, if I can find one with a 7' bed...
I'll have my debts paid and money saved up to buy one in the summer.
I just read (http://www.therangerstation.com/tech_library/4_0_Page.shtml) that the 4.0L SOHC has 3 timing chains, and the cam runs the valves directly, without lifters, rocker arms, or pushrods. That seems much simpler, but there's no adjustment? That sucker needs an engine overhaul when the valves get a little worn?
Also, the name SOHC is a misnomer, as there are actually two camshafts, plus there's the jackshaft, which drives the two cams with those two extra chains.
But I haven't heard any horror stories about maintenance issues or expenses being exorbitant over time. Then again, I've not had a truck since 2012 (B2300, 5-sp manual, 2wd), and I haven't been following TRS.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Explorer's had problems with the cam tensioners when they came out for the first few years. For some reason 4dr Explorers had a slightly different set up that was more prone to problems.

Limited slip is great... sometimes you need 4wd for directional stability though. In 2wd mine likes to just kick the rear out sometimes. I was backing it into the garage last night and it did it to me, would have put the bedside into the garage door if I hadn't caught it. I tried it again with a little bigger head of steam and didn't have an issue. On a trail with trees... a 2wd would get old pretty fast doing that trick.

 

[MaineRangerV-6]

4cyl isn't best option if using a trailer, in any vehicle, unless it is a Diesel 4cyl.

I discovered that the 2003 and 2004 2.3L I4 has 143 horsepower, and almost the same torgue as the 3.0L V6. I'll research the fuel economy. I wonder how they got so many horses out of that little engine...

 

[RonD]

Double Over Head Cams(DOHC) and 4 valves per cylinder is how.

It is a Mazda L engine, Ford brands it 23NS Duratec for Rangers, different cams in the truck engine, less HP and more Torque than 23EW Duratec used in the Ford cars.

Engine was originally designed for transverse mounting in FWD cars, the 23EW, EW = East-West
When used in a Ranger, 23NS(north-south), there is a cooling system connection between head and firewall that can only be access with transmission removed, not a big deal unless it leaks..............if transmission is ever out that connection and hose should be inspected carefully or just replaced on spec.

It seems to be a reliable engine, using timing chain instead of belt like the Lima 4cyl engines did.
2001 to 2003 23NS had 135HP, '04s got 143HP upgrade, late '03 could have it but '04s would for sure

 

[MaineRangerV-6]

Well, it's a moot point for me. Ford stopped putting 4 cyl engines in their 4wd Rangers in 1997. 96 was the last year for the 4cyl 4wd.

I'm leaning toward the 3.0L V6. I don't like a non-adjustable valve system with three chains and a huge expense if something goes wrong. Gotta research the 3.0L now, see which years are the best. It's got less power, sure, but my initial research indicates it's indestructible.

 

[RonD]

Yes, Rangers with 4cyl lost 4WD option in late 1990s

But..............also think about whats best long term in what you will need it for.

If there will be longer trips then 2WD 4cyl would be better, also less mechanical issues with a 2WD than a 4WD.
A 2WD with good tires and some weight in the back can get you up or down most roads, add chains and you are "almost" unstoppable, almost .
Limited slip axle was an option.
A winch on a truck is handy to have any time, they can do alot more on a farm than get truck unstuck.

3.0l Vulcan was a very reliable engine, 2004-2006 had the valve seat issues

2001 and up Ranger 4WDs had full time locked front axles, better than the "auto" hub designs.
Electric transfer case shift motors do get worn out, and the 4WD shift modules seem for fail, so installing a $60 Shiftster to get rid of the electrics would, IMO, enhance the 4WD reliability.
Shiftster seen here: http://theshiftster.com/

 

[MaineRangerV-6]

