Wenches?

[G8orFord]

...
As for the 4.0, for being 1.1L bigger it just dont "feel" as strong as it should IMO.

Yes the 2.9 has its faults, but when you compare it to what it was competeing against (GM 2.8 and jap 4 cylinders) its pretty clear who the winner is.

^^ I completely agree with this.

I've owned 3 2.9's.

1. An '87 single cab LWB 5 speed I bought new. I loved that little truck and thought it had plenty of power.

2. An '88 BII 2WD 5 speed that I traded the truck I loved in for, because I loved my future wife more. We needed more room to carry her ill and aging father and mother to the doctor.
I really liked the BII, but power was not it's strong point. It had some stupid tall rear end gear. Did great after about 60 mph.

3. Another '87 single cab I bought used in '96. Almost identical to my first '87 truck. I even swapped out the vinyl bench seat with a 60/40 cloth seat like my first one had. I put about 70-80k on it before the fuel pump started giving me grief. Ended up giving it to my nephew.

So when I give the 2.9 he!!, it's out of love.

 

[Curious Hound]

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

As for the 4.0, for being 1.1L bigger it just dont "feel" as strong as it should IMO.

My parents had a '94 Explorer with a 4.0, it was not impressive for power. It was also almost the heaviest carcass Ford put the 4.0 in and they hobbled it with 3.27 gears.

Pretty sure 0-20 my dying 2.8 would take have taken it, both were A4LD's and on 235's

To me there is nothing serious here, I am just goofing around.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Friend of mine just recently had an explorer sport 2wd with a 4.0 OHV and a 5sp, 98 IIRC, it had 3.27's and it was a total turd untill you got it up above 30 or so.

That was the first OHV/5sp id driven, the rest were all autos. My 2.9 definatly would of handed that exploder its ass.

 

[Dsetz]

I'm honestly surprised Ford never made an intermediate engine to the 2.9/4.0 as they are near polar opposities. A high revving small stroke vs the 4.0 bored to max and stroked until it revs like a modern diesel.
A 3.4/3.6 stroker combo of both would have served Rangers better. I've got to assume the 4.0 was REALLY developed just to push heavy vehicles around.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

I'm honestly surprised Ford never made an intermediate engine to the 2.9/4.0 as they are near polar opposities. A high revving small stroke vs the 4.0 bored to max and stroked until it revs like a modern diesel.
A 3.4/3.6 stroker combo of both would have served Rangers better. I've got to assume the 4.0 was REALLY developed just to push heavy vehicles around.

If you want a small stroke high reving alternative to the 4.0 look no farther than the 3.0.

 

[Snoranger]

To me there is nothing serious here, I am just goofing around.

We're arguing about which is the best 6 cylinder, none of which have been built in 20+ years. There's 4 cylinders out now that will spank every one of these engine sideways without even breaking a sweat...
none of this is serious.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

I'm honestly surprised Ford never made an intermediate engine to the 2.9/4.0 as they are near polar opposities. A high revving small stroke vs the 4.0 bored to max and stroked until it revs like a modern diesel.
A 3.4/3.6 stroker combo of both would have served Rangers better. I've got to assume the 4.0 was REALLY developed just to push heavy vehicles around.

The 4.0 only hits max torque 200 rpm lower then the 2.9....(2400 vs 2600).

The 3.0 isnt even in the same range as the colonges hitting max torque at 3600.

The 2.9 does decent in the low revs and ok in the high revs. Its a much more balanced engine (powerwise) then the 3.0.

 

[Dsetz]

Yeah honestly when I was looking for rangers I came upon a nice 98 with the 3.0 and bad head gaskets for like $800. I seriously considered it as it was nice and that's not much work.

Then I saw how much power it made.

Then I calculated power:weight ratios for it, my 94 X and the 84 2.8 I was also looking at.
The 2.8 had considerably more power:weight than the 3.0, had a longer torque range and almost produced the same power:weight as the 94X.

It was a no brainer cause I hate those bubblebutt modern rangers looks.

 

[91stranger]

I get that.

But i didnt realize this was a serious argument.

If we wanna be serious about it, the 2.9 is generally regarded as stronger then the 3.0. Ive noticed most people that say the 2.9 is a dog have one bolted to an A4LD.

As for the 4.0, for being 1.1L bigger it just dont "feel" as strong as it should IMO.

