This “My CC” is from John Palmer, known as ciddyguy hereabouts.
There are times in one’s life when certain things are meant to be, because they are what you need at that point. Sometimes that need may be a particular person you needed to know who can help you, or it’s a friend who’s in a position to help you get what you need. This is about one of those times and the car that came into my life as a result.
I called this dear friend who’s like a brother to me, whom I’ve known for nearly forty years to see if he was going to be home, and if so, to borrow his shop vac to vacuum up some water that was accumulating in the passenger seat floor of my then road-weary ’88 Honda Accord sedan. So I dropped by and began to vacuum up said water from the floor and when done, showed him how much I’d sucked up, as it even surprised me. He took pity on my sad state of woe with the poor Honda and agreed that it was time to replace the car as I was in NO way financially able to get it back into good, road worthy shape.
So he then told me of this green Ford Ranger truck that was sitting out in front of his house that he and his dad were thinking of selling anyway. They’d not had it long, five months to be exact, and it had a new clutch, front brakes, front wheel bearings and fresh oil in the transmission.
So, he talked to his dad, and we came up with a deal for me to purchase it, the next day. We changed the oil and plugs and such as it hesitated when cold and from a dead stop. Once we got that done, the truck ran flawlessly, not bad for 189,000 miles on the odometer either. The truck’s appearance still looked great at the time, and it still looks pretty good five and a half years later, despite some minor parking lot dents, as you can see in the pictures.
My Ranger is a 2WDS STX extended cab with the 4.0L Cologne pushrod V6 and the Mazda sourced 4spd manual with overdrive 5th. It has AC, cruise and an AM/FM Cassette deck (replaced by a CD player in 2008) but manual locks and windows. The cruise control still works, but the AC doesn’t (never converted to 134-A either as far as I can tell and was going to have it converted but never got far with it other than testing the compressor which works). I pulled a CarFax report on it in 2009 and it showed up as a local truck, bought down in the Tacoma/Pierce County area back in 1992. I’m the third owner, and since this truck’s odo doesn’t have the 7th digit, I had to do a little deducing to figure out if the mileage was indeed 189K. Yep, the pedals and the sloping driver’s seat cushion were two obvious clues.
Overall, I’ve grown to really like this old beast, which has been very reliable even though its shifter has always been on the balky side. The clutch has been fantastic, easy to feel when it engages, and one can feather it quite well despite it being a tad on the heavy side. The only major mechanical problems were replacing the master and slave clutch cylinders. The only other issue was that the thermostat went last year and I had the “pleasure” of replacing said component. Not too difficult to get to, the bolts, however, not so much (lost my 10mm socket in the process). Even replacing spark plugs isn’t as easy as it may look, as some of them are more difficult to get at than others. The only other items of note maintenance wise were new tires and exhaust, and that’s been it outside of the usual oil, plug and wire changes. Not even the coil pack has gone out.
I have to confess that I didn’t always like this generation of the Ranger, but now that I’ve owned it for a good while, its straight forward good looks have kind of grown on me. I see plenty of these old Rangers around the area in all manner of conditions since rust isn’t an issue around these parts. Its interior is somewhat plain as well, but it does sport a full gauge cluster however.
This motor is a derivative of the 2.9L Cologne V6 that had a rep for cracked heads. Most of those issues were solved in the 4.0 motor, and other than some maintenance issues as these engines age, they are known to hit 200K+ miles easily otherwise. I have 235K+ miles on mine, and it continues to run just fine, though now it appears to be leaking some oil and coolant.
While I haven’t taken a lot of road trips in my Ranger, it has seen plenty of trips back and forth to and from my apt in Seattle to Tacoma where Mom and good friends live. I drive it daily out to Bellevue where I work via I-90, so it continues to serve yeoman’s duty in that capacity. My best friend and I have had thoughts of how much fun it would be to have the canopy resealed, rekeyed (the T handles are missing their keys) and the rear glass reinstalled (which was all I had done), because it would’ve been the perfect place to stash my camping gear and go on a road trip or two. Sadly, finances and the rising cost of living are out of sync with my job, so that has put the kibosh on those plans.
Really, I can’t complain one bit about owning this truck. It was a surprise when the offer was made, and I at that time never thought in a million years I’d ever own a truck, let alone another Ford. But here I am, obviously a happy Ranger owner. I’d consider another Ranger in the future, but really prefer to get back into a small A or B segment hatchback, with mileage closer to 40 highway. Let’s see if that is meant to be.
