Right Ranger for me?

[smurray351]

OK so right now i am daily driving my firebird, which is great... but im in new england and when snow hits the roads i dont want to be driving a 430rwhp sport car. I also like to go skiing and i doubt that the car would make it up some of the roads I need to drive on.

So, here is what I think i want in a ranger. Ive pretty much narrowed it down to 1986-1994 as my ideal years. I want something 4wd with an ex cab and a V6/5 speed. Which of the V6s offered (2.9, 3.0, 4.0) is best in terms of reliability, efficiency (mpg) and power. I want to run 31" tires, maby going up to 33s if i decide to wheel it a little bit in the summer.

So what ranger would be best for me? Im looking to pick up something on the cheap (shooting for $1500 TOPS). What years are the most reliable/desireable and why?

Thanks,

SM

 

[low_five]

I had an 01 formula with 4.10s, headers, short shifter, and a hundred fifty shot. fun car, i won more races with that thing.
blew up the rear a few times too.

about rangers. I got three 1988 2.9 v6 rangers. if you go with a 2.9 dont get an auto. auto sucks balls. 1500 will get you a good 2.9. first thing to check is the oil dip stick. look for water cause the heads are prone to crack. Water will appear as little bubbles on the dipstick. check under the oil fill cap for white goo or 'snot.' pull out the PCV valve and look for 'snot' check under the radiator cap for rust. get it warm and check the exhaust for white smoke. if those check out good, you probably got a good 2.9. 2.9s really last in the cold climates. If it makes a ticking sound, its no big deal. they all tick. use the ticking to jew the guy down youre buying from. keep on top of the cooling system. the 2.9 makes shit power, but you cant really destroy them. Ive tried. its a little german motor that just wont quit (as long as you dont overheat it)

4.0 is basically a stroked 2.9. makes a lot more power but kinda rare to find them in the older rangers. if you can find a 4.0 with a standard transmission for 1500 or less you should snap it up.

2.9 aint bad though. In my opinion

 

[Wicked_Sludge]

i would opt for a gen 2 or 3. the transmissions and front axles are considerably more durable than the gen 1 trucks...and most gen 3 extended cabs also got stronger rear axles. a 4.0 has lots of power, but most people (myself included) will argue the 3.0 is just a tad more reliable...and with proper gearing will have no problem turning 31's (im running that combo right now). the 3.0 also gets better economy than the 4.0 and most 2.9's...ive see 24 MPG in my '93 3.0 4x4 regularly...some 3.0 guys claim up to 26 in 4x4 trucks, but dont expect it.

 

[fastpakr]

As long as you avoid the 2.9, either of your other V6 options will be fine in the reliability department. The 3.0 is a little bit more bulletproof, but there are plenty of 4.0's running around with 200-300k miles. I've got 188k on mine and it runs beautifully. Efficiency goes towards the 3.0 as well. The best I've done with the 4.0/5spd combo in my Exploder is 22mpg, where 24 is very possible with the 3.0. The 4.0 does have the battle hands down in the torque department. If you're towing, you might want to push more in that direction. Either will get the job done just fine. I'm happy with the power of my 4cyl/5spd combo in the Ranger (27mpg on the highway). The only time I'd complain about the power of any V6 is when it's backed up with an auto.