Is it worth it? 86 ranger
Thread Starter
|
Posting Guru
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 1
From: Illernois
Is it worth it? 86 ranger
Lookin at buying a 1986 ranger with a 2.9 v-6 and i believe its a 4x4. The only problems with it are, it needs a battery, and the front brake lines are bad.
Is replacing these brake lines going to be a pain or is it not too bad? How expensive will this be?
Whats the rep on these 2.9 engines? Is there anything i should be checking out on it thats common? What kind of gas mileage am i looking at?
Seems the guy has fixed up all the body on the ranger, but it needs a coat of paint.
I was able to talk the guy down to $500 cash, so figured id take a look at it this wed. So do you guys think this would be a fair deal on it?
Thanks alot fellas!
Is replacing these brake lines going to be a pain or is it not too bad? How expensive will this be?
Whats the rep on these 2.9 engines? Is there anything i should be checking out on it thats common? What kind of gas mileage am i looking at?
Seems the guy has fixed up all the body on the ranger, but it needs a coat of paint.
I was able to talk the guy down to $500 cash, so figured id take a look at it this wed. So do you guys think this would be a fair deal on it?
Thanks alot fellas!
Logistics Pro
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,907
Likes: 39
From: suburban atlanta
If memory is still working, the 2.8 uses a carburetor, a 2-bbl mounted sideways on the intake. I think it also has a plastic timing gear on the cam, which has a tendency to turn into chunks w/o any warning. Not too bad of a job to do, and it won't eat the valves when it happens, but fair warning. When it was used in the 74+ Mustang II it ate fuel like it was free. But then it had a VV carburetor that was the dickens to adjust properly, and no one knew how to make it work or had the proper tools. Solid lifters, so they will make some noise and need periodic adjustments. Adjust them right and it will sound like a sewing machine. MPG should be in the mid to high teens, but you can go to the EPA website and look at historic 'hint' sheets. My 85 2.3 5-speed gets somewhere in the high 20's if my odo is working anywhere close to true. You won't likely get that.
The 2.9 is based on the 2.8, but has different internals as it also has hydraulic valve lifters. Its companion change to the displacement increase was to the heads, and they became more likely to crack if overheated. At least that is my understanding[memory?].
tom
The 2.9 is based on the 2.8, but has different internals as it also has hydraulic valve lifters. Its companion change to the displacement increase was to the heads, and they became more likely to crack if overheated. At least that is my understanding[memory?].
tom
Last edited by tomw; Aug 24, 2010 at 06:32 AM. Reason: clarification
Post Fiend
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 23,849
Likes: 20
From: McKenzie River
2.9 is a good motor unless it encounters the infamous cracked heads syndrome.....
Never saw a 2.8 with a sideways mounted carb??? never had one that would not get better than 23mpg on the highway either, nor have I ever seen the timing gears fail......guess we had different luck with 2.8s!
$500 seems fair for a running project truck.
Never saw a 2.8 with a sideways mounted carb??? never had one that would not get better than 23mpg on the highway either, nor have I ever seen the timing gears fail......guess we had different luck with 2.8s!
$500 seems fair for a running project truck.
Logistics Pro
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,907
Likes: 39
From: suburban atlanta
Old93, to clarify. The 2.8 was in a mustang with unknown mileage. Bought by brothers as a fixer upper. The 74 that guzzled was a CA emissions car back then, a rental, FWIW.
The basic engine is great. I just think the pollution controls, as I remember them, were futile and caused excessive fuel consumption. One brother had a 2.9 4X4 that got in the high teens, so I won't swear to the mileage that can be achieved.
Think that this same design is the basis for the 4.0 engines that were/are used in Exploders almost to this day... Must have something good going for them, no?
tom
The basic engine is great. I just think the pollution controls, as I remember them, were futile and caused excessive fuel consumption. One brother had a 2.9 4X4 that got in the high teens, so I won't swear to the mileage that can be achieved.