I love your truck. I have always had a little bit of a thing for Rangers, and one of these 2wd/sticks would be just the thing. I would like the V6 power, but I had always understood that those had head gasket issues, and would probably make do with the rough but durable 2.3. But I have never lived with one of these, so you are the expert here.
Awhile back (and I don’t recall which post) some of us got onto a rant about the lack of colors available on cars today. Well, you have proved to us that in the early 90s, color was alive and well in Detroit. This was not that common of a color then, but I recall seeing it on a 92 or 93 Club Wagon that used to visit a neighbor’s house. It looks better on your Ranger.
Thanks for sharing your truck with us.
Thanks JP.
While I’m not much for green as a color in general, I like this color a lot, it’s ” Bright Calypso Green Metallic” according to resources found on the web and it’s sort of in the jade green class of greens.
Here is a link to a site that lists the colors supposedly available in 1992 for the Ranger trucks. There is a dark burgundy, I think the color is “Cabernet” I think base standard cab Ranger that parks in my neighborhood and was right our in front of my building earlier this week that still looks good (the paint is non metallic).
http://www.automotivetouchup.com/choosecolor/choosecolor.aspx?year=1992&make=Ford&model=Ranger
As for the 4.0L V6, these are good motors for the most part, just one thing though, I understand they were ONLY put in the N. A. based Fords to replace the trouble prone 2.9 and they don’t rev very high, only about 5000rpm before redline. I tend to rev to around 4Krpm when in spirited driving mode. 🙂
They DO have decent torque and produce around 160HP, not blistering fast, but more than adequate for the task but in rush hour traffic, these things WILL buck like a bucking Bronco if the rpm drops below 1000rpm or so, or less than 15mph or so.
There was a mention in the CarFax report of the title being modified or reissued in 2001 with 126K miles but no clue as to what and dear friends heard that something was replaced or repaired but could not recall exactly what and it seems it had something to do with the head, If so, then that explains why the AC seems complete and working, just needs to be recharged as it may have been something deemed not important enough to get working at the time. Who knows though.
Nice writeup, and I can definitely relate to the “never thought I’d own a truck but” thing.
Ferd (my ’90 F150 w/ 4.9L I6 & 5 speed manual) has reintroduced me the joys of great visibility and convenient utility. Yes, the shifter reminds me of the dilapidated ’56 Chevy Apache in which I learned to drive. It’s ok, I’m rarely in a hurry.
I hate the EECIV system though, it’s never quite right no matter what I do. Too many flimsy, unreliable sensors and actuators. My dad has a similar Ford, and a few years ago he got sick of fooling with the electronics so he replaced every single sensor and every activator all at once, as well as replacing all the vacuum hoses. He said it ran like a top for about six months, then it was back to running rough and guzzling fuel — which mirrors what I saw when working for a Ford dealer back in ’92.
Fortunately, in less than four short years this truck will no longer be subject to smog laws, at which point I will replace the dreadful TBI with a nice, reliable 2 bbl and live happily ever after. I’m all for cleaner emissions, but it has to be reasonable and not cost me several mpgs (I don’t suppose it ever occurred to the regulators that if you achieve “cleaner” exhaust at the cost of several mpgs that that would most likely represent a net increase in pollution — no, of course not. These are the people who actually believe there is such a thing as a motorized ZEV, derp!)
BTW I think I’m too old to really consider our trucks “classic” yet, to me anything newer than about ’77 or so is still “late model”. Even so, it does look a bit classic parked next to a new one!
Thanks Btrig,
Interesting about the inline 6, I had an early smogged 200CID inline 6 in my 78 Ford Fairmont, which is why I say, I’d never thought I’d drive another Ford.
That thing, while reasonably reliable, it was slow as a slug and a total POS with a poor carburetor and it could not do anything other than slowly get up to speed. Oh it’ll do it adequately enough to properly merge on the highway but don’t ask it to chirp a tire, let alone a burnout, it just would not do it, no matter HOW I tried.
