# 1984 Ranger 4wd 2.8 V6 5spd



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Ok, got this cheap at car auction couple weeks ago. Didnt want a V6 but cant find four cyl 4wd pickup cheap in usable condition. Rare as hens teeth around here. Needs exhaust and been giving it a thorough look though. Dang thing has computer advance distributor and what seems to be a computerized carb that car companies used as a transition to fuel injection in early eighties. Though I see more than one disconnected wire and looks like some less than competent person installed a junkyard engine in it then rigged it any which way to keep it running once started.

First from little looking on internet it seems with change of bellhousing it can be converted to a 4 cyl. Not sure though. Most stuff I ran into was about putting a 302 v8 in them (yuck). Later trannies for sure had built in bellhousing as part of the tranny and you would have to replace whole tranny or spend lot time making custom adapter plates.

Second, whats the story on the 2.8? This is same engine used in the old imported Capri and later the Mustang II isnt it? Dont remember hearing about it being a bad engine but never owned one. Did it get mileage anywhere close to the 4cyl? Did it have tendency to throw rods at high mileage, etc. How many miles did it last on average? And does the computerized version have same bolt up so one can use the pre-computer vacuum advance distributor and carb?

This thing will get relatively light useage. Was looking for something small that could get up my driveway when it gets slick without destroying itself in the process and not cost an arm and leg to make a round trip to town. It really abused my old Plymouth Arrow 2wd pickup and little Festiva last couple years when drive is slick and they slide off into big ruts etc. and I have to use momentum to get them up the hill. I dont enjoy replacing exhaust and repairing fuel tank cause it slipped and hit a rock outcropping. And cars do slide in mud and snow, even with chains on. My big 4wd farm truck is a pain to drive in city traffic not to mention crappy gas mileage at todays prices even with a six cylinder. Shame to drive it clear to town just because I need it to get up and down my driveway.

So do I mess with the V6 and clean it up to work properly (dont think its in horrible shape though I will have to do a compression test to be sure, just electronics not installed properly or it might be wrong year electronics on installed engine), or do I go find a good used carb 2.3 four cylinder assuming I can just change bellhousing to make it fit? I know a guy who does real good job rebuilding 2.3s for reasonable money though I havent checked his prices lately what with the hyper inflation and all. Timewise and personal-energywise, dont want to mess making adapters and such to use a non-Ranger engine. If it was spring and I had months to think about and do it, might, but not at this point.


----------



## Ozarks_1 (Jan 11, 2003)

I've darn near given up making suggestions on vehicles or equipment ... too many self-appointed, self-proclaimed "experts in their own minds" around here.

BUT, I'll give you the facts ... according to my Hollander Interchange Manual:
1. The 2.8L is 'more-or-less' specific to the Ranger and Bronco II;
2. The old Capri, Bobcat, Mustang, Pinto 2.8L "fits but requires changing everything except the long-block".


----------



## Janon (Aug 25, 2002)

I've not owned a 2.8 - but imo, every vehicle or engine has it strengths and weaknesses. If you can either live with the weaknesses or learn how to maintain/repair/modify (and it sounds like you can) - you'll be fine. I'd bet there are whole forums of folks who just love the 2.8. 

If after you do an inspection and compression check, and if the engine is in acceptable mechanical condition - I wouldn't change it. What you'd spend making changes, purchasing another engine, etc. would go a long way in what you'd eventually save in gas. If the engine requires more money sunk into it than a 4cyl swap would cost, then sure.

Personally, I like vehicles which are easy to work on, affordable and available parts, as simple as possible, fairly durable and most importantly, CHEAP to buy and insure. I don't always get everything I want in a vehicle.

cheers,


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Ozarks_1 said:


> I've darn near given up making suggestions on vehicles or equipment ... too many self-appointed, self-proclaimed "experts in their own minds" around here.
> 
> BUT, I'll give you the facts ... according to my Hollander Interchange Manual:
> 1. The 2.8L is 'more-or-less' specific to the Ranger and Bronco II;
> 2. The old Capri, Bobcat, Mustang, Pinto 2.8L "fits but requires changing everything except the long-block".


Thanks, but Hollander manual darn near useless anymore cause they are afraid to tell you whether something physically fits and functions cause of all the extensive pollution requirements. Just cause something fits and seems to function fine doesnt mean it would meet govt standards for that particular year. And to suggest one use parts not specifically ok'd for a particular year, model, etc would get them in trouble. I do know the oil pan on car 2,8 and truck 2.8 is different due to needed axle clearances. Otherwise whatever can allow the particular engine to run would work. No pollution inspection here.

