Did the Old Rangers come with different Engine Options? I cannot remember if they did have options?
Just Asking. I see you are waiting for the 2020 F-350 7.3 Gas with 10 speed Auto in it.
Thanks for the post.

 

Old Rangers in any given year would have had a 4 cylinder and at least one V6 option. Sometimes 2 V6s, a 3.0 and a 4.0

 

Considering my awesome experience with my 3.5L eco, I think the 2.3L will b e great. But, I'm a fan of choices and I think Ford should have offered two engines.

Ford has been doing the same crap with the Expedition since 2005 and sales have been dismal at best. Obviously there is more going on with Expy sales than lack of engine choices but some people are simply dead set against gas turbos. I get it, the older gas turbos of yester-year didn't fair well. My advice, step into the 21st century, the 80's and 90's don't want us anymore.

 

As I said in the Raptor thread, Ford needs to get the Ranger into showrooms and onto the street before they start messing with engine options.

I don't remember the 1982 Ranger engine options but it might have come with a 2 liter and a 2.3 liter 4 cylinder. It did not get a V6 until 1986 (I remember this because I shopped them in 1986)....

The 2.3 Ecoboost beats the heck out of the weak-kneed fours from 1982.

George

 

Ranger had the 2.hate V6 from '83 to '85, first decent V6 2.9 in '86. Bought me one. Road oiler valve cover gaskets and all.....

2.3 EB smokes 'em all.

We rented a Mustang with one. Plenty of "snap" as one of the old man's friends would say.

 

Our 1984 Ranger 4x4 reg cab/short bed w/dual tanks has the 2.8 V6/Auto my dad bought it off the show room floor now it has 105k miles on it and smokes when cold. One of these years we're gonna restore it. Not a quick engine but proved to be reliable!

 

You're absolutely right. I had forgotten the 2.8 and stand corrected. The big deal in 1986 was the evolved 2.8 becoming the 2.9 and picking up a lot of horsepower--going from 115 to 140 hp(!) The 2.9 kind of reinvigorated the Ranger for sure--and that was when I went shopping for one when my '78 F100 was on its way out. (My '78 had the 300 inch six, which definitely had less than 140 hp but lots of torque.)

Then they kicked the 2.9 up to 4.0 liters (this was when the Explorer was introduced maybe?) and decided to offer the low-tech 3.0 Vulcan as an inexpensive mid-level engine--they already had an inline version of the 3.0 for the Aerostar (which also had the 4.0 as the optional engine).

Looping back around to the 2.3 Ecoboost, this engine has a LOT more power than any of those old V6 engines and actually has more hp and torque than the 4.6 liter V6 (drove one of those 130k miles in my E150.)

And remember that the standard trans has TEN speeds. It will shift a lot but it'll always be at the right power/economy compromise. Those low gears will give ya a kick when you really punch it.

George

 

 

Actually, in 1984 Ford offered the 2.8L in the 4x4 and the 2.9 in the 2WD. The 2.8 had more torque and the 2.9 had more HP.

 

I had a '79 Mustang with the 2.8L in it. Not sure if it was like the Ranger engine but it was pretty darned smart in the stang body. Very peppy and great MPG's. My only complaint was it appeared to be a euro-built engine and parts availability was a little more difficult than what we enjoy today.

There is no doubt in my military mind that the 2.3L will kick butt.