I can’t comment on the later inline 6’s with FI but I can say that the FI in my truck has been flawless, the only other issue was when the I think #1 spark plug wire (left front, and the longest wire too) had frayed until it had almost totally severed would occasionally cause the CEL light to come on but it would eventually go off, and the same when I had a vacuum leak too (those were easily found and fixed as there’s a splitter off the driver’s side head with some small hoses and a few rubber caps, a couple of those had popped off and that caused the motor to idle rough and cause the occasional CEL).
This old beast just starts up even when cold and chugs along doing what it does best, ferrying me around wherever I need to go and does it without complaint, what more do you REALLY need in a car anyway? 🙂
No complaints about power from the 4.9L I6, it’s pretty stout. Just likes to run rough and burn more gas than it should.
I do think there are some good choices in aftermarket carbs for the sixes large and small… Also I really haven’t looked into the newer systems, it might be worthwhile to use the FI, manifold, and heads from a later-model truck. I have nearly four years to decide, though I always tend to consider simple mechanical solutions that can be maintained and repaired with nothing more high-tech than a multimeter to be a plus.
It’s that “when the grid goes down” mentality that was instilled in me throughout childhood. I used to think my dad was a bit of a nut but must admit, the older I get the more I’m glad I was raised that way.
“Stout” is the right word for the big 6. My Dad had a number of demo trucks (he was a sales rep for a truck-body firm) with that motor in the late 80s. If I remember correctly it was originally designed as a diesel, so it had a meaty 7-main-bearing bottom end. If I ever get a work truck I’ll take one of those. I learned to drive stick on an ’86 F150 – long throws and bouncy chassis forces you to get smooth, quick!
I don’t think it was derived from a diesel, but believe it does have seven main bearings. The 300 is a stroked 240, IIRC.
“I hate the EECIV system though, it’s never quite right no matter what I do. Too many flimsy, unreliable sensors and actuators.”
Hmm, quite the opposite of my experience of the EEC-IV. The more I get to know it the more I conclude I’d never want another system. The thing is like a perfect middle ground place between being stupid primitive and yet complex enough to accurately diagnose and tune it. I am referring to the Speed Density SEFI engines though, which is my only experience of it.
The vital sensors are the TPS (lasts forever), the MAP for SD (lasts forever), the Air Temp and the Coolant Temp (both last forever), and O2s. When it’s time to replace those, yes it’ll run like junk but by then it’s usually time to do serious engine (and in the case of the O2s, exhaust) maintenance anyway. I mean, the way I see it is that it’s pretty much, “replace the O2s when you replace the exhaust,” and “replace the lower intake sensors when you have the upper off” kind of a deal. The really vital actuators are IAC and EGR (which also has a solenoid that tends to fail), and those are the ones that usually go first and make the thing run and idle like junk. Both are incredibly easy to replace. The stock fuel injectors last forever. With all of these components functioning well, the rest is all tune-up and has nothing to do with the EEC-IV, which is basically an emissions oriented system! The vacuum hoses will leak with age, but there are very few, so again, a simple once in a decade “when you have the upper intake off” maintenance item.
I dunno. Older engines and primitive emissions systems will “guzzle fuel” when judged by today’s 30 mpg benchmark. I know that the EEC-IV is quite capable of running smoothly and reliably for long intervals of time though. My 2c!
Actually, EEC-IV was used on everything Ford made, from the 2.3L I4 to the biggest V8. I do appreciate your $.02, but bear in mind some engines fared better than others…
🙂
It wouldn’t surprise me if the root of my problem was in the wiring harness, or maybe even just a bad/intermittent ground somewhere. This truck has had electrical gremlins from day one. That’s true of every Ford I’ve owned, and I’ve owned quite a few. This one has never stranded me though, it just runs rough and guzzles a lot — like 15-18 mpg. I know it’s capable of 20-21 mpg.
Good story, John, thanks for writing it. My parents had a ’91 Explorer with the same drivetrain – I remember the shifter being a little funky too.
How did your Honda acquire its water retention option? My wife’s old Altima got hit in the nose in a parking lot. We had the front fixed, but something must have shifted around the cowl because the front passenger footwell pooled up everytime it rained.
