Which Ranger should I buy?

[Uncle Gump]

If those are your choices... and given what you're trying to achieve... the 96 would be my choice. However.... that one appears to have considerable front end damage. Depending on how bad it is... I might just pass and keep looking. I would say it hit a deer at some point. It is kinda rare to be equipped as it is.

The 90 with the bad cab mounts... that is gonna be a project... my guess it needs a bunch more then mounts.

Unless they have been previously replaced... I will bet they both need a full set of brake lines.

 

[fastpakr]

If those are your choices... and given what you're trying to achieve... the 96 would be my choice. However.... that one appears to have considerable front end damage. Depending on how bad it is... I might just pass and keep looking. I would say it hit a deer at some point. It is kinda rare to be equipped as it is.

The 90 with the bad cab mounts... that is gonna be a project... my guess it needs a bunch more then mounts.

Unless they have been previously replaced... I will bet they both need a full set of brake lines.

I missed the front end damage on the '96 by not clicking on the thumbnail. Good catch. That might be enough to sway me away.

 

[J_J_DePre]

Uncle Gump:

The owner of the 1996 Ranger said during the winter he struck a tree at approximately 35 miles per hour, causing damage to the bumper, grill, and left-frame horn; the bumper and grill were not yet replaced, and he said he used a porta-power to reset the left-frame horn.

 

[Uncle Gump]

Even the hood is jacked... my guess is there is probably more then what he is telling you

The only way I would buy it is if I could take it to a good alignment guy and he could tell me it isn't bent and is in alignment. One pic doesn't tell the entire story but it could be a cool fairly rare truck...

 

[J_J_DePre]

Uncle Gump:

He employed hood pins because the hood became misaligned after the accident, and it would not catch the latch to close properly.

 

[J_J_DePre]

Uncle Gump:

 

[Uncle Gump]

wow...

keep searching

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Go with the 2.9 truck.

The only thing a 2.3 has on a 2.9 is MPG. Power wise the 2.9 tromps it (140hp vs 88hp, 170ftlbs vs what? 110ftlbs?), and reliabilty could be argued both ways.

Not to mention everything else between the two seem about equal.

 

[Shran]

The choice between two junkers... that's tough. Don't really ever want another 2.9 powered truck, especially not one with a rotten undercarriage. I'd probably buy the '96 if those were really my only options but I'd expect it to have just as much rust, given your location.

 

[J_J_DePre]

Rusty, the power numbers are thus:

1990 Ford Ranger Regular Cab (2.9 V6):
140 Horsepower, 170 ft/lbs Torque

1996 Ford Ranger Regular Cab (2.3 I4):
112 Horsepower, 135 ft/lbs Torque

 

[J_J_DePre]

I purchased the 1990 Ranger (2.9 V6, 5-speed, 4x4) as a secondary vehicle for local errands and a 1993 F-350 (7.5 V8, 5-speed, 4x4) as a tertiary vehicle principally for plowing my and my father's driveway.

 

[Saddle Tramp]

Congratulations!

 

[rusty ol ranger]

I purchased the 1990 Ranger (2.9 V6, 5-speed, 4x4) as a secondary vehicle for local errands and a 1993 F-350 (7.5 V8, 5-speed, 4x4) as a tertiary vehicle principally for plowing my and my father's driveway.

Youll love that 460. I know after driving my 97 460 every vehicle i climb in after feels sluggish.

 

[J_J_DePre]

Rusty:

I have a 2003 F-250 Super Duty (6.8 V10, ZF6 Manual, 4x4, XL Super Cab) as my work truck and primary/daily vehicle; whereas my colleague just purchased a 2018 Silverado 1500 (5.3 V8, Auto, 4x4) with the cylinder-deactivation and auto-start/stop features. I drove his truck to a job site on Wednesday (the Twelfth), and it was an absolute wet blanket because of the electronic features wired into the ECU. Whenever the throttle is feathered or one completely eases off the throttle, the ECU abruptly enters four-cylinder mode without an option for the driver to bypass it, and sluggish acceleration results, especially when encumbered with a heavy load. Similarly, whenever one approaches a traffic light or an extended stop at an intersection, the ECU cuts power from the engine once more without an option for the driver to bypass it; not only is the subsequent acceleration sluggish, it is dangerous as well: should a motorist be veering or oncoming, there is a near ten-second delay in throttle response from the auto-start/stop feature, and every second is crucial in accident avoidance. Furthermore, one knows all of these features are implemented under the guise of fuel-efficiency amid more stringent EPA standards; however, considering the hefty maintenance costs that will ultimately manifest from failures in the electronics, any savings in fuel costs are moot. In fact, how dubious are the savings one might ask: driving a 6.8 V10 mated to a ZF6, manual transmission, I have an approximate average of 14.7 MPG, whereas my colleague traveling to the same job sites garners an approximate average of 18.1 MPG from his 5.3 V8 mated to a nine-speed automatic. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the additional costs initially and especially the thousands of dollars that will arise subsequently in maintenance costs outside of the manufacturer's warranty cannot rightfully justify the mere pittance of 3.4 MPG that is returned from all of the technology integrated into the truck.

 

[OldMan2]

Thanks for the pictures. My choice is definitely biased on the looks, but I'd pick the tan one.

It gives me a baby Turtle Expedition vibe.

And pass up the billet grille on the blue one?.....