I wasnt wanting to put in another 2.8 anyway. Either convert this one back to vacuum advance distributor and non-electronic carb or replace with a 4cyl. The computer wiring and sensor stuff that came in truck is a mish mash and take real guru to put it as factory intended for this application. Not to mention requiring a whole lot of green pieces of paper and hard to find parts. Cost far more than I paid for the vehicle. I finally found a website posting showing that late 70's carb and distributor off car 2.8 will fit and work. Some guy with expensive computer/wiring problems with his '84 Bronco. Same position I am in and he was kind enough to post pictures even. Maybe early 70s stuff would work also, but site only showed using late 70s stuff. Doing compression test today and if readings not too bad, will go that direction. 

I would still like to know if one can replace V6 with 4cyl by swapping out bellhousings. From what I can find, seems like this is possible on real early Ranger/Bronco trannies that had seperate bellhousings. But Ford used so many different trannies in these that I am still not certain without disassembling stuff and visiting half dozen junkyards.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Janon said:


> I've not owned a 2.8 - but imo, every vehicle or engine has it strengths and weaknesses. If you can either live with the weaknesses or learn how to maintain/repair/modify (and it sounds like you can) - you'll be fine. I'd bet there are whole forums of folks who just love the 2.8.
> 
> If after you do an inspection and compression check, and if the engine is in acceptable mechanical condition - I wouldn't change it. What you'd spend making changes, purchasing another engine, etc. would go a long way in what you'd eventually save in gas. If the engine requires more money sunk into it than a 4cyl swap would cost, then sure.
> 
> ...



Nothing is cheap to insure anymore, except Windy in KS's 1948 1 1/4 ton truck it seems. But yes reason I didnt buy a worn out Toyota or Nissan 4wd. The 4wd parts themselves are pricey, more so than Ranger/S10 parts. I swear I searched and searched for 4cyl 4wd Ranger/S10 and they just dont seem to exist. I have little need for whatever little extra power is offered in a V6 for this vehicle. And I gambled at an auto auction buying at a price where I could afford to swap out parts if necessary. The 4wd does work ok and the truck has a very solid non-rusted body. I do think the V6 that came with it is good and probably a junkyard replacement from looks of it cause its clean without inch layer of grease on it where there is grease on tranny and other engine bay components like would be from old engine. Thus showing they didnt just pressure wash the original engine. However the person who did it didnt bother to keep track of wires and just mickey moused it to run. Not well, but it does start and run. I would assume distributor isnt advancing properly since its a computer controlled design and carb has no wires attached though its obvious there are places for them to attach. Sensors dont seem to be hooked up. And carb has been rather mutilated with somebody bending choke plate into an arc to apparently keep choke open in a certain position. Why they didnt at least use wire instead of brute force, I dont know.


----------



## foxtrapper (Dec 23, 2003)

If it were me, I would just leave the engine alone. Going to the 4 cylinder wouldn't give you much of a gas mileage increase due to how hard the engine would be working. 

As for the 2.8, I had one, don't ever want another.


----------



## Ken Scharabok (May 11, 2002)

Have you consider a town car and a driveway vehicle? Do you have the option to park the town car down at the road. To get up the driveway switch of the 4WD one. Knew a family in CO who used such a method. Their problem was deep snow though.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Ken Scharabok said:


> Have you consider a town car and a driveway vehicle? Do you have the option to park the town car down at the road. To get up the driveway switch of the 4WD one. Knew a family in CO who used such a method. Their problem was deep snow though.


Steep long shared driveway. Cant see road from house and no good place to park a vehicle along county road or along driveway. Cant block the driveway. One of neighbors who shared my drive started leaving a car down along county road and person who lives down got frustrated having to slow down and go around it that he called sheriff and had it towed. It was rather in the way but I could sympathize with neighbor. Again no good place to park along county road. A friend visiting me and not wanting to risk my drive parked in a pull off out quite a distance away along county road and car got vandalized. I was upset somebody who apparently lives along this road must have done the damage. Its pretty much one lane with occasional pull offs. I thought of just towing small 2wd vehicle up and down drive with big 4wd truck, but unless I put it on a trailer I'd still be dragging it over the rocks and in the ruts. Not to mention having to do lot walking to get truck since I cant leave it down there. Small 4wd seems what I am destined for during winter anyway when we get much of our precip or pour bunch money every year into bulldozer and gravel which neighbors will use but wont contribute to of course. I've driven the Ranger as is up and down drive in low gear, low range, so engine is little above idle. Intentionally went into ruts and over biggest rock outcropping and it did ok, no bottoming or scraping. Mostly checking out the 4wd and suspension. Does need couple new rubber bushings in front end.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

foxtrapper said:


> As for the 2.8, I had one, don't ever want another.


Why? What are their weaknesses? What should I be on lookout for?


