Face off: 2024 Maverick Tremor vs. 1998 FF Ranger

[Tom 71 Maverick 24]

There was turbos on the first gen 2.3 rangers. I forget the year but it was extremely limited. I'd be surprised if there were 50 built. Diesels too. But this was all early 80s tech so nothing really over 130hp. I forget the year but it was done.

I heard of the diesels - don't know of anybody that got one. I had the 2.3. A little underpowered, but I got 30 mpg on the highway with it, and that's without having overdrive.

The turbo model - just never heard of it, but they did, at some point, have a turbo version of the old 2.3 around. I think it was in a Thunderbird. Being the same basic block, I suppose they could have put one in the ranger.

Early Turbo engines were not quite as refined as they are today.

Sponsored

 

[k2rizzle]

I miss and don't miss my old Rangers (I had two). Ditto about RWD in the snow, unless I had snow tires mounted and some kind of weight back there. I had manual shift, and I never got stuck, but I got close to getting stuck more than once. Those trucks spent a lot of time axle-hopping and fish-tailing.

No doubt, always felt like it had plenty of power and was pretty quick. My old 94 I my car hall of fame. I have some in hall of shame for sure - daughter's 14 Buick Encore being the worst car I've ever owned. Bought it used, but just issue after issue and dumped it after about 9 months.

 

[Maverickman74]

I heard of the diesels - don't know of anybody that got one. I had the 2.3. A little underpowered, but I got 30 mpg on the highway with it, and that's without having overdrive.

The turbo model - just never heard of it, but they did, at some point, have a turbo version of the old 2.3 around. I think it was in a Thunderbird. Being the same basic block, I suppose they could have put one in the ranger.

Early Turbo engines were not quite as refined as they are today.

Yeah the old turbo 2.3 lima was not a huge powerhouse though in a couple years of the SVO Mustang it near matched the 5.0(at its near lowest era). They could be found in Thunderbirds, Mustangs, Capris, Merkurs, and I beleive a few Cougars aswell. They would have been cool in the LTD 4 door foxs though. The Ranger version, which I havent found verification on in the last 5 minutes lol, was at the very low end of turbo power Pretty sure is was 125hp or something on a 90hp version of the 2.3. In the Thunderbirds which is where you will find most of them these days, they were between 145 and 190hp. Decent for the era. Now im wondering if the turbo ranger was a coach-built like the convertibles and ranger gt's.

Always like the lil 2.3 especially the turbo. Though it would be pretty sweet to see a Ecoboost 80s or 90s Ranger.

 

[wax87]

The original Ranger had a 2.3L 4 cylinder, same engine as the option on the Pinto and Mustang II, and a couple of other cars. Unlike the Pinto, the Ranger had a 1 barrel carb instead of 2, and was tuned for torque at a lower RPM range. A 2L also existed initially, I think.

There were a couple of V6 engines, I recall maybe a 2.8L, a 2.9L and a 3.0L, and the 4.0L came later on when the Ranger grew slightly in size.

No Turbos in the Rangers until the newer one popped up.

History & All Generations of Ford Ranger (coverking.com)

Thanks, I meant which engine does the ranger in the picture have?

 

[k2rizzle]

Thanks, I meant which engine does the ranger in the picture have?

I answered that in a later post. I am 99% sure it is the 3.0L V6, definitely has the 5 speed manual transmission. Not much power, but does run good. $180K miles on it I think. Dad gave $3,000 for it about 10 years ago - probably worth at least twice that still.

 

[Maverickman74]

If it doesn't have much power it's probably the 3.0. You have to rev those a bit more to go and they are adequate at speed. The 4.0 can move up to highway speeds but past 80 it doesn't offer much.

I answered that in a later post. I am 99% sure it is the 3.0L V6, definitely has the 5 speed manual transmission. Not much power, but does run good. $180K miles on it I think. Dad gave $3,000 for it about 10 years ago - probably worth at least twice that still.

 

[Jwaz68]

I had an 85 ranger 4x4. Had it until 96.

 

[Tom 71 Maverick 24]

Thanks, I meant which engine does the ranger in the picture have?

I may have "overanswered" a bit.

 

[Tom 71 Maverick 24]

I had an 85 ranger 4x4. Had it until 96.

Had I been a bit more patient when I got my first Ranger, I might have waited for a 4X4 model, and perhaps a 5 speed instead of the 4 speed. Maybe even a V6, though I had some kind of strange attachment to that old 2.3L (had it in my Pinto too).

 

[Wetfoot77]

Still have my 2006 Ranger 4x4. 4.0 liter, 202,000 miles and counting. Runs great. Have been alternating driving the Maverick with it. Just to keep the mileage down.

 

[Tom 71 Maverick 24]

Still have my 2006 Ranger 4x4. 4.0 liter, 202,000 miles and counting. Runs great. Have been alternating driving the Maverick with it. Just to keep the mileage down.

That would be the ideal cab style for a longer bed Maverick. 1 foot less in the cab, 1 foot more in the bed. The Ranger ought to have that option too in my opinion. But I'm OK with mine just as it is. Thinking more of a work truck where bed space is more useful.

 

[Exranger]

Also a 2.5 liter was in 98. The 2.3 enlarged and it had 8 plugs with 2 coils. Great engine, it went 303,000 and was running when some idiot tried to steal it and vandalized the column. Now donated to veterans resource. Bought new in 98 for $14,250!

 

[SCDave]

I also had a Ranger, '86 with AWD, ordered it from the dealer. About $12,000. Did well in the snow. My Dad bought it but had bad luck, as the engine internal oil pump failed, and he had to replace the engine. After he passed, I reassumed ownership, and eventually sold it to our new young minister for $1. He owned it for about a week, when one of the wheels seized, and the subsequent fire burned it up. It had an interesting history.

 

[TrailMaster]

Still driving my old beater 2002 4.0l XLT, but less now because the Maverick gets much better mpg (and is a joy to drive). That manual shift Ranger has been through hell on earth, killing deer and crashing into a large wall of earth resulting from a black ice downhill spinout. Quite the bone rattling impact with that one, and probably could have totalled it out. It's definitely Ford Tough, and keeps running strong.

 

[OleFordGuy]

Yep, loved the old Rangers. I had a 1987 XLT extended cab 2.9L V6 manual transmission and my son's first vehicle was a mid 90's XLT regular cab 4.0L V6 manual transmission. My old 87 saw a lot of work, held up like a teen hard on, regular routine maintenance and replacing the shifter after changing gears many many years was it. Still ran great when I sold it in early 2000's, around 2002 I think.

Sponsored