We were lucky to trade it in on a sunny day! If anyone from Bonnell Ford is on here…this story never happened. 😉
Thanks73impcpn,
I got rear ended in the summer of 2005 while on the 405, just about to hit the dreaded Renton S curves on my way to IKEA in Tukwilla when a gal in a 2002 Mercury Villager plowed into it. Sold that old worn out but still running thing on Craig’s list for $900 in less than 24Hrs about a month after I got the truck, which was in early 2006. The guy had one just like it, same year, color, everything but it had a blown motor…
In my view it is a sad fact that basic, down to earth compact pickups are all but gone from the American market. I guess the Nissan Frontier is about as close as any. Several years ago I bought a high mile 89 Nissan “Hard Body” with a standard cab and the eight spark plug 4 cylinder engine with a four speed manual, a cold AC, equipped like this Ford example. It was rated as a 3/4 ton truck. It was reliable, useful, and a blast to drive. I hauled goats in it. Unfortunately,it was lost in a flood following Hurricane Dolly in 2008.
Those old Nissan hardbody trucks were great. This same dear friend who sold me this truck often borrowed his oldest brother’s ’87 Nissan pathfinder, the early 2 door ones that he’d bought brand new, it had the 4 and the 4WD option and manual tranny, AC and sunroof.
He finally sold it to a friend who needed a car a couple of years or so ago and it had I think over 250K miles on it and on its second clutch, the original was replaced at I think 230K miles at most.
I’ve ridden in it quite a few times and other than it sucked gas like nobody’s business for a small SUV, it was a fantastic vehicle back in the day.
These were fun little trucks. (Way back when) I dated a girl that had just bought a 93 Ranger with the 2.3/5 speed combo.
That little truck kicked tail! For what I was used to at least. I raced my buddies 83 Diplomat with it and walked him like he wasn’t trying. This surprised and impressed all three of us.
Later I had a friend that bought his dad’s 90 Ranger XLT SuperCab with the 4.0. It was Gold and brown with a matching interior. That truck took a beating! He used it to tow his race car all over Illinois. I almost bought one just like it but I couldn’t stand the split bench and I couldn’t find an XLT without it.
Sean,
this actually has the 60/40 split bench as there is an armrest in the middle and the headrests were, I think integrated into the seatbacks (hard to tell as that’s how the aftermarket seat cover fits).
This is the extended cab and has the jump seats in the back, which are a joke.
Sean, that’s the thing, Ford gave these trucks a simple dash, but the seats were the most sporting thing IN the cabs, at least the extended cabs with the split bench like my truck has, though mine, as you can see has an aftermarket seat cover on it (my best friend installed that cover).
I’ve seen images on the web of the original upholstery and it’s nice and matches whatever interior color the truck has so if your truck was bright red, the whole interior was red with graduated black strips on the seats!
Due to word constraints, these old trucks DO handle rather well for a truck though I would NOT slalom course it and be aware of it in the wet with little weight in the back. Also, I found these actually do reasonably well in the snow, just not the deep stuff I drove mine in the snow but you gotta be g e n t l e with it and use your motor as a braking device and what not and it WILL get you around in the slick stuff and all I had was maybe half a tank of gas and the canopy, riding on all season tires.
Looking at your pics a bit closer I think your seat is a bit different than the one I remember. Yours looks like the seat backs are from bucket seats. The ones I looked at (and the ones my buddy had) were like a full bench but they were split 60% driver and 40% passenger. So if the driver was shorter than the passenger the driver seat back would pin you between it and the door. It was really uncomfortable.
Sean,
Here is the 60/40 split bench, though mine’s gray with black graduated stripes, but it’s the same as this one.
I could have lived with those.
The ones I kept running into were like these. Believe it or not that is a split bench.
Interesting, I’ve never seen that interior before and those door panels don’t look right either.
All of the door panels in this generation anyway are similar to the photo I posted, though the base Rangers were all vinyl and didn’t have the map pockets like mine do.
And the other thing you see in my interior shot is I have a lumbar pillow as the seatback has no lumbar support.
Looks exactly like the seat in my F150. If the driver is short, the passenger is going to suffer. I’m only 5’6″ but have long legs and consequently keep the seat pushed all the way back. I don’t know how taller people cope with most cars and trucks, frankly. So many vehicles have *just* enough legroom for me! Maybe taller people are just used to not stretching their legs? I would hate that.
Then again, it does appear that about half the drivers on the road like to sit with their noses practically touching the windshield, their upper torsos virtually folded over the wheel… It’s weird. I can’t see how they’d have any real control in an emergency.
