JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
View attachment 305828
I drive ^^this^^ 1998 Ford Ranger, featuring the world's most anemic 2.5 and 5-speed.
I like the gas mileage and the large tank gives me really good range (400 miles +), but the tailgate height is a bit high and its a gutless wonder.
Never shoulda sold my old truck, but this one will do for now.

Dean
DANGER RANGER! I used to have one of these. got +200k out of the factory clutch. I don't know how many miles it has on it now because I sold it.
 
Yeah. I had a 2.9 liter 4WD ranger and that thing couldnt get out of its own way. 80 MPH tops. My 4.0 4WD ranger had more than enough power and could easily pull a big boat.
 
picked this up brand new for the wife in June for her graduation from nursing school present. next day at work, i put it on my hoist,installed the black trd pro wheels, running boards and painted the roof rack black too(still grey in picture). then we had the front door windows tinted.

got one heck of a deal with that employee discount:D

View attachment 305810
View attachment 305809
View attachment 305811
View attachment 305812

Edit: conceal plates

Beautiful rig! Lucky wife!:)
 
That and I don't run a front plate! Never had problems with the cops, I just toss it up on the dash if ( when ) i get stopped.
Try that downtown PDX and the Parking Nazis will have a ticket on your car faster than flys on poo. I've been nailed twice because I don't learn :D
 
Got a few rigs in the family, but soon looking to downsize and get a newer truck, but have a 2008 Mustang GT California special, 2004 Ford Explorer and a 1994 F250. F250 has been in the family for many years but I think its time to trade in the GT and the F250 and pick up a 2011+ F350 :)

2013-01-21_10-22-08_125.jpg 2012-09-29_11-19-48_449.jpg 20150617_185339.jpg
 
Haha no. it means it has the two tone leather interior with heated seats, lower front splitter and a diffuser in the rear bumper, also has the 18in wheels instead of the stock 17's and also has the interior illumination aka illuminated cup holders and feet areas for the front and back.. :)

Edit: It may be questionable if it passes emissions in california anymore, i pulled the mufflers and straight piped it, left the cats in place because these mustangs can get quite loud with out the cats, and also did a K&N filter in the cabin and air filter, plus I had a tune on it, but the issue seems to have gone away when I straight piped it.
 
Haha no. it means it has the two tone leather interior with heated seats, lower front splitter and a diffuser in the rear bumper, also has the 18in wheels instead of the stock 17's and also has the interior illumination aka illuminated cup holders and feet areas for the front and back.. :)

Edit: It may be questionable if it passes emissions in california anymore, i pulled the mufflers and straight piped it, left the cats in place because these mustangs can get quite loud with out the cats, and also did a K&N filter in the cabin and air filter, plus I had a tune on it, but the issue seems to have gone away when I straight piped it.

When I was just outa HS I had a Cal model 67 Camero RS. For the cal edition they had a pump that ran fresh air into the headers so the exhaust would measure clean enough for CA standards:p
 
Yeah. I had a 2.9 liter 4WD ranger and that thing couldnt get out of its own way. 80 MPH tops. My 4.0 4WD ranger had more than enough power and could easily pull a big boat.
LOL!
I used to work as a mechanic and I remember when the 4 litre's came out.
I used to performance test every car I brought into the shop and got used to the "laziness" of the 2.9.
First time I stepped into a 4 litre, I thought it was a 2.9. When I floored the gas, it dam near ripped my head off.
It was like taking off with a 4-bbl Buick! (those who know what I'm taking about, know what I'm talking about!)
I've had a lot of respect for the 4 litre ever since then.
Unfortunately, Whitey Ford (as I call it) has a stroked Pinto engine under the hood.
I can rev the piss out of it and I've had it over 60 in 3rd, but it really lags off the line.
It can't pull its own weight without slippin' the clutch.
On the other hand, Ol' Betsy (as a friend once named my prior truck, an '89 Mazda B2200) could pull at least 500 lbs. in the bed in first gear, without touching the gas pedal.
Two very different driving techniques are needed to successfully work those trucks.
If I decide to keep the Ford for any amount of time (granted, I've had it for a little ove 4 years now), I might throw a Vortec engine in it and install Trutrac's in the rear end....or rebuild the 2.5 I have now, swap out for shorter gears in the rear end (I'm thinkin' 3.73's) and install Trutrac's.
...we'll see. This all costs money, you know. ;)


Dean
 
Last Edited:
When I was just outa HS I had a Cal model 67 Camero RS. For the cal edition they had a pump that ran fresh air into the headers so the exhaust would measure clean enough for CA standards:p
Air Pump.
My dad had one on his '74 C-10. He, like most people, yanked the pump off and pinched the tubes shut.
Gives about 3-5 HP back to the engine.
That truck ran great without it for years.


