1. Welcome to PlowSite. Notice a fresh look and new features? It’s now easier to share photos and videos, find popular topics fast, and enjoy expanded user profiles. If you have any questions, click HELP at the top or bottom of any page, or send an email to help@plowsite.com. We welcome your feedback.

    Dismiss Notice

Ranger V-6??

Discussion in 'Ford Trucks' started by MLI, Jul 5, 2002.

  1. MLI

    MLI Member
    from Boston
    Messages: 53

    Hi folks..... was wondering if I could get some input on a Ranger I was looking at. Its a 98 Ranger4x4 auto extended cab,XLT with 94,000k on it. Its a high mile vehicle, and was wondering what the longevity of these engines and tranny would be. I was thinking around 150 k. The price was reasonable...under 10k...any thoughts?!...thankx!
  2. Pelican

    Pelican 2000 Club Member
    Messages: 2,075

    Is the V-6 the 3.8l? There were some problems with that engine in earlier models due to faulty head gaskets. The longevity of that truck will be directly related to the service it's seen. I've seen some go 180,000+, but I've seen others that are shot at 90,000. The smaller engines demand faithful servicing to survive.
  3. DaveK

    DaveK Senior Member
    Messages: 420

    I've got a '94 4x4 4.0 XLT. Has 215,000 miles on it now. Tranny went at about 180,000 while pushing 18" of heavy wet snow. May not have gone if 4 low was working. Was pushing it in 4 high, and I guess it was time for it to go anyway.

    The 4.0 is a good strong motor. Mine has the A4LD tranny. I think the 98 will have a 5R55E 5 speed. The 5R55E is a stronger tranny than the A4LD.

    I think that '98 was the first year that they only had the 4.0
  4. plowking35

    plowking35 2000 Club Member
    from SE CT
    Messages: 2,923

    A friend of mine has that exact same truck, aside from reverse gear blowing out at 38K the truck has been fine. Ford covered the repair even tho he was out by 2K on the warranty. The truck now has 60K on it.
  5. snowplowjay

    snowplowjay Banned
    Messages: 890

    in the newer rangers

    in the later 90's the only engines in the ranger were the 2.3 4 banger and the 3.0 and 4.0 V6's the 3.8 is the stang V6 motor. (boy dont i wish i they had the 3.8 instead of the 3.0 then maybe my little truck would actually have some more guts.)

  6. Pelican

    Pelican 2000 Club Member
    Messages: 2,075

    The 3.8 was also used in the Taurus/Sable/Continental and was very problematic during the first two years of production. I had both a '93 Taurus and Sable, had to do head gaskets on both cars, and found out later it was harder to find a car without this problem than one with.
  7. snowplowjay

    snowplowjay Banned
    Messages: 890

    wow i didnt realize that there was a high level of problems in the early 3.8 engines in those cars. Thanks for the info Pelican. I love the 3.0 but it does lack that extra grunt that everyone searches for. I wish it was the Vulcan 3.0 that is now in the Escape.

  8. Mike 97 SS

    Mike 97 SS Banned
    from U.S.A.
    Messages: 1,106

    The 3.8s were lousy, absolutely lousy. The 3.0 in the taurus/sable was the way better motor. Every 3.8 blew the heads and the mileage didnt matter one bit. I had a customer with a taurus, forget which year, but it was in the 80s, it had 23k miles and he wanted to sell it, so we bought it and resold it, blew the heads as soon as the customer had it a few days. THOSE MOTORS SUCK. Im in the repair business and every one of my customers with the 3.8 went for heads sooner or later. The continental was an even worse car cause they had the same 3.8 and they had air ride suspension which went bad all the time. Ever see how they lay down on the ground when their parked? LOL looks funny. You ask anyone who knows about engines or ask any mechanic and none of them will tell you the 3.8 is a good motor. Mike
  9. Pelican

    Pelican 2000 Club Member
    Messages: 2,075

    I'm getting a little off topic, but Mike, the heads weren't the only problems I had with those cars. A/C went in both, tranny in one, steering rack, etc., etc. I had an '89 Sable that all I did to was change the oil so I bought the two '93s. You're right, JUNK!

    The wife drives an Impala now.
  10. Brickman

    Brickman Senior Member
    Messages: 133

    I had a 3.8 in a Taurus. Bad azz motor, lots of power and go fast. But the head gaskets. Mileage wasn't too bad for the way I drive. 26 mpg for balls to the wall driving.

    I had a Ranger with the 2.9, the heads suck the big one on that motor. I hauled a Ranger with the 4.0 recently. That was a bad boy motor too, it will lay rubber straight out in the parking lot. I tried to buy it but the guy wouldn't give me a good enough price.
  11. Mr_Roboto

    Mr_Roboto Member
    Messages: 63

    Jay, the 3.0L in the Escape is the Duratec, made in Cleveland.It's also used as optional in the Taurus and sent to Japan for Mazdas. It's an aluminum block, OHC engine. The 3.0L Vulcan is made in Lima, it's a cast iron OHV engine. It's the base engine in Taurus and used in the Ranger.
  12. nicksb2

    nicksb2 Junior Member
    Messages: 12

    Without the 2.9, there'd be no 4.0!
  13. snowplowjay

    snowplowjay Banned
    Messages: 890

    yea thanks Mr Roboto i realized that whoopsy .

    I wish theyd start selling that supercharger for the Ranger 3.0.

  14. Mr_Roboto

    Mr_Roboto Member
    Messages: 63

    Jay, it's just that we build the Duratec 3.0L here in Cleveland, so I'm a little particular about it.
    :) But, we also cast the engine blocks for the Vulcan 3.0L here, assembled in Lima, OH.