My hypothetical 2wd 4cyl 5spd Ranger thread

Real quick: I think I solved my issues with a fun vehicle with 5 shoulder belts. Cheap Caravan and a REALLY cheap beater Ranger (tons for ~$1,000).

The Ranger would be a do it all daily driver. It would handle pavement enough to be fun, able to tear up a dirt road, carry a Home Depot and dump run etc.

What hypothetical cheap, even junk yard mods could you see here? Better sways? Mustang wheels with decent rubber? Camber to use?

I have no aspirations that include engine swap or turbo. I got into enough trouble with my '88 with the Lima 2.0

And I'm a slow car fast type who loves to drive in blizzards and fly down power line roads and possibly get air under the tires.

Long as theres no rust...make sure the suspension and bushings are tight and the brakes in good shape...most likely a new shift kit to tighten up the slop, and a full tune up...then just drive it and be happily amused with how easy it is to park, how useful it is to haul, and how cheap and simple it is to fix.

3.0L v6 + 5sp is what you're looking for. A friend just traded a $400 generator for one the other day.

Plus, if you ever decided to do an engine swap, 3.0/3.2L sho v6's bolt up.

In reply to Raze:

no shift kit, manual trans.

I owned a new '88 Ranger with the Lima 2.0 and Mazda 5spd for 5 years. That truck took so much beating on road and off that it still has a spot in my heart.

I figure over 20 years later I could regain some youthful fun and teach my son how to counter steer and just what opposite lock is (in the dirt that is).

Learn about opposite lock on the dirt, then apply what you've learned on pavement.

I meant shifter bushing kit...

Raze wrote: I meant shifter bushing kit...

Yeah, sorry. It just hit me that's what you meant.

I'm pro-singlecab4cyl2wd5spdRanger. It's about the only rendition that really makes sense to me.

The kind i want would be lots of assembly required in the sense that i would like to have the post-98 IFS with the mid-90s mazda body with the mid-2000s interior.

2.3lima/t5 was probably the most durable ranger i owned. that truck got jumped, hydroplaned, loaded with way too much weight in junk and took it like a champ. plus if you get bored theres aftermarket parts for the 2.3 even if you want to avoid a turbo swap.

yamaha wrote: 3.0L v6 + 5sp is what you're looking for. A friend just traded a $400 generator for one the other day. Plus, if you ever decided to do an engine swap, 3.0/3.2L sho v6's bolt up.

Listen to this guy right here. 1998+, 3.0, 2WD, 5 speed.

2000-2001 Made 150 HP @ 4750rpm and 190 lb-ft @ 3650rpm. These years have a better intake, I think.

First things first, pull the resonator out of the airbox.

On my ranger I built a sub $100 side dump exhaust, which exited in front of the right rear wheel. It sounded great. Here is what I did: chop the exhaust pipe off just behind the cat, but before it necks down from 2.5" to 2.25". I used one of these mufflers http://www.summitracing.com/parts/sum-630805/, one of these 90 degree mandrel bent elbows http://www.summitracing.com/parts/wlk-41432/, a hanger to weld to the factory hanger and some stainless band clamps that I wouldn't recommend (just weld it). I also sourced about 3 feet of exhaust tubing from one of the local chain stores.

An Explorer axle swap will get you an 8.8" LSD with 31 spline axle shafts and disc brakes. Make sure it's a 4.10. Traction bars are cheap. Explorers have an additional leaf in the spring pack, if you want more rear spring.

I hear good things about Bilstein shocks.

Seats from mustangs and thunderbirds and other things that I can't be bothered to look up swap right in. An explorer center console will, as well.

I'm sure I will think of other things to add.

I figured I'd wake up to read this thread and it'd be unchanged from last night but noooooooo... You guys just HAD to add fuel to the fire! Thanks a lot! (No, seriously, thank you!!!)

I had a '91 4cyl 5spd stripper Ranger for awhile. HATED it. Tiny cab, slow, poor fuel mileage for what it was, couldn't haul/tow much and useless in bad weather. But if you really want one...

Internal clutch slave cylinder is design stupid beyond words.

The Mazda trans has rubber plugs in the top of the bellhousing that shrink and allow the ATF inside to leak out. It will look like the rear tail housing is leaking but it's not. This brilliant bit of engineering has caused more than one trans to blow up from lack of fluid. Replace the plugs and check the fluid level.

Dual plug cylinder head is also going to piss you off when you realize you can't access half the plugs with the intake on the engine.

