need info on '94 Ranger 4x4

[chimpanzee]

The best 4X4 models to look for are the 1990-1997 Rangers. Ford began using the Dana 35 front axle in Rangers in 1990 when they began offering the 4.0 liter V6. The Dana 35 uses Dana 44-sized axle U-joints and is comparable in strength to the Dana 44. The 4.0 models also come with a stronger Ford 8.8-inch rear axle VS the Ford 7.5-inch. Beware of the 1993 - 1997 4-cylnder Rangers. They came with a hybrid Dana 35 which was essentially a Dana 35 housing with weaker Dana 28 guts. If looking for an automatic, your best bet would be a 1995 or newer model. Ford used an A4LD automatic transmission from 1985 to 1994 and is known for being a weak transmission that fails off-road. The transmission was replaced in 1995 with the 4R44E in 4-cylinders and 3.0's and the 4R55E in 4.0's. Remember that the biggest cause of transmission failure is heat, so an additional transmission cooler always helps.

The TTB front suspensions on Ford Rangers are great for lifting. They can be built with a lot of suspension travel using taller coil springs, longer shocks and extended radius arms. Rangers have dominated off-road racing with this suspension and some of the newer style desert trucks are actually using the older style TTB suspension VS the newer IFS style suspension.

I've come across some used '94 Ranger 4x4, ~$150K miles, 5 spd manual, V6 (3L or 4L). Asking price ~$3000. Pretty close to Kelly Blue Book value.

What can I expect as far as MPG city/hwy? I currently have a Dodge 4x4 van, 360 V8 (12 mpg on hwy)..so I'm looking for something more nimble & economical.

I need experts to advise me on any "gotchas" for this era 4x4 ('94 'ish). The main concern is the high miles: 150K & up. Can I expect problems to begin appearing (head gaskets, clutch, tranny, etc) so there will be some expensive repairs soon? If so, then maybe I just keep my pig Dodge van.

I know Toyota & Nissan motors can easily get over 200K easy, no problem. That may be a reason to steer myself towards a Nissan/Toyota, rather than Ford. Comments?

I like Rangers offroad upgradeability, using an Autofab (or Camburg) Dana 44 upgrade.


The above info recommends staying away from automatics. I'm more comfortable with automatics, so those FS 4x4's w/manuals will be a little foreign to me.

 

[JohnPi]

Well, you can go to http://www.fueleconomy.gov/ to see what the mileage is supposed to be on that truck, and I'm sure people will tell you what they're getting on their similar trucks (I get 17-19 with the truck in my signature). Obviously, the truck you're looking at would have to be in tune to get what the rated MPG is.

As for reliability, my personal experience is that the engine, when treated right, is good for many miles. I bought my Ranger with 89k, and now am over 244k, so I would tell you it's fine. Other people's experience may be different.

I would expect you'd get a tad better mileage out of the 3.0L, but even though the 3.0L is a good engine, the 4.0L has a lot more low-end grunt. It's a toss-up, and personal preference as to what you'd like. A lot of people swear by the 3.0L, and a lot of people wouldn't be without their 4.0L's. I think that's just a testiment to both engines.

For something that old, I would look at the underside for rusting brackets (spring mounts, etc.), as that is pretty common (but an easy and cheap fix). I can't tell where you're from, so I don't know if rust is a common problem in your area. Being from Michigan, it's to be expected here.

I'm sure more people will chime in with good advice for things to look out for. Do some searches here, and you'll see pretty quickly what some of the common issues are for this truck.

 

[Josh40601]

I have 166k on mine and it is pretty worn out, but still tickin on 6 cylinders

 

[chillmiller]

3.0 aint a bad motor the nicknames are even funny 3.slow vulcan't but ill tell ya what like most fords i have had mine died at 325k on the clock and thats only because my rad return tube broke off doin 80... cooked i bet i could got another 50k outa that motor

but you will have alot better time finding parts for a 94 than a 91 lol

i hear the 4.0's heads are prone to cracking but i dont know if thats the case in 94+ but the 3.0 also has a head problem in the fact that the head bolts are too far apart and in longer lifed motors can lead to easy over heating

i think the 3.0 and 4.0 are both great


just my .02$

 

[Josh40601]

My 2wd has 346k on it and the first motor was replaced at 289k. The guy that owned it was a buddy of mine and he BEAT the hell out of that truck. You couldn't kill the engine until one day he wrecked it, and he overheated the motor