It is the 4.0 that has problems with popping head gaskets, warping and cracking heads, no such issue with it’s little brother the 2.9. The 4.0 was introduced purely to provide increased power and allow a higher tow rating. Of course if you maintain the cooling system and shut down the engine before the needle hits the red area you won’t have a problem.
All in all my favorite body style of the best mini-truck ever, RIP poor neglected Ranger. We had a 2.9 powered 4×4 version and it was a great little truck. However kids came along so it got traded in on the first Panther to grace my driveway and I picked up a beater old F250 for when I needed a truck.
Ours had the seat similar to the one Sean posted as it was an XLT, though that one looks like it has been recovered and yes it wasn’t the most comfortable seat for long trips which we made a number of with. The graduated stripe seats with the semi-bucket/split bench was used in the STX models.
Scoutdude,
I saw you comment as I was getting INTO my truck to run to Northgate to Discount Tire to have the tires rotated.
The info I got on the 4.0L 4 being a derivative of the 2.9L was from Wikipedia on the Cologne family, which includes the 2.8L V6 found in the early Rangers and Bronco II’s until it was replaced by the 2.9L in 1986.
I just got home about 30 minutes ago and within a few minutes found what I was looking for. The Wiki article was mostly correct,which means my info was largely correct.
As I replied up earlier, the 2.9L Cologne V6 for N. America got a different head than what was used in Europe and it turned out to be not as stout as things like the pedestals didn’t has as much material on them and other problems of that order, making them very prone to cracking, even on the very first overheating situation. This was largely true of the very early 2.9’s (1986-87 only), the head was redesigned and made more stout but even that I don’t think totally cured the head issues but if you managed to keep the coolant levels good and flushed out and avoid overheating, these motors were VERY robust and lasted a long time and were reliable.
The 4.0L is indeed a derivative of the 2.9L and was designed to replace the 2.9 for N. America and fix the problems with the 2.9. However, the 4.0 still has oil pressure issues in the valve train as the pushrods, the rocker arms don’t always get enough oil and will wear over time, usually when the motors have quite a bit of age on them, but no more cracked heads.
Anyway, here are 2 links, one on the 2.9 and the other on the 4.0L motors and in the 2.9, they briefly mention the 3.0, which is NOT a Cologne motor, but of the Vulcan family and was to be the more refined motor of the 2 available from ’92 on.
http://www.therangerstation.com/tech_library/2_9_Page.html for the 2.9L
http://www.therangerstation.com/tech_library/4_0_Page.html for the 4.0L
Well I’ve never had the head off of a 2.9 but many 4.0s and the machine shop/parts jobber I used to use back in the day more often than not had a set of 4.0 heads either on the “in” or “completed” shelf, though they were right down the street from Evergreen Ford.
The 4.0 did not replace the 2.9 it was just another option to supplement it, for a couple of years you could get both or a 4cyl. The Vulcan 3.0 replaced the 2.9 as the mid size engine offering and is far superior to any of the German engines. It too was available along side the OHV and then OHC 4.0.
I would say, either you had a later 2.9 or were just very lucky as those motors also had oiling issues with the valvetrain, that, unfortunately was not resolved in the 4.0L motors so valvetrain clatter when they age and accrue mileage isn’t uncommon.
My guess is the 4.0L heads you see were probably older, higher mileage units that were probably redone at 100K-130K miles or so.
As I said, in another comment, I suspect I may have had my head back in 2001 at around 126K miles. And that usually meant replacing the valve train components (pushrods etc), machine the head and replace the gasket and one’s good to go for many more miles.
While the 4.0L may not have actually replaced the 2.9, but it WAS built to ADDRESS the problems of the 2.9 and according to Wikipedia, was ONLY found in the N. American cars and trucks that had it.
No I’m not referring to my 2.9 only though yes it was a 90. As to the 4.0’s many of those were under warranty, so low miles, as I did business with that jobber in the early 90’s and they closed when the owner died in 94-5.
With each change in displacement of that family of engines some of the many issues were addressed or things modernized. The siamesed exhaust ports and burnt exhaust valves with the change from 2.6 to 2.8. Timing gears and solid lifters to a timing chain and hydraulic lifters when it grew to the 2.9. The early head issue was addressed before the 2.9 went away so it is only a portion of it’s run that had that head. The 4.0 brought modern roller lifters. The early 4.0 head had their own pedestal cracking issues as noted part way down in the rebuilding the 4.0, http://www.therangerstation.com/tech_library/40rebuild.htm which is a copy of a PER document.