Yes the 2.9 has its faults, but when you compare it to what it was competeing against (GM 2.8 and jap 4 cylinders) its pretty clear who the winner is.

UMMMM...… Chevy came out with the 4.3 liter (160hp/235 torque) in 1988 so I'm pretty sure chevy won if you want to compare apples to oranges. I don't think a pristine 2.9 could take a beat up 4.3 and I'm not a chevy fan but I do like the 4.3's.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

2

UMMMM...… Chevy came out with the 4.3 liter (160hp/235 torque) in 1988 so I'm pretty sure chevy won if you want to compare apples to oranges. I don't think a pristine 2.9 could take a beat up 4.3 and I'm not a chevy fan but I do like the 4.3's.

2.9 came out in 86.
So when it was released the 4.3 was a non factor.
My dad has an old beat up 94 4.3L S10 automatic 2wd shortbox

The 4.0 came out in 90 to compete with the 4.3.

Sure the power is there but i gurantee theres not one thing that cavalear with a bed could accomplish my ranger couldnt.

How is compareing a 2.9 to a 2.8 or 3.0 apples to oranges but comparing a 4.3 to a 2.9 fair? Lol.

The 2.9s main competitor was the 2.8L GM. Which, the 2.9 basically sodimized.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

We're arguing about which is the best 6 cylinder, none of which have been built in 20+ years. There's 4 cylinders out now that will spank every one of these engine sideways without even breaking a sweat...
none of this is serious.

Lol, there are 4 cylinders out now that would terrorize my 8 cylinder...

 

[sgtsandman]

All the V6 engines put into Rangers had/have their Achilles heel.

Pick the poison you prefer and go with it. I picked the one that requires all kinds of special tools and and engine pull if the chain tensioners decide to take a dump. Supposedly and thankfully, Ford fixed that problem in the last couple of years they made the Ranger before the new one came out. Time will tell on that one.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

All the V6 engines put into Rangers had/have their Achilles heel.

Pick the poison you prefer and go with it. I picked the one that requires all kinds of special tools and and engine pull if the chain tensioners decide to take a dump. Supposedly and thankfully, Ford fixed that problem in the last couple of years they made the Ranger before the new one came out. Time will tell on that one.

Ill take my sewing machine sounding, head cracking, tempermental 2.9.

They just got character, spunk, and attitude.

 

[Bill]

I get that.

But i didnt realize this was a serious argument.

If we wanna be serious about it, the 2.9 is generally regarded as stronger then the 3.0. Ive noticed most people that say the 2.9 is a dog have one bolted to an A4LD.

As for the 4.0, for being 1.1L bigger it just dont "feel" as strong as it should IMO.

Yes the 2.9 has its faults, but when you compare it to what it was competeing against (GM 2.8 and jap 4 cylinders) its pretty clear who the winner is.

The 3.0 is an entirely different engine. It was OK for it's time. If you are thinking of the problem it had with leaking head gaskets, that wasn't an unusual problem for engines built in the late 80s through the 90s. I think all the car manufacturers had problems with leaking head gaskets at some point, and the 4.0 had the problem in the mid-90s. I think it was caused by phasing out asbestos and hotter engine temperatures.

Making a claim against Japanese 4 cylinders is vague. Overall, I think most of them were very reliable.

I don't have any problems with any of the Cologne V6 engines. They were all solid. The only real issues I can think of was up to the 2.8, the original timing gear set that was passed down from the v4 had a cam gear that where the gears were made of some plastic-type material that would fatigue by about 60K miles. Supposedly, the V4 and the V6 were among the first engines that were mass-produced, so my thinking is that the pressed on plastic gear thing was the fastest means of producing the cam gear at the time, and 60K miles were high-mileage in that era. The North American version of the 2.8 had a common issue with the exhaust valve seats cracking due to a hot spot on the head, but I never heard of an outright failure from this. The crack just showed up but didn't get any worse at some point. Some of the 4.0s had an issue with the timing chain guides, but a revision was done to correct that problem. I've had a lot of fun with these engines over the years. I've rebuilt or worked on every version except the 2.9L (I never owned one). I also rebuilt a 2.3L version of it. I knew someone years ago who liked to use both the V4 and the V6 in kit cars and helped him pull several V4s out of Sonetts in Pick'n'Pull and rebuilt them. The V4 was identical to the V6 in those years, with the only difference being the number of cylinders and piston diameters. Most of the other parts were interchangeable with the V6 up to the 2.6L version.