1989 Ranger & 2025 Maverick - brothers separated by 36 years

[BLUEOVALRACER]

I've had a couple of Rangers over the years. The first one, an 83 when they first came out, was a 2.3L with a 4 speed, rear wheel drive. The 5 speed came out a few years later, and would have been welcome. Anyway, my friend and I drove it out to Indy on a whim, to watch the race one year. Got decent mileage and ran great.

Drove it downtown in Cleveland to the Cleveland 500 race, where they used Burke Lakefront Airport as a road course for indy cars. They were giving away Skoal Bandit tobacco pouches at that race, and my friend and I both took a couple of samples. On the way home, we chewed the pouches, laughed, and spit out the door as we were travelling down the freeway at 60 mph. When I got to his house to drop him off, both sides of the truck from behind the doors back, had ugly brown stains from spitting the chew juice out. Went nice with that dark blue paint.

Sold it to a friend that used it to tow a stump grinder for his own business. He had it a few years. I don't know how many miles it ended up going, but that 2.3L, in its 1-barrel form (same engine as the Pinto/Capri, but those had a 2 barrel carb) was very durable, a solid engine in its day.

No relation to today's 2.3L that you find in the new Rangers.

I'm about 40 minutes from downtown Cleveland i remember that race how many years ago was that when they had that Cleveland 500 at Burke Lakefront Airport?

Sponsored

 

[BLUEOVALRACER]

40 years on the original tires has to be a record of some kind.

That was back in the 90's not just recently!!

 

[BLUEOVALRACER]

Surprised the tires didn't explode. My brother had a Bronco II with original tires that got too old. One exploded and took a chuck out of the quarter panel. Thankfully was a rear and not front. He was able to pull over safely. Nothing left of the tire. Rim was on the ground.

See post 32!!!

 

[rk06382]

That was back in the 90's not just recently!!

The full size OEM spare is still under my 1990 Ranger. 35 years and it still has air in it.

 

[Oldgaffer]

I still have my '85 and use it for hauling things I don't want to put in the Mav. It's over 40 years old, bought in December, 1984. I swapped in a roller cam from a later model year, but all else is factory. It will be there until I no longer drive...
The Mav is larger except for the bed, and a LOT more comfortable and a LOT LOT easier to take on a long trip. Gets better fuel economy too.
If the Maverick has been offered as a regular cab/longer bed, with a 5-speed, I would have bought one of them. This pic from July 2019

This is from 1229 after driving home from the dealer.

How many miles on the 85?

 

[Master Blaster]

Love it. My first Ranger was an 87 XLT with the 2.8L V6 and a 5-speed. I put 744,000mi of mostly highway driving on the original engine and trans, although the rest of the drivetrain was too small and had to be replaced twice in that time. It was a good truck that was fun to drive, although it spent more than a few days on blocks while repairing the rear drivetrain issues. I bought a 2008 Ranger XL with a 3.0 V6 that was too big and tall for comfort. It was pretty gutless and got worse mileage than the 87, but at least the rear diff, wheel bearings and driveshaft were big enough not to constantly fail like on the 87. I only put 186,000 on it before I traded it in. I looked at the new Rangers, but they're now oversized monsters that defeat the purpose. Ford really messed up when they built the new Ranger. The 23 Lariat Mav is actually larger than the 87 Ranger and about the same size as the 08 one. Its very comfortable and does the job just fine, and now that I just do gardening and daytripping, its hopefully my final vehicle...

 

[Oldgaffer]

Neanderthal traction control for the harsh Nebraska winters:

 

[DScruggs]

Nice looking Maverick and 1989 Ranger. My cousin had a 1989 Ranger Short Bed 4X4 2.9 with 5 speed manual and it was a great Truck. And believe it or not He had 100,000 miles on the Original Firestone ATX IIRC Tires. He went to get New tires and the Owner of the Tire Shop didn't believe He had that many miles on the Tires until He looked up the Date Code on them.