So I’m sorry if I don’t believe the Wikipedia article’s statement that the 4.0’s reason for coming to life was to address issues of the “unreliable” 2.9, even if there were changes in addition to displacement. I’ve worked on every version of that engine family that made it to the US at one time or another over the years going back to the Capri’s with their 2.6.
I’m not saying that the 4.0 is bad in fact the later versions are one of the most durable V6 in the class of vehicles that they went in with many examples lasting well past 200K and some to 300K or even 400K. I’m just saying that the 2.9 is not the POS that the wiki article, and it’s copy at the ranger station, makes it sound like it is.
The main reason for the 4.0 was to have something to offer up against GM’s 4.3 in the small truck, van, and SUV market. The 2.9 or 3.0 just wouldn’t have allowed them to be in the ball park of GM’s tow ratings or acceleration.
Scoutdude,
OK, I see what you are saying as I re-read this comment I’m replying to again this morning.
It makes sense as when I read the article you linked to, both the 2.9 and the 4.0 had head issues the first 2 years of production and anything built after that point usually were fantastic. Since mine is a 92, most likely, it never had the head cracking issue or if there is one now, it’s not enough to cause oil and coolant to mix.
From what I have gathered in the rebuilding of the 4.0L motor is how Ford modified the motor during it’s run with at least 3 different block castings, I think 4 head castings, each slightly different than the other, same for the rods, the valve design (1993 and later had the fast burn valves), stuff like that, the biggest thing were the pushrods, they often didn’t get enough oil lubrication and often they wore out way before a rebuild was necessary so had to be replaced. Outside of that, as you say, these old motors often lasted well into old age and high miles before finally dying.
Nice truck!!
Don’t convert to R 134, it is junk in the summer. Better than windows yes, but that’s not saying much. If the compressor works, just get some R 12 from ebaymotors (I suspect that’s what your truck originally used). Find a good deal, get a couple cans, and just toss them in. Before I bought my 1990 Ford, the previous owner converted to R134A and I wish they hadn’t, cos now I have to get all the hardware and do an actual retrofit instead of just a few (admittedly pricey) cans.
Now, those R12 cans are pricey, yes, but just think of it this way: is it cheaper than a 134A conversion? Hell yes, and the fact that you’ll have the coldest AC of most any car on the road is a nice bonus. Modern AC stinks, btw. I have no idea what they’re putting in these new cars, but whatever’s in my friend’s 2009 is worse than my 5 year old R134A. And neither compares to properly running R12.
Thanks for sharing your ride!! Good luck!
Heck, I didn’t even bother with R-12 with on my Cherokee.. I dropped in a can of Propane. Yes, it worked(38* air at the vents on an 80*+ day), no it didn’t blow up..
Converting this era Ford to R134a will provide more than acceptable performance particularly in the PNW climate. The trick is that the clutch cycling switch is adjustable so a person who actually knows what they are doing will adjust it to the optimum point for use with R134a.
as Scoutdude says,
By this time, 1992, most cars had AC systems that were designed for easy conversion later on when service is required as the 134A refrigerant was to be the way to go within about 4 years at most.
All I had to have done was replace the accumulator and get a fresh orifice tube to get rid of any R12 that may still be at the bottom of the accumulator, but getting the old one out, and figuring how how to separate the orifice tube from it was another matter. I have the new accumulator sitting in its box in the cab, never got the orifice tube ($25 at Baxter’s Auto Parts) so never got it done and I was told that if I planned on keeping the truck to do this as the R12 and 134A would cause corrosion of the condenser etc, causing problems down the road. I even got the new service valves that screw onto the original schraider valves with some lock tight so they could not be backed out down the road.
Nice story and nice pickup Ford didnt sell Rangers over here untill the later Mazda BT50 model my brother in law had some as company cars but with the 3.0 common rail turbo diesel more power than the 4.0 petrol. Now Mazda and Ford have divorced it doesnt seem we will get any more in Ford clothing just the Mazda version.
Interestingly enough, I still see plenty of the 1st generation of these trucks still on the roads around here, but the 2nd gen on are still very much out there in good numbers.