----------



## DrippingSprings (Sep 22, 2004)

just be careful about filling the radiator. 2.8 motors are notorious for getting a large air pocket in the cooling system and then overheating. If you feel the need to drain it etc go to a local jiffy lube etc that will flush it and use a pressurized system to fill it so there wont be any air pockets. 2.8 are as depoendable as just about everything else around its time of make. I have heard both raves and rants. If it runs good I wouldnt worry about it. Parts are easy to find used and new. If you have too much trouble out of the fuel system just slap a dellortoa or weber standard carb on it and drive it anyway. Some folks thought they were underpowered but I think they were prejuduced because they expected all v6 in a small truck to run like a 4.3 chevy. But thats comparing apples and oranges because there is such a size difference. I know a teen that has one like yours with over 200,000 and he is really rough on his.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Weird, weird, weird!!!!! Just did compression test. Warm engine, no plugs. All cylinders on drivers side are 60#. All cylinders on passenger side are 80#. Did the test 3 times just to be sure. I've seen very low pressures for sure (low for modern engines), but not that even when they are that low. No fouled plugs. Two loose plugs. All but two plugs had some oil on them. One some fluffy carbon like its running rich.

Impossible to really tell how much power the thing has from driving it due to the screwed up electronic controls (glad I didnt try to drive it home on hiway), but with that kind of compression assume its not a powerhouse. Am betting the valve faces are might rough but then odd the compression is so even. Even if I were going to junk the engine, I would have to pull the heads now just to have a look out of morbid curiosity. And no matter what, wouldnt cost much (just gaskets and my time) to go thru the heads, reface and lap the valves, and reinstall the heads to seee what difference it makes.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

I worked on a 2.8L for a buddy, in a Mustang 2 once.Beware its really easy to snap bolts off on it.I didnt like that car after that and refused to work on it,I was used to tougher,heavier engines.
Buddy had a Bronco II(little job,thats what they are called,right?Is it the same engine?) throw a rod.At the time he said it was a common thing,but thats all I ever heard on that.

BooBoo


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

mightybooboo said:


> I worked on a 2.8L for a buddy, in a Mustang 2 once.Beware its really easy to snap bolts off on it.I didnt like that car after that and refused to work on it,I was used to tougher,heavier engines.
> Buddy had a Bronco II(little job,thats what they are called,right?Is it the same engine?) throw a rod.At the time he said it was a common thing,but thats all I ever heard on that.
> BooBoo


Yes BroncoII uses same drivetrain as Ranger. The 2.8 was only used in '83 and '84. Then they used a new 2.9 that apparently had problems and was getting a bad rep. Its sort of related to the 2.8 but domestic and cheapened. Then they offered a 3.0. No idea about it and finally the present 4.0. Personally I would have much rather had the old 170/200 cu in straight six like was in my '72 Bronco that I owned many years ago. Matter of fact I'd gladly trade this Ranger for another old Bronco ('64 to '77 version) that wasnt rusted out. They were tougher with straight axles and made to withstand a V8 though I much prefered the small inline six. Great vehicles on hiway or outback. Alas they are collectable and nearly everyone in any kind of decent condition that I've seen has had a V8 stuck in it.


----------



## Oilpatch197 (Apr 18, 2004)

> As for the 2.8, I had one, don't ever want another.


***BBQ!!1!!!111!!

I am plagued with this motor, I have two of them, LOL.



> First from little looking on internet it seems with change of bellhousing it can be converted to a 4 cyl. Not sure though.


Yes.



> Second, whats the story on the 2.8


Most mechanics will not work on these 1983/4 engines, it has a very complex system, and to get it "working right" with no codes, is a pain! If your wiring is "------ rigged" then you need to do a Duraspark Ignition Upgrade, do a google, or at www.therangerstation.com has some info. Sensors for these motors are expensive, and some are unavailable! :nono: 

Now My first Truck was a Ranger '83 with a 2.0L 4spd, I upgraded to a 2.8 5spd, and the only real thing I did to the truck was move the trans crossmember to the other set of holes. the 2.8 will run without the Computer garbage, but it will poorly.

and unless your truck didn't orginally come with the 2.8, there should be a cauton sticker telling you to fill your coolant thru the upper Radiator hose.
These engines are sure weird, Ford lives up to their name! thermostat in bottom radiator hose....


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Thanks mucho Oilpatch for confirmation that if necessary I can change to 4cyl without changing transmissions. 2.3 has plenty power for my use. Dont want to tow nor drive fast and can always use low range if I need. 

Yep had heard horror stories of that early 2.0 version of the 4cyl. Though sounds as if you didnt do yourself much of a favor going to 2.8. From the frying pan into the fire as they say. The 2.3s are on other hand not bad. Especially the 90s version with the 2 sparkplug per cylinder. Have friend with one that is still doing good with 180k+ miles on it. Unfortunately Ford changed the intake ports on head of fuel injected 2.3s so cant just bolt on a carb manifold. Pretty much means having to rebuild an old carb 2.3 from seventies.