Think that this same design is the basis for the 4.0 engines that were/are used in Exploders almost to this day... Must have something good going for them, no?
tom
Senior User
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
From: st cloud, MN
it all really depends on how you drive, keep your foot out of it, and you could get close to low twentys. ive gotten 19.7 out of a 91 4.0 all city driving 4x4. and ya, check for those cracked heads.
Trending Topics
Elder User
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
From: Humble,Tx
ok for 500 dollars thats not bad at all. as to the 6s fuel economy don't know about the little brother but the 4.0L in my mothers explorer when she had it was easily 22-23 depending on road conditions I'd think less displacement would do equally well.......as to the 4s I can back up the previous poster me and the Wife had her Dads 94 2.3L with a 5 speed got easily 27-28 Hwy and managed to haul a 16 foot quad wheeled trailer in Tx hill country 45 miles with a 94 Mazda 626 on back of it and never overheated with well over 100,000 miles on it in poor running condition. it WAS NOT a power house but was reliable could work if need and did great on gas in and around town or hwy. Tough damn engine. But like I said it will be hard to beat 500 bucks for a running truck even if it is only a little guy
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
10 Things Every Truck Owner NEEDS (2026 Edition)
Michael S. Palmer
Rezvani's Latest Post-Apocalyptic Monster Is a Ford F-150 Raptor Underneath
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Most Expensive Ford Trucks Ever Sold on Bring a Trailer
Joe Kucinski
2027 Ford Super Duty Buyer's Guide (Every Model, Engine, & Package)
Brett Foote
Top 10 Ford Truck Tragedies
Joe Kucinski
AEV FXL Super Duty - the Super Duty Raptor Ford Doesn't Make
Brett Foote
Lobo Vs Lobo: Proof the F-150 Lobo Should Be Even Lower!
Michael S. Palmer
Ford's 2001 Explorer Sportsman Concept Looks For a New Home
Verdad Gallardo
10 Best Ford Truck Engines We Miss the Most!
Joe Kucinski
Post Fiend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,325
Likes: 14
From: Island Southeast Alaska
My 87 SC 4X4 XL dual gas tanks gets 19 mph with an automatic. Half the road to town is a dirt logging road so that is like city driving I would think. I am running 10.5 X 31 off road tires. It has had a few problems but nothing not to be expected and it is easy to work on for the most part. Parts are readily available at the local Nappa. I tow my 1966 heavy aluminum 17.5 foot boat around with no overheating issues what ever. But than it has new tranny, radiator and trans cooler installed last year and never gets over 180 degrees even when towing or pushing heavy snow. I think you would be happy with the one you are looking at. And as it is a 5 speed you should get better mileage than me. So for $500.00 I don't see how you could go wrong and after a paint job and fixing the little things if ya was not happy ya could sell it for a good price and get all your money back and get something different later. So my vote is to go for it as ya can,t really lose on it.
Post Fiend
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,242
Likes: 0
From: Kiev, Ukraine
2,9 was popular engine in Europe (scorpio, sierra, transit) and as I remember overheated onese get craked head in 1000 miles, so check all carefully. and replace thermostat with first symptoms.
what to add... may be a bit less reliable then vulcan.. anyway good engine, more reliable then 4.0
About fuel milage. Scorpio 2.9 - about 10-11 l/100 km, Transit 14-18 l/100km, so I sugest in Ranger you'll get about 12-15l/100 km, like 3.0
what to add... may be a bit less reliable then vulcan.. anyway good engine, more reliable then 4.0
About fuel milage. Scorpio 2.9 - about 10-11 l/100 km, Transit 14-18 l/100km, so I sugest in Ranger you'll get about 12-15l/100 km, like 3.0
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
nick87ranger
2.6, 2.8, 2.9, 4.0 & SOHC 4.0 V6
5
Feb 27, 2011 07:13 PM