Dean
 
LOL!
I used to work as a mechanic and I remember when the 4 litre's came out.
I used to performance test every car I brought into the shop and got used to the "laziness" of the 2.9.
First time I stepped into a 4 litre, I thought it was a 2.9. When I floored the gas, it dam near ripped my head off.
It was like taking off with a 4-bbl Buick! (those who know what I'm taking about, know what I'm talking about!)
I've had a lot of respect for the 4 litre ever since then.
Unfortunately, Whitey Ford (as I call it) has a stroked Pinto engine under the hood.
I can rev the piss out of it and I've had it over 60 in 3rd, but it really lags off the line.
It can't pull its own weight without slippin' the clutch.
On the other hand, Ol' Betsy (as a friend once named my prior truck, an '89 Mazda B2200) could pull at least 500 lbs. in the bed in first gear, without touching the gas pedal.
Two very different driving techniques are needed to successfully work those trucks.
If I decide to keep the Ford for any amount of time (granted, I've had it for a little ove 4 years now), I might throw a Vortec engine in it and install Tru-Track's in the rear end....or rebuild the 2.5 I have now, swap out for shorter gears in the rear end (I'm thinkin' 3.73's) and install Tru-Tracks.
...we'll see. This all costs money, you know. ;)


Dean
I think the 2.3 from a Lincoln MKC would be the best fit, a 3.5 from a F-150 might want to pretzel your itty bitty Ranger's frame. Okay it wouldn't, but it is overkill. I had a 98 Ranger SC 2WD, it still had the '97 4.0 and no rear doors as it was early production. I only put 120,000 on it and should have kept it. It was a lot handier than my current F-150 land yacht. I am not likely to trade anything.
Back to your situation the 2,3 Ecoboost is a screamer that would tow, haul. and pass. You could still get some economy if you could keep your foot out of it.
 
LOL!
I used to work as a mechanic and I remember when the 4 litre's came out.
I used to performance test every car I brought into the shop and got used to the "laziness" of the 2.9.
First time I stepped into a 4 litre, I thought it was a 2.9. When I floored the gas, it dam near ripped my head off.
It was like taking off with a 4-bbl Buick! (those who know what I'm taking about, know what I'm talking about!)
I've had a lot of respect for the 4 litre ever since then.
Unfortunately, Whitey Ford (as I call it) has a stroked Pinto engine under the hood.
I can rev the piss out of it and I've had it over 60 in 3rd, but it really lags off the line.
It can't pull its own weight without slippin' the clutch.
On the other hand, Ol' Betsy (as a friend once named my prior truck, an '89 Mazda B2200) could pull at least 500 lbs. in the bed in first gear, without touching the gas pedal.
Two very different driving techniques are needed to successfully work those trucks.
If I decide to keep the Ford for any amount of time (granted, I've had it for a little ove 4 years now), I might throw a Vortec engine in it and install Tru-Track's in the rear end....or rebuild the 2.5 I have now, swap out for shorter gears in the rear end (I'm thinkin' 3.73's) and install Tru-Tracks.
...we'll see. This all costs money, you know. ;)


Dean

My current truck , the 2013 F150 has one of them there new 5.0's in it. The ones that take 8 quarts of oil and run like a scalded dog. Seriously , its 350 net HP or something like that . With the catback flowmaster set I've got on there it truly hauls bubblegum. I used to have a 68 Chevy 10 with a honest to goodness LT1 spec 350 in it and it wasnt anywhere near as fast as this thing is.
 
Apologies to the board....
In my prior post I pondered about replacing my current engine with a "Vortec" engine.
I should've checked my facts before posting, because I meant to write DURATEC.
I'm thinkin' the 2.3 would work fine, but if I ran across a 2.5, I wouldn't kick it to the curb unless it couldn't be rebuilt.
Anyway, sorry for the misinfo, folks.


:confused: Dean :confused:
 

Upcoming Events

Centralia Gun Show
Centralia, WA
Klamath Falls gun show
Klamath Falls, OR
Oregon Arms Collectors April 2024 Gun Show
Portland, OR
Albany Gun Show
Albany, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top