After doing the compression test, I put plugs back and hooked up few wires that had unique ends and I could tell where they should go, but dont know that I did any good. Idles not too bad but rough otherwise with some backfiring. I am sure because wiring is "_____rigged". Whats up with the compression readings, who knows. Never saw readings like those on any engine Usually a rough old engine has readings all over the board due to different degrees of wear in valve faces. To have one bank of cylinders all exactly 60# and other bank all exactly 80# is just very strange. Too even for a worn out engine, too low for a good engine.


----------



## Ken Scharabok (May 11, 2002)

I have an 84 Ranger with the 2.3 engine according to parts store. To replace thermostat I had to pull radiator, fan cover, remove fan, pull off alternator belt and remove timing belt cover. Then you could reach under some stuff and take off cover.

Ford has a reputation for badly designed parts access.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Didnt mess much with Ranger today, but did measure engine bay. You know just possible that one could get a small straight six shoehorned in there. I dont have one of those old 170/200 Ford sixes to measure, but do have an old Dodge slant six and think it could be done. Mean lot work and no real advantage for my purposes over just sticking a 4cyl in it. Still would be unique. No mention anywhere of somebody putting a straight six in a Ranger.


----------



## Ramblin Wreck (Jun 10, 2005)

I had an 85 Ford Ranger with a 4 cylinder that I was never happy with. Even on the interstates I sometimes had to downshift to 4th gear to climb hills. After three years, I decided to get one with the small V6 in it. The prices were outrageous, so I decided to test drive a Nissan V6. The guy asked me to try one of their 4 cyl's, and I loved it. That was my first foreign built/badged car, and it was hands down a better truck than any of the small US trucks of the time.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

I've got two 84 Bronco II with 2.8s. Both engines developed rod knocks after high mileage. I never noticed anything particluarly wierd about the carburetors. I've had them run OK even after one of the them was parked two years before the engine was rebuilt. The vehicle is fantastic off road with the right tires. The short wheel base is very maneuverable. The engine isn't good for power or gas mileage. If you have to pull the transmission, you'll have to remove the usual stuff plus loosen the engine mount bolts and let the engine/transmission drop enough to get to the top transmission bolts unless you want to pull the engine and transmission.

Replacing the thermostat is a major problem due to its location below the power steering pump and the wierd sandwich assembly. I wouldn't mind choking the living excrement out of several Ford designers after I kicked them down low. Fords are designed to be assembled easily in the factory which means there will be times the mechanic won't be happy taking them apart.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Darren said:


> The engine isn't good for power or gas mileage..


Been reading about these engines on internet. Apparently the design started out as a European Ford V4. Early ones (Capri/Mustang) had head problems and one company that built aftermarket replacement heads did great buisiness I guess. Havent read of any real fans of them. And only real consistant critisism is lack of power for those used to V8 or big 6. In other words just another engine. Not one I'd want to stuff money into. Rebuit ones seem might pricey but so are many of little modern aluminum 4 cyls.






Darren said:


> I wouldn't mind choking the living excrement out of several Ford designers after I kicked them down low. Fords are designed to be assembled easily in the factory which means there will be times the mechanic won't be happy taking them apart.


Maybe common on lot modern cars. I worked on a Chevy Lumina Van for a guy. That is absolutely horrible piece of dung to work on. Dont believe me, try removing the rear exhaust manifold. I doubt there are very many unemployed double jointed midget mechanics around. Modern cars seem to require these physical attributes in a mechanic, that is short of pulling whole drivetrain to work on it.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Well nice autumn day and I'm working my way down to actual engine. I am sure there is a special place in hell for engineers who design such messes. Maybe they should have to eternally assemble and then disassemble their creations.

Surprisingly the manual says this engine has manually adjusted valves. I'd be amazed if ever one of these actually had valves adjusted. Too much junk to move out of the way. Little break and then back at it. Thankfully I dont live in state with emissions inspections where I would have to keep all this Beautiful Sunshine in place and try to make it work. Just crush the dang truck if I did.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Heads off. No worse to work on than an old V8 once junk removed. I havent removed any valves from heads to look at, but sure they need refacing, just got to wondering if maybe the cam is worn with such low compression readings. Cylinders look ok. Little bit of a ridge, but no scuffing or gouges.

Anybody know if these engines had reputation for cam problems? Not rings as adding tablespoon oil only brought compression readings up little bit. Well after I bolt cleaned up heads back on will do compression test again before putting everything back. Looks easy enough to change out cam in this thing. Now cost may make it less desirable for high mile engine.


