Why would anyone.....

[Daniel Black]

Why would anyone want a 2.9 and/or an automatic? I have had quite a few Rangers and I have a deep hatred of the 2.9. I don't know why. Just like oil and water we don't go together, or well in the 2.9s case they usually do. I have an even deeper hatred for the automatic transmission. Every time you put it in park that could've been the last time it ever moves on it's own again. They're a ticking time bomb just waiting to go when you least expect it. So I picked up a '90 Ranger that's sat for years because I wanted the bed and back bumper off of it for my '86. Just for kicks I put a battery in it and after a few times turning it over the 2.9 fired up and actually sounded pretty decent. No knocking, rattling, no steam, smoke, nothing. Didn't really want to rev so I figured I'd back it out of the driveway and clear it out or blow it up, couldn't care less either way. Put it in reverse, it goes forward. Neutral, it goes forward. Wouldn't you know it. One of the few hundred 2.9s left running and the junk A4LD is stuck in drive!! WHY?? WHO THOUGHT A 2.9 WAS A GOOD IDEA? WHO THOUGHT AN A4LD WAS A GOOD IDEA? WHAT LUNATIC ORDERED THEM BOTH TOGETHER?? DID HE EVER ACTUALLY WANT TO DRIVE ANYWHERE EVER OR DID THE FORD SERVICE CENTER HAVE REALLY GOOD DOUGHNUTS AND COFFEE? I'm just in a mood to rant. If you love the 2.9 and automatics then don't take it personally. I love the 300 inline six and I love the little 2.3s that a lot of people hate. To each his own.

 

[wildbill23c]

My 88 Bronco 2 does just fine with the 2.9L V6 and automatic. My 84 Bronco 2 and 84 Ranger did great with the 2.8L V6 the Ranger pulled a 14' travel trailer all over the country for 5 years without any issues with the C5 automatic...don't think I'd try that with an A4LD though LOL.

Previous owner of my Bronco 2 completely neglected everything he possibly could, towed it behind his motorhome with the hubs locked in, couldn't figure out why he was losing gears in the A4LD. I had the transmission rebuilt almost 3 years ago now and have had absolutely no problems with it thanks to AAMCO doing a complete tear down and rebuild with aftermarket heavier duty parts which most shops just throw the cheapest stuff in they can which is why so many rebuilds tend to go south as did the A4LD rebuild in my 93 Ranger that only lasted about a year before it blew up again....had the engine replaced in the Bronco 2 last year thanks to serious oil burning issues which I attribute to poor maintenance by the previous owner and possibly overfilled with oil by at least 2-3 quarts all the time as when I got it the oil dipstick was not the right one, so thinking he just found another dipstick with a yellow handle and threw it in there then thought it was 3 quarts low on oil because well the dipstick says its low. So it runs and drives great now, no issues at all, and my Bronco 2 is completely stock and will stay that way except I'll be going with larger tires since the stock 205/75R15's don't have any tire options that size anymore so stepping up to 235/75R15's so I can get some decent tire tread for winter use and it'll make the tire size the same as my Jeep which is what's going to happen is the current tires on my Jeep will be going on the Bronco 2 and the Jeep will be getting new tires.

As far as oil/water issues that's 100% due to people overheating them and cracking the heads and/or blowing the head gaskets...I've never had that problem, mine runs nice and cool even in the summer with the AC on...yes the AC works in my Bronco 2, converted it 2 years ago myself its been working great ever sense, I did have to replace the compressor but with the help of Ebay and Harbor Freight I got the tools and parts I needed...who the heck wants to ride around in an oven because that's what that Bronco 2 feels like without AC in the summer.

To each their own, I don't mind the 2.9L V6, I'd rather have skipped the A4LD but that's what mine came with and since the rebuild its been trouble free. My 84 Bronco 2 had the 5 speed TK5 transmission which had a whining 5th gear. Couldn't keep a starter in that thing, no matter what I did after a couple starts the starter would slide out of place and just grind. I didn't mind the 4L V6 but the A4LD was a bad match for that engine, if the A4LD's had issues behind the 2.9L V6 not sure what made them think putting it behind a more powerful engine would be a bright idea.

 

[PetroleumJunkie412]

Well.

I just plain don't like you.

Never will, either.

I agree with the auto trans. Not a big fan of the FM146 either. My M5OD does just fine.

But hating on the 2.9?

Sounds like you should switch to Chevy. Or Kia.

 

[Bird76Mojo]

No, it's not 100% due to people overheating the 2.9

I've swapped out more 2.9 heads and 2.9 short-blocks than I ever care to remember, and I've cracked all of those heads. Without overheating them.. New head bolts, rebuilt heads, buying the best head bolts I could find as well as the best head gaskets I could locate. I always went with the recommended parts. I've probably spent well over $20,000 on just building 2.9 engines and ALL of them failed.

Just romping on the 2.9 a few times while playing was enough to do it. People say the 2.9 likes to be revved, and that may be true, but the heads don't like it AT ALL.