I was much, much happier with the 4.0 4x4 extended cab version I had later but now wouldn't waste my time on 'half a truck' when there are thousands of full size F150s out there that do everything better than the Ranger except take up space.

currently owning a single cab truck, and having an extended cab company truck with no rear seats, I dont think I would ever buy a single cab truck again. Its just too darn useful having that extra little bit of covered/insulated/heated/cooled space.

I cringe when we happen to be out in the truck running other errands and stop for groceries. all those cold/frozen/raw items being tossed into a hot metal box while we drive home....

In reply to ddavidv:

I Daily drove an '88 with my "requirements" for five years so I'm not going into this uninformed of its shortcomings. I loved it so I I've got that much going for me.

Plus I already daily an F150...

Thanks a lot...

I just spent the past 45 minutes or so scouring craigslist within about 100 miles of my house. I started with "Ranger", which led to "F150" then "F250" and "F350", over to "E250", across the divide to "K2500", on to "Suburban", over to left field with "Subaru" and of course I made a stop at "Mustang" and "Lincoln", etc., etc...

In reply to failboat:

I agree the interior is limited, I'm 6'-3" and 260 lbs but as I wrote in the first post, I'd have a Caravan (wife has one as well) for the times I need more space.

Truck would get me to work and be a beater-toy for those times when I can drift it through the snow and dirt roads etc.

Did four New England winters with a 2wd Ranger never getting stuck and had a blast every storm.

In reply to The_Jed:

So were related then!?

I do that too. My wife just agrees with me now:

Me: "Hey, I was thinking, if I sold the __ and bought a/an _ with a _ transmission _ but kept the ___, then I could actually like driving again."

Fill in the blanks with: Crown Vic, Expedition, Ranger, W124, E39, Volvo, Saab, Town Car, Explorer...

Hijack: what do you get with the Ranger that you don't get with the old square body S10? On paper the S10 shares all of the g-body/circle track suspension stuff and I can't quite figure out what the Ranger brings to the table that outshines that.

In reply to The_Jed:

Hey now, don't be trolling my craigslist down here - that's my job!

In reply to mazdeuce:

Understood 100%. They dropped that style in '94 for the pickups? Very few around my way that are worth saving. I've owned a Ranger such as we are discussing and am pretty much a Ford guy but I cannot argue against an S10 really.

mazdeuce wrote: Hijack: what do you get with the Ranger that you don't get with the old square body S10? On paper the S10 shares all of the g-body/circle track suspension stuff and I can't quite figure out what the Ranger brings to the table that outshines that.

Availability! The ones on CL around here are complete garbage either needing a complete resto have a presentable body or need many hours to reverse the afro/redneck engineering present. Plus the square body died in 93, but the underpinnings stayed all the way until 03.

I just don't get the hate on I-beams. They work, even in a non work truck application. The only downside is you have to run a steering box and linkage.

ddavidv wrote: I had a '91 4cyl 5spd stripper Ranger for awhile. HATED it. Tiny cab, slow, poor fuel mileage for what it was, couldn't haul/tow much and useless in bad weather. But if you really want one... Internal clutch slave cylinder is design stupid beyond words. The Mazda trans has rubber plugs in the top of the bellhousing that shrink and allow the ATF inside to leak out. It will look like the rear tail housing is leaking but it's not. This brilliant bit of engineering has caused more than one trans to blow up from lack of fluid. Replace the plugs and check the fluid level. Dual plug cylinder head is also going to piss you off when you realize you can't access half the plugs with the intake on the engine. I was much, much happier with the 4.0 4x4 extended cab version I had later but now wouldn't waste my time on 'half a truck' when there are thousands of full size F150s out there that do everything better than the Ranger except take up space.

Actually, the DP 2.3 is butter easy to work on. Spark plugs on the drivers side either come out once you split the intake or if you have the individual runner intake, 95-96-ish, come out with a 1' extension and socket.

The rubber plugs in the trans are easily replaced with some steel cup plugs available from the parts store. Plus they are easily accessible underneath on the shift tower.

Not everyone needs a fullsize.... I drove my 96 all over including towing a car through Chicago rush hour on a tollway plus 20mpg driving at 75mph....

ebonyandivory wrote: In reply to The_Jed: So were related then!? I do that too. My wife just agrees with me now: Me: "Hey, I was thinking, if I sold the ______ and bought a/an _______ with a _______ transmission _________ but kept the _________, then I could actually like driving again." Fill in the blanks with: Crown Vic, Expedition, Ranger, W124, E39, Volvo, Saab, Town Car, Explorer...

My wife hasn't made it to that point yet. Most of the time she just covers her ears and says, "no no no" over and over.

In reply to petegossett:

Oh... There's a lot of Rangers in all flavors cheap on local CL. I'll join this discussion