----------



## desnri (Dec 22, 2003)

I have an 83 Ranger with a 2.8 in it with a 5 speed. I love it. It gets about 24 miles to the gallon. It is very manueverable which is why I love it on the farm. Have only had to do a tune up on it and replace the clutch. We let our son use it for a year without any maintenance on it. Not a good idea, so we are now catching up on what he didn't do.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Desnri, I'd be thrilled to get 24mpg, the four cylinder isnt going to do any better than that. However if I get 20mpg, that wouldn't be too bad for 6cyl 4wd. On that old '72 Bronco I used to have with 200cu in straight 6 and 3 spd tranny with no overdrive I got around 22 average on hiway. Sure it would have got 25mpg with an overdrive. So much for progress, huh?

As to valves, I took one intake and exhaust valve off the drivers side cylinder head where all cylinders had 60# compression. Assume all valves on that head were simular shape. Valve faces were not bad at all. When I went to reface them, the exhaust valve was slightly out of round but I've sure seen lot worse. The intake valve was nearly perfect. It cleaned up almost immediately. The valves sure dont account for the low compression readings and neither do the rings. Looks like I need to go ahead and pull the cam today and look it over. If its ok, then need to test my compression gauge I guess.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Cam good, must be my compression gauge is faulty. Just waiting on parts now. Stuff from seventies and even eighties is special order nowdays it seems. So mix of parts special order from AutoZone and some stuff from Ebay and I'm off to the races. This 2.8 is mechanically better shape than I originally thought. Could have saved buying gasket head set if my compression gauge wasnt goofy. Oh well, means valves get cleaned-up/lapped and new stem seals installed. Mechanical carb and vacuum distributor. Should do ok for me.

By way ran across this, http://www.cardomain.com/ride/598778/1 , of guy who stuffed a Ford 300 I-6 in his '84 Ranger 4wd. * I want one, I want one!!! * Boy I wish Ford had made such in factory, course bunch fools would probably stick V8s in them cause they bolt up same. Actually sure this would require beefing up the rest of the drivetrain like they do for V8 transplants. Think either an old Ford 200 I-6 or a Dodge slant six would be better choice and existing drivetrain could withstand their more moderate power. Nice to know a straight six will actually fit without surgery on the cab. (he just had to stick radiator right up against grill- not sure how he did fan, probably an electric pusher fan like I used back when I put a slant six in a Volvo so had to be some space for it between grill and radiator).


----------



## idontno (Sep 19, 2002)

Go here to find out anything you want to know about a ranger....http://www.rangerpowersports.com/forum/


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Best engine ever? I would vote for the slant 6

BooBoo


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

mightybooboo said:


> Best engine ever? I would vote for the slant 6
> 
> BooBoo


My feelings too especially for this size vehicle. Too big of project for now especially since this existing 2.8 seems like a good bet to have quite a bit more life.

However I had always kinda wanted a small pickup with a slant six and a 5spd. So maybe snag another Ranger cheap for long term project. Take some doing but over on slantsix board, one guy in Canada even grafted a light duty 5spd from 4cyl Ranger ( or maybe Mustang) behind the slant six in his '66 Dart. Said if you were gentle with it, the tranny would hold up with his stock 170 slant 6, though his son found the limits of it and destroyed a couple of them. This particular tranny is apparently very common and cheap in junkyards so he wasnt horribly upset. They said maybe best tranny for it was 5spd from Toyota Supra. Apparently Toyota manual trannies are very tough and Supra tranny is even tough enough for healthy small block V8. Just takes more adapting. The light duty Ford tranny was easy because a 3spd Dodge bellhousing would adapt quite readily to it with just a little machined spacer to make it center onto the Ford tranny. Then use a Ranger clutch plate with standard Dodge pressure plate and flywheel.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Darren said:


> Replacing the thermostat is a major problem due to its location below the power steering pump and the wierd sandwich assembly. I wouldn't mind choking the living excrement out of several Ford designers after I kicked them down low. Fords are designed to be assembled easily in the factory which means there will be times the mechanic won't be happy taking them apart.


As I mentioned I pulled heads and cleaned valves. Putting it back together now and noticed lot corrosion on lower sandwiched hose flanges where thermostat is. Figured better to tackle it now than in winter sometime when the thermostat goes bad (Murphy's law). With lot patience and finessing, managed to get the 3 bolts out without them breaking off. Pure miracle that I managed it. Cleaned everything up with wire brush on angle grinder, replaced thermostat (think one I took out is original, says motorcraft on it). Replaced bolts with some grade 8 english ones from TSC. Just used one of the bolts as a tap to rethread the holes in the back flange. Not difficult since flange is aluminum. If I could have, would have replaced them with stainless steel bolts. This really is a sadistic design, but using too small bolts is not uncommon on European designed engines. The hose flanges should have been heavy cast iron and the bolts much bigger diameter to make this design practical. Preferrably use nuts on front of rear flange rather than threading into flange itself.

And you think the thermostat is difficult, try replacing mechanical fuel pump right back of thermostat housing area. Talk about buried! The previous owner of my truck just got an aftermarket electric fuel pump rather than even attempt replacing the mechanical one.