It’s sad that Ford let this truck sit on the vine and rot, true, they DID convert the 4.0L pushrod motor into a SOHC unit in 2000 and upgraded the 5spd manny tranny later, but only for the 4.0L motor and a few other things like that, but otherwise, it’s not too much different than mine.
The only other thing was Ford finally put in rack and pinion steering around 2005 I think.
The ‘world’ Ranger is completely different from the US one, they split ways back in 1983 when Ford designed the Ranger to replace the Mazda-based Courier.
You are all correct about the 134A. They finally figured out that it needed a larger condenser and even so it gets warm at stoplights. I have converted with no problems by simply throwing a vacuum on the system and plugging in the 134A. It’s better than nothing. If you still have r12 in the system I think they sell replacement that can coexist with 12. The oil is supposed to make the two refrigerants 134a/12 not be compatible. My AC’s did not quit when I just changed the refrigerants without evacuating the oil.
Was going to comment before the mention of the AC. 6 months ago I bought GM’s version of this. A 4.3 powered S10. I never thought I would buy an S10. Ran across this one with reg cab/7 ft bed/ and 700r4. Odometer says 80k miles and I think it’s real because it was a plant truck. After having to change every single dry rotted tire I have had no problem. It is strong beyond belief and if it keeps running I will keep driving it. Have a 5 acre farm and it mostly makes it to the feed store and the hardware store. Today it pulled my 57 chevy up and I parked it in front of my shop. Hope it keeps running till the 57 does.
I wish you luck. I firmly believe that no matter how fancy or economical a car might be, it will never match the honest transportation/utility aspects of a decent pickup. It’s generally better to fix them than replace them. I have had 3 that reached over 300kmiles.
“GM’s version of this.”? As a proud S10 Guy, it is now your duty to declare the superiority of the world’s best small pickup against Ranger Guy (who has been duped into believing that his truck is anything but adequate), thus continuing one of the greatest traditions in motoring.
That looks like SW Queen Anne- like 7th or 8th West?
Yep! In the wide shot, you see Elliott Bay in the background and the park that’s right there by the boulevard system that rings the hill.
I used to live at the base of the S. slope, on Roy St from 1996-2002, although in 2001, moved just 2 blocks W. to 4th Ave but one building off of Roy before packing it up and making a go of a new life in LA. Came back in Jan 2003.
I moved back to Seattle in Dec of ’03 and now make my home on Capitol Hill.
Totally. I used to live in the “Skyline House” on Olympic Place across from Kinnear, and later on the corner of 4th and Olympic, one block up from Roy in one of the twin brick buildings called “Los Altos”. Loved that area but couldn’t afford to buy in that area and ended up in Everett 🙁
Definitely familiar territory that’s for sure and walked all over the south slope of the hill, taking a different route each time.
The area has changed quite a bit in recent years. The old Uptown Theater is now closed and the block where the Queen Anne Office Supply once sat on 1st Ave is now totally gone and the dinky QFC behind it is gone and something new is going up in its place, condos or apts I think.
Even Larry’s Markets is no more, now it’s a Metropolitan Market are just some of the things I’ve noted in the past 4-5 years alone.
Even the old Safeway on Mercer and 2nd was torn down by 2001-02 or so.
I had a canopy on a vehicle and used the same key for locking gas cap as the locks. Mine happenned to fit exactly.
There’s a 1990 here in Huntsville for sale with 78k on it…light brown metallic, manual with the extended cab. It looks sooo nice, and I’m constantly debating about getting a small basic truck for household duty and Scout camp hauling. Best friend in High School shared a flat tan standard bed Ranger…drive it numerous times and always felt it was a right and honest little truck. I’m not nearly as big of a fan of the restyle the pulled on the Ranger, but I guess that’s the 70s and 80s talking where cars and trucks were basically boxes on wheels (hey, my all time favorite car is the BMW 2002)…maybe I’ll run by and look at that ol’ Ranger this weekend, after all…but I’d need a topper for it to help as I also volunteer to transport rescue dogs!
I’ve had lots of Rangers. Great driver’s training for my kids. Each one learned to drive on a 4 cylinder 5 speed rubber floored Ranger. The best was the Courier pickup I had in the 90’s. It was just the right size great mileage and no enough bed to make for a big weekend project.
Eh ciddyguy just wondering if you could get me in contact with whoever put that 4l in I know it didn’t come stock with that just want some details on the swap in looking to do the same thanks !