ranger engines reliability

[bwright1818]

My '93 4.0 has 209K and sounds like new....and I mean NEW. I have owned it since new. every once in awhile,like every 50K or so, I put some plugs in it. I had a valve cover with a small rust hole. That was it. Heck, only 3 feet of exhaust system has ever been replaced! Watch out for the rear spring hangers, though. They rot out and can break off.

 

[pontiacfieroguy]

so far ive owned 2 rbv both with the 2.9 and my only real problem is running hot but that is easily corrected. iv driven lots or rbv with the 4.0 and i truly wish i could have one in my ranger

 

[jhammel85]

Gotta say I'm with the majority here. They all pretty stout motors. They all have their weakpoints but in the end, take care of it and it will take care of you.

Personal experence for me has been the 2.9 (the one in my 87, my friends old 90) and my friends 2001 Ranger with a 2.5 4 cyl. Both have been great......Sure hope I'm not jinxing us

 

[bobbywalter]

351

 

[jteasl1]

so far ive owned 2 rbv both with the 2.9 and my only real problem is running hot but that is easily corrected. iv driven lots or rbv with the 4.0 and i truly wish i could have one in my ranger

whats an rbv?

 

[Mark_88]

whats an rbv?

Ranger Based Vehicle...basically Rangers, Bronco IIs...not sure if it includes anything else...oh, Mazda B series...

I've always been impartial to the 2.3 myself...it's not the most powerful engine, but if you put a carb on them you've got your basic learning tool...and about 10HP less than fuel injection versions...

 

[superds]

Ranger Based Vehicle...basically Rangers, Bronco IIs...not sure if it includes anything else...oh, Mazda B series...

I've always been impartial to the 2.3 myself...it's not the most powerful engine, but if you put a carb on them you've got your basic learning tool...and about 10HP less than fuel injection versions...

And...Aerostars (probably debatable) and Explorer up to 2001, and Explorer Sport Trac up to 2005 and Explorer Sport until sometime in there also.

 

[bobbywalter]

And...Aerostars (probably debatable) and Explorer up to 2001, and Explorer Sport Trac up to 2005 and Explorer Sport until sometime in there also.

aerostars are not ranger based, and that is not debatable

 

[darkspork]

I'm confused as to how the Aerostar is not Ranger based? It uses the same frame, engine(s), transmission(s), and a lot of other parts. That being said the 3.0L used in the Aerostars and Rangers during that doesn't seem to be half as reliable as the 4.0 OHV. My dad's 3.0 lasted him 100k miles before it needed to be rebuilt. Then it needed to be rebuilt again at 145k miles, he's sworn off Ford. I had a few friends in highschool with 4.0 OHV Aerostars and they had over 200k miles on them (original drive-train, hand-me-down from parents sort of thing).

One of my friends had a 2005 Ranger with a 3.0 and needed the engine replaced under warranty. So far my 4.0 SOHC hasn't given me any problems.

My vote goes to 4.0

 

[legoms013]

Ive got over 210k miles on my 4.0 in my mazda b4000. Still going strong never had any motor issues. Only have ever done just general maintenance stuff. Leaks a lil oil from the front main seal but its negligible.

 

[wahlstrom1]

my 4.0 has over 350 000 on it, and still runs STRONG. Not to mention it gets beat on every day. All Ive ever done is general maintenance.

Same here, I'll hit 300,000km next week and aside from normal maintanence the only 'repairs' I've had to do are:

- Fuel rail to lower intake gasket
- Belt tensioner

I have driven the thing since highschool (its my first vehicle, and currently my only one) and it's been abused and maintained since day 1. I hit 5000rpm pretty much on a daily basis, merging into traffic or driving 'spiritedly' and it's never given me any real trouble. My truck is heavy, tall and has the aerodynamics of a flying outhouse yet I still manage 18mpg on the hwy. Up until I went to 37" tires, I regularly towed 4-5000k lbs and never once did the truck give me trouble.

Find a truck thats been taken care of, maintain it yourself and it will give you years of reliable service.

 

[bobbywalter]

I'm confused as to how the Aerostar is not Ranger based? It uses the same frame, engine(s), transmission(s), and a lot of other parts. That being said the 3.0L used in the Aerostars and Rangers during that doesn't seem to be half as reliable as the 4.0 OHV. My dad's 3.0 lasted him 100k miles before it needed to be rebuilt. Then it needed to be rebuilt again at 145k miles, he's sworn off Ford. I had a few friends in highschool with 4.0 OHV Aerostars and they had over 200k miles on them (original drive-train, hand-me-down from parents sort of thing).

One of my friends had a 2005 Ranger with a 3.0 and needed the engine replaced under warranty. So far my 4.0 SOHC hasn't given me any problems.

My vote goes to 4.0

thats the killer.

you can swap axles front and rear axles with fabrication, but they are not the same dimensionally either.

with your analogy the taurus and pinto and mustang are ranger related too? cologne based engine been around a few minutes...

have you ever looked under an aerostar?

 

[darkspork]

thats the killer.

you can swap axles front and rear axles with fabrication, but they are not the same dimensionally either.

with your analogy the taurus and pinto and mustang are ranger related too? cologne based engine been around a few minutes...

have you ever looked under an aerostar?

I'm sorry, I stand corrected:
"Although the Aerostar used its own platform, it was designed with a high degree of parts commonality with other Ford light-truck products of the time (initially, the Ford Ranger/Bronco II and the later Ford Explorer/Mazda Navajo). Components such as the brake rotors, axle bearings, wheels were all interchangeable and essentially any light-truck upgrades for power and suspension were also available to the Aerostar."

The point I was trying to make was was follows:
Engines used:
2.3 L Lima I4
2.8 L Cologne V6
3.0 L Vulcan V6
4.0 L Cologne V6
Transmissions used:
5-speed TK5 manual
5-speed M5OD manual
4-speed A4LD automatic
4-speed 4R44E automatic
4-speed 4R55E automatic
5-speed 5R55E automatic
There's some Ford vehicles we all seems to have a common a common interest in that use one or more of these engines and transmissions.

It still stands that it used the same engines and transmissions as the Ranger, therefore I will continue to avoid the 3.0L Vulcan. As far as I'm concerned that engine is garbage.

 

[IndianScout]

mine has the 3.0 L Vulcan V6

never had a problem at all..

 

[84bluebronco2]

I personally have owned a 91 2.3 I4 (232K), an 84 2.8 V6 (188K), and a 94 4.0 (142K). The 2.3 was without a doubt bulletproof. The 2.8, with it's age and my lack of eec-IV knowledge, could have been better. My current RBV (94 Explorer) has the 4.0 paired with the M5OD. IMO the 4.0 has power to spare, and is a strong runner with regular maintenance. My experience with 3.0 is similar to an A4LD (Ford light truck automatic transmission), they either run better than anything, or will prove the acronym Found On Roadside Dead. My vote stands with a 4.0, or 2.3/2.5 paired up with a M5OD. The I4's have amazing reliability, with next day 0-60mph. The 4.0 has amazing power, and great reliability. Good luck with your search. Welcome to TRS!!