Oh and before you congradulate me on my prowess as a mechanic in getting thermostat bolts out, I also managed to snap off the return line nipple from the plastic resevoir on the power steering pump. GRRRRR.... I am hoping to repair it with a brass nipple and some epoxy but not terribly optamistic. Probably have to replace the pump. Unfortunately cant use any of the dozen or so good GM pumps I have laying around cause Ford designed their power steering with lower pressure.


----------



## Oilpatch197 (Apr 18, 2004)

> I have an 83 Ranger with a 2.8 in it with a 5 speed.


My first truck had that,
1st vehicle orginally had a 2.0L with 4spd
then I modded it to a 2.8 with a 5spd
now I drive my 2nd truck it's a 2.8 with auto 3spd

the 2.8 with a 5spd is cool.


----------



## OneWheelBiting (Oct 31, 2005)

Call advanced Adapters or Novi. tell them you need a bellhousing to engine adapter plate cut. Should be under $300. Find a Isuzu Diesel out of a trooper diesel stick it in there get that 30 plus miles to the gallon.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

OneWheelBiting said:


> Call advanced Adapters or Novi. tell them you need a bellhousing to engine adapter plate cut. Should be under $300. Find a Isuzu Diesel out of a trooper diesel stick it in there get that 30 plus miles to the gallon.


Hmm, $3 diesel and $2 gas, where is advantage of a 30mpg diesel over a 20mpg gas? (Yes I know eventually gas and diesel will be closer priced once again) Dont get me wrong, I love diesel tractor, but non-turbo diesel car/truck doesnt do much for me. I dont drive enough miles to make it pay nor do I want to put up with it. Guess if I were going to do it, would invest in rebuilding an old Mercedes diesel. They lasted forever.

No, should get lot miles out of present engine (find out when I get oil pressure gauge installed and thing running again) though it isnt engine I would pick if given a choice. Sure wouldnt pay to rebuild it. Its a short stroke "go fast" car engine, not a good long stroke truck engine with lot of low end torque. If Ranger is still in good enough shape when 2.8 dies, as I said, will do my darnedest to adapt a Dodge slant six. A Dodge slant six or Ford 300 six is always worth a rebuild and much cheaper to rebuild than a 2.8. Not to mention very torquey and very durable. Could put in a 260 cube version of Olds V8 if I could find one. They got very good mileage and had the durability of the other Olds Rocket gasoline V8s. Or if on a minimalist budget, just stick in a used Ford 2.3. They are plentiful and cheap. And as I said at beginning of thread, for this vehicle I really dont need lot power, I am quite able to downshift and use low range if I really need it.


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

................Buick made a 231 CI v6 back in the late 60's that seems to be popular with the jeep 4 wheelers . Don't know if they're still available but would really fit well into your confined engine space . fordy... :dance:


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

fordy said:


> ................Buick made a 231 CI v6 back in the late 60's that seems to be popular with the jeep 4 wheelers . Don't know if they're still available but would really fit well into your confined engine space . fordy... :dance:


Actually in '60s it was an odd-fire 225, based on the Buick V8. I never looked at specs on one or dont remember them if I ever did. The Buick V8 was one of the longest stroke V8s made. So V6 may be fairly long stroke also though I dont remember anybody bragging on their fuel economy. V8 got good gas mileage for its size, but had oiling/bearing problems so you had to conscientiously change out bearings every 60k or so. Guess they finally fixed it in late 70s just before it was discontinued. I do even have an old 70's even-fire Buick 231 sitting in an Olds Starfire out in pasture. Ran ok when I bought whole car for $100 but never did anything with it. Probably need rebuild to be reliable. Think the only reason the 225 is popular in old Jeeps is that Kaiser offered them as an optional engine in the CJ5 in mid to late 60s before AMC bought Jeep and people got to putting them in earlier CJ5s as an upgrade in power to the old F-head 4cyl since factory adapters were easily available. Putting them in anything older than a CJ5 is quite an undertaking I think due to frame width.

I gave link earlier to pics of some guy who put a I-6 300 Ford in his 4wd ranger. If he can shoehorn that in, I can shoehorn in a Dodge slant six.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Well, engine is running fairly decent this afternoon. Starts with just bump of the starter. Thanks to person who told me to fill through upper radiator hose. I filled radiator, then filled engine water jacket through upper radiator hose. Thing didnt seize up before thermostat opened so guess I did ok. Strange design.

I am still amazed that the rebuilt carb off ebay for a '58 Ford Fairlane 292 V8 had correct size jets and everything. Didnt have to modify it to work with 2.8. Still seems strange a carb setup for an engine almost twice the displacement works on the 2.8. No black smoke, no hesitation, no problems.