I had a 4 cyl 5-spd manual, open axle B2300, a '95 I think. Had it four winters, never got stuck. I'd put 500 pounds of bagged sand along the back of the bed, put on the winter tires - studded snows on all four wheels, and I'd go anywhere with it. Eventually had an 800 pound camper on it. When I moved from NY to WA, it was full of my stuff - probably another thousand pounds or more of stuff. I had to add a big leaf in the rear to level the truck out. Drove 80mph across the country, 3,000 miles. No problems at all. Maybe another 4cyl 5-speed would work for me. A winch is a good idea, but I'm not at all phased by snow and ice. I grew up around Boston. Snow and ice is donuts in the parking lot play time. The 2 wd is way simpler than a 4wd, and the 4cyl is very fuel efficient. Maybe I can try to find one of those 23NS Duratec Rangers, they sound stout. Well, I'm 7-8 months out from buying something. I'll need to drive quite a bit to find land that suits me, so yeah, 2wd might be better. With a Duratec, it will still be able to tow something. Not 6,000 pounds, but probably a modest lumber/cargo trailer, or a pop-up camper for sure. I'm thinking I might camp on my land while I build the house.

 

[MaineRangerV-6]

I've had 24 hours to think about it. My main use for the truck will be on a remote homestead, used to move stuff around, get supplies, and be able to get in and out of a piece of land that I hope will be nearly inaccessible to all motor vehicles except mine. So that pretty much demands a 4.0 V-6 4wd, manual transmission. I'm not happy about the cost! I priced a Craigslist 2004 4-cyl 5-spd manual 2wd at $1,500, but I think the same year 4.0 4wd will cost 3 times that, or 4 times. But it would haul something on a muddy logging road maybe, which might be what I will need. I want to be really remote. I wonder sometimes if I ought to consider a full-size 4wd, but can't imagine how much money one of those would cost. Guess I could look...

 

[RonD]

A truck that runs good but looks bad will sell for less than a truck that looks good but runs bad.
95% of buyers want looks

If you are getting the truck to run it in a remote area, and not to impress the neighbors then find one that has scratches, dents even minor body rust, but runs good.
If it is as rural as you hope for then you will add your own set of scratches and dents to the old ones, and not fret about it like you would with a clean straight body
Ranger or full-size, same thing applies

 

[MaineRangerV-6]

I've always valued function over beauty. I'd rarely wash my vehicles, but I'd keep them running and well-maintained otherwise.

On the Maine CL, there's only one 4wd Ranger that is manual tranny. I"ve heard the AT is the weak link in the Ranger 4wd, but I wouldn't want an auto tran in a working truck. Guess I'll save my money and keep my eyes open, and keep considering everything.

 

[MaineRangerV-6]

According to this article, there are FOUR timing chains in the 4wd Ranger with the 4.0L SOHC V6. To change them, the engine has to be pulled.

http://www.underhoodservice.com/exploring-service-needs-on-the-ford-4-0l-v6-engine/

I saw a picture of the timing chain tensioners that are causing problems, and they are not wheels or sprockets - they are something that pushes on the chain - no wonder they wear out! Pic located here:

http://www.explorerforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39120&stc=1&d=1175984866

And this is a pic with what must be the improved tensioner, as it's not plastic:

http://www.explorerforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39137&stc=1&d=1176008758

It's obvious from the pic that the tensioner is plastic, and I read a report that the plastic tensioner simply dissolves due to the tension and friction of the chain against it. It worse with those who don't change their oil regularly, probably because all the deposits in the oil act as sandpaper on the plastic.

I just read that that timing chains are supposed to last the life of the engine. So yeah, your statement about the 2001-2004 engines is probably correct. If the newer tensioner kit was installed, the engine is probably okay. But since the job costs just south of $2,000, I doubt that any of these trucks on sale on CL have had it done. Probably the noise starts, the owner puts it up for sale rather than spend $1,700 to have it fixed. I'm thinking the only 4.0 SOHC worth looking at would be the newer ones, 2005 and newer. And that with a manual transmission. There are half a dozen 2005+ 4wd Rangers for sale in Maine on CL, none with manual trans. All of them expensive. I guess the manual trans Rangers are keepers. The auto trans variety must be gas hogs, reason for them being sold? My guess. This is getting complicated.