Off topic but that 1989 2.9L V-6 was a FANTASTIC engine. So much better that the 2.8L predecessor. I had one in a 1989 Bronco II and got 245,000 miles out of it with near zero issues

 

[NHRider]

I had a 1990 Ranger XLT in the early 2000s. It was a 2WD, single cab 5 speed long bed with the 2.3L. I bought it from someone I knew on a forum a long time ago. His dad used it for his general contractor business. If I recall correctly, it had about 120k on it. I paid a whopping $600 for it The a/c didn't work and the windshield had a crack in it but it ran flawlessly. I worked it pretty hard but it never complained:

Neanderthal traction control for the harsh Nebraska winters:

It was a great truck!

Loved the traction control

Off topic but that 1989 2.9L V-6 was a FANTASTIC engine. So much better that the 2.8L predecessor. I had one in a 1989 Bronco II and got 245,000 miles out of it with near zero issues

agreed. The 2.9L has been bulletproof. I had to rebuild the trans @ 165k but hard to complain about that.

 

[DScruggs]

The 2.9L has been bulletproof. I had to rebuild the trans @ 165k but hard to complain about that.

Same here but at 155K. The A4LD had a weak splines on the input shaft (I think it was input). Splines "rounded" off and she went nowhere.. All of the hydraulics and clutches were still good.

 

[Master Blaster]

Off topic but that 1989 2.9L V-6 was a FANTASTIC engine. So much better that the 2.8L predecessor. I had one in a 1989 Bronco II and got 245,000 miles out of it with near zero issues

Sorry to disagree, but the best Ranger/Capri engine was the 2.8L by a large margin. It had gears instead of timing chains or belts to stretch and break for instance. I put 744k on my 87 and while I changed oil very often, I never had the engine apart. Its weakspot was the undersized clutch mated to a beautiful one-finger Mazda trans that was typical of Euro cars of the day. The 3.0L in my 08 Ranger had less power and quite a bit lower fuel efficiency, a stretchy timing chain and a bigger clutch mated to a much inferior trans.

 

[grumpyunk]

How many miles on the 85?

Actual mileage is about 86,000. It was a 'S' model, no radio, no bumper. I added both and installed power steering and A/C when I moved to GA. Water leaks under the floormat and I cannot find where it is coming in. Butyl ribbon rubber was fitted to the seams I could reach in the plenum. Still like it a lot after all these years. It has left me dead at the Kroger parking lot when the TFI module croaked.

 

[rk06382]

Off topic but that 1989 2.9L V-6 was a FANTASTIC engine. So much better that the 2.8L predecessor. I had one in a 1989 Bronco II and got 245,000 miles out of it with near zero issues

My 1990 Ranger has a 2.9L V6 with 5 speed manual. I only have 135K on it.

 

[Fcnrwy]

Remembering...
(1986) My 1985 "S" Model had a 2.0L (73hp) with 5-speed MANUAL transmission.
NO Power Windows(crank handles)/Locks(pull-up knobs)/Lights(knob-pull out).

(1989) Couple of years later...
Mustang friends talked me into swapping in a 1987 Ford T-bird 2.3L (160hp) with it's T-5 Trans intact....
I bought the Ranger GT body panels, had them painted and I attached them (DIY).

I "Badged-it" a SVO on my own... Was the ONLY One I ever known of. (Most folks were dropping a 302 V8, in instead)...

After 14 years...

2nd accident "Incident"... Sideswiped by a Chevy Tahoe...
Kept it for one more year, after... Than to the boneyard..(2001)

***Spooky Side Note***
After this last "Incident" I applied the "Area 51" bumper stick (Fox TV was selling a lot of "X-File" memorabillia = Stickers, Signs, etc.. (I have one on my basement door.)

When I found out, that FORD was calling one of the Mavericks' colors "AREA 51"
This was the first thing I thought of...


Jerry



..

 

[No Brand]

My kind of Ranger...

The OG.

Sponsored