Have few more things to do before I can drive it on road, but think it will do me ok this winter. Looks like my epoxy and brass fittings may work ok on power steering resevouir. I cleaned and roughed surface best I could and epoxy seems to got good hold. Power steering is tomorrows project I guess, right after running lines for oil pressure and water temp gauges. I always like to install mechanical aftermarket gauges on unknown used car that I am going to drive regularly.

Oh, the plastic bezel over speedometer and gas gauge is opaque, like somebody used wrong cleaner on it. Any suggestions how to make it clearer so I can read the gauges better. Or do I just remove bezel altogether?


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Hmmm, got new mechanical oil pressure gauge and water temp gauge installed. Get engine nice and hot, idles with between 20 and 25 psi oil pressure and nice constant 180degrees on coolant. Rev it and oil pressure pops up near 60 psi. Not bad for a salvage vehicle. I've driven vehicles with engines in lot worse shape. Will be interesting to see what kind of mileage this engine gets.

Now to route manual choke cable and fix a flat tire and will be enough progress for today.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Did any of these come with factory dual exhaust. I was out there under truck measuring to make a "Y" pipe to convert to single exhaust and noticed what looked like factory exhaust hangers that were set up for side by side exhaust pipes. If this thing originally had dual factory exhaust, I will just replace the bad parts and leave it like it is. Obviously somebody has done some extensive welding but may just be to repair rusted out factory system. They did remove the catalytic converter(s) though. The Haynes manual as usual is totally worthless for this kind of information.


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

................john , I'm sure that engine came with an air\smog pump . And , I believe that they also had some type of fuel injection in 87 . Back during those years the 351 and 460 had 2 parallel exhaust pipes into a muffler and then backout into 2 parallel pipes and exited behind the right rear wheel . I believe this is correct , but I do remember seeing 2 exhaust pipes atleast , although i don't remember either the I4 or the v6 having factory dual pipes . Are you going to put a smog pump back on the engine so It'll pass state inspection ?? fordy...


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

fordy said:


> ................john , I'm sure that engine came with an air\smog pump . And , I believe that they also had some type of fuel injection in 87 . Back during those years the 351 and 460 had 2 parallel exhaust pipes into a muffler and then backout into 2 parallel pipes and exited behind the right rear wheel . I believe this is correct , but I do remember seeing 2 exhaust pipes atleast , although i don't remember either the I4 or the v6 having factory dual pipes . Are you going to put a smog pump back on the engine so It'll pass state inspection ?? fordy...


No vehicle inspection of any kind in Arkansas. And good thing as I'd have to at best make it look like it had all pollution controls at least for last of the pre-computer cars. At worst it just wouldnt pass short of original early computer system fully functional. That would make it worthless as that would cost more than the truck is worth assuming one could even find all the parts. 

Yes could be some weird thing of two exhaust pipes going into one muffler and then one tailpipe. I dont much care dual or not just most engines are setup for certain backpressure. Change that significantly and you actually lose power unless you also modify the engine. I had assumed this came from factory with single exhaust, but finding the apparently factory installed dual exhaust hangers made me reconsider. Right now it has two mufflers, one had a blowout from a backfiring episode I assume as its not rusted out. I am thinking now to just weld up broken muffler and see how thing behaves on the road. If ok, then weld up new dual tailpipes which are now rusted beyond repair. If it acts like not enough backpressure, I'll weld up a "Y" pipe and go to single exhaust as I originally planned. By way AutoZone online shows a $35 'Y' pipe for this application. No pics and no description beyond 'Y'-pipe listing and its special order so cant go look at one.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Nice job HJ,Im duly impressed. :bow: 

BooBoo


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

I am sure nobody gives a rats hiney except me but did find pic of Ranger V6 exhaust system and it was only offered as single exhaust:


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Well, I have run a tank of gas thru the Ranger. 10mpg!!!! OUCH!!!! I could do that well with my old 4wd 3/4 ton I think. As well as it runs, makes me want to check accuracy of speedometer. I could believe 15mpg in mixed driving, but 10 is pretty low. Of course I have made it crawl around in low range 4wd a good bit also which isnt great for mileage. It has 215/75R-15 tires which seem to be size that came from factory on 4wd Ranger, so that cant be the problem. At first thought that might be it as 2wd Rangers have 14inch tires.