The 2.9 is just one of many huge fails on Ford's part. It was doomed from the start with a bad head casting design. All of mine cracked in the exact same spot, on different blocks..

 

[Dirtman]

Automatics tow more and work better offroad.... I have nothing to say about the 2.9....

 

[19Walt93]

We had good luck with 2.9's for the most part, other than a bunch of valve cover and intake gasket oil leaks caused by outdated cork gaskets. They made more power than a 2.8 and way more low end torque than a 3.0. The A4LD was based on the Pinto/Mustang II C3, as were the 4R44 and 5R55's and would have been fine if Ford had used a shift cable instead of a floor mounted shifter that pulled the trans partway out of gear under load. C3's would tear the lip seal in the reverse/high clutch pack and lose 3rd gear suddenly so they were an easy overhaul with no burnt pieces or fluid.

 

[sgtsandman]

Automatics tow more and work better offroad.... I have nothing to say about the 2.9....

Automatics are only allowed to tow more because people don't need to think to use them and Ford doesn't want to get sued because some dummy doesn't know how to properly work a manual. Nothing against automatics or that I think manuals are superior. Each has it's pluses and minuses. Manuals are just a capable as automatics people just don't know how to use them properly.

 

[adsm08]

Automatics are only allowed to tow more because people don't need to think to use them and Ford doesn't want to get sued because some dummy doesn't know how to properly work a manual. Nothing against automatics or that I think manuals are superior. Each has it's pluses and minuses. Manuals are just a capable as automatics people just don't know how to use them properly.

Automatics are actually physically stronger than manuals. The gears are in constant mesh, have more teeth, and a larger contact area, all of which contribute to the physical strength of the transmission. That plus the torque multiplying effects of the converter when the engine is at high speed and the input shaft at low speed all help to give the automatic a legitimate advantage when towing, particularly when starting off with a load.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

And the clutches in an automatics run in oil.

Wet clutch > dry clutch.

For every dummy that doesn’t know how to tow with a manual there are 10 that tow with an auto OD so it hunts like Elmer Fudd until it burns up. Not a good argument.

 

[Snoranger]

Well.

I just plain don't like you.

Never will, either.

I agree with the auto trans. Not a big fan of the FM146 either. My M5OD does just fine.

But hating on the 2.9?

Sounds like you should switch to Chevy. Or Kia.

Wow... he came out gunning for you.

 

[PetroleumJunkie412]

Wow... he came out gunning for you.

I'd say the same for @Bird76Mojo, but he knows where he's at on my list:

Just kidding! Love you buddy! ??

But not this new guy. Don't like him at all.

 

[racsan]

the tourque amplification of a automatic is impressive, one time in the hhr I inadvertently climbed a front tire over a rock and high centered the car on the left side. didnt know the rock was there and it just walked right up and over it. If that car was a manual it would of just stalled out. on the flip side of that coin, about a year before that, the same car (without warning) lost all forward gears on a trip. came to a stop sign , stopped and would only rev the motor when tried to go again. Had to call for a ride and flat tow it home 20 miles with a ranger. A 2.3/manual ranger. yeah, Id rather have a manual. If I were to have a automatic, Id rather have a old-school 3 speed like a C5.

 

[lvwill]

Honestly I beat the crap out of my 2.9 a4ld and have no serious problems. Just have to keep both of them cool and happy

 

[adsm08]

the tourque amplification of a automatic is impressive, one time in the hhr I inadvertently climbed a front tire over a rock and high centered the car on the left side. didnt know the rock was there and it just walked right up and over it. If that car was a manual it would of just stalled out. on the flip side of that coin, about a year before that, the same car (without warning) lost all forward gears on a trip. came to a stop sign , stopped and would only rev the motor when tried to go again. Had to call for a ride and flat tow it home 20 miles with a ranger. A 2.3/manual ranger. yeah, Id rather have a manual. If I were to have a automatic, Id rather have a old-school 3 speed like a C5.

I once had a Cobalt come in because the guy punched a hole in the pan driving down his buddy's dirt lane driveway. He drove it to us basically out of fluid. I told them to tell if the trans was any good we had to replace the pan and fill it. and drive it. $100 in parts and fluids later the trans lost all forward gears but manual 1st on the test drive. I limped it back to the shop, pulled the pan back down, and found chunks of gears in the pan. His service contract wouldn't cover it, and he couldn't afford to buy a trans, so he took it like that..

 

[racsan]

well the colbalt/hhr are basically the same platform, just different bodies. before the hhr she (g/f) had a cobalt, got rear ended by a 1/2 ton pulling a mower trailer, bent car slightly in half. doors had no gap at back edge (2door) and roof was dimpled. her first question-“is it totaled?” uh - yeah. unless we can find a car with front end damage only and cut both in half then weld the good halves together. The cobalt performed better though, think its due to the hhr having taller, wider tires and more curb weight. Ive only had 1 manual transmission failure. my ‘93 4x4 lost 2nd gear, trans was low on fluid when I bought it. If only it had lost 5th Id of just drove it like a 4 speed the rest of its life.