Not even hint of black smoke and thing actually runs fairly well and handles pretty good also. Not overburdened with power (feels like a big four cylinder). What I really hate is that it developes peak torque at like 2800rpm. Think this is more peoples complaint about lack of power in this engine. You cant be afraid to keep revs up. Fine for little sporty go-fast high-revving car but that is just stupid choice for an engine in a 4wd or even a work truck. If they just had to use such, they ought to have included a granny gear to save going into low range. Also it now has very low oil pressure at hot idle. Like 5psi at around 600rpm. At minimum, it needs cam, main, and rod bearings. Think though I am going to adapt and shoehorn a Dodge slant six in it next summer. More time consuming than redoing the 2.8, but not any more expensive. Still some good used slant sixes out there for cheap. Slant sixes have gobs of torque not much off idle and last forever with just a bit of care. Be a great match for this size truck and my style of driving.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

HermitJohn said:


> Well, I have run a tank of gas thru the Ranger. 10mpg!!!! OUCH!!!! I could do that well with my old 4wd 3/4 ton I think. As well as it runs, makes me want to check accuracy of speedometer. I could believe 15mpg in mixed driving, but 10 is pretty low. Of course I have made it crawl around in low range 4wd a good bit also which isnt great for mileage. It has 215/75R-15 tires which seem to be size that came from factory on 4wd Ranger, so that cant be the problem. At first thought that might be it as 2wd Rangers have 14inch tires.
> 
> Not even hint of black smoke and thing actually runs fairly well and handles pretty good also. Not overburdened with power (feels like a big four cylinder). What I really hate is that it developes peak torque at like 2800rpm. Think this is more peoples complaint about lack of power in this engine. You cant be afraid to keep revs up. Fine for little sporty go-fast high-revving car but that is just stupid choice for an engine in a 4wd or even a work truck. If they just had to use such, they ought to have included a granny gear to save going into low range. Also it now has very low oil pressure at hot idle. Like 5psi at around 600rpm. At minimum, it needs cam, main, and rod bearings. Think though I am going to adapt and shoehorn a Dodge slant six in it next summer. More time consuming than redoing the 2.8, but not any more expensive. Still some good used slant sixes out there for cheap. Slant sixes have gobs of torque not much off idle and last forever with just a bit of care. Be a great match for this size truck and my style of driving.


If'n I were you, I would go with adapting the ford 300, you can find a c-4 to fit it with a transfer case, all on the same side as the ranger. I believe you will run into some serious issue with starter location etc. with the slant six.

if you wanted to, you could even put the ford 250 in, find an old bronco that is roached out with a 250 and scavenge the parts.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

ZealYouthGuy said:


> If'n I were you, I would go with adapting the ford 300, you can find a c-4 to fit it with a transfer case, all on the same side as the ranger. I believe you will run into some serious issue with starter location etc. with the slant six.
> 
> if you wanted to, you could even put the ford 250 in, find an old bronco that is roached out with a 250 and scavenge the parts.


I do love those 300's. My 3/4 ton will crawl up my steep driveway in low range at a slow idle with that thing. I could never do that when it had the 460. However I think that a 300 would be little too much for light duty axles on these early Rangers/BroncoIIs.

Not a fan of 250s. Just no mileage or power or longevity advantage over a 300 so unless I already owned one in good shape be pointless to go to the trouble. The 200 was good engine but I am trying to avoid buying bunch stuff. If I change engine tranny, and transfer case, then I have to change driveshafts and its just complicated. Just dont see old moth eaten original Broncos in this part of country or solid ones either unless already restored. They are snapped up and parted out before you can say boo or are priced for some crazy collector to restore. Believe me I would have preferred an origninal early Bronco over Ranger/BroncoII if they were available for reasonable price locally.

I already have what used to be a good slant six setting in my yard. Its sat outside with just bucket over carb for several years so dont know if it is any good anymore or not. If not, I know where there is a good slant six cheap that is stored inside. On slant six website there is one guy who adapted bellhousing from a Dart 3spd to a light duty 5spd 4cyl ford tranny out of a Mustang just by turning down diameter of the bearing retainer to size of Dart bellhousing hole to index/align everything, then drilled bolt holes in bellhousing and bolted it down. Put it in an early 60s Dart. Figure I can do simular on Ranger although I dont know for sure until I pull present engine and do some serious measuring. That wont happen until at least next summer. Mustang 4cyl uses whats called a RAP tranny and early 4wd Ranger uses a TK5 tranny. If this tranny can handle the 2.8, should handle slant six with same size clutch. By way I once put a slant six in a Volvo. Volvos have narrow drive tunnel. If slant six starter location didnt give problem doing that then shouldnt on a Ranger.


----------



## Oilpatch197 (Apr 18, 2004)

I always wanted to pop in a Fuel injected 3800 Buick V6 into my ranger. 
 

your MPG suck, I got a all stock '84 2wd with 2.8 engine with 3spd auto trasmission, I get from 19-22 mpg, all electronic gizmos(and I DO mean gizmos) work on the engine.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Oilpatch197 said:


> your MPG suck, I got a all stock '84 2wd with 2.8 engine with 3spd auto trasmission, I get from 19-22 mpg, all electronic gizmos(and I DO mean gizmos) work on the engine.


Be still my fluttering heart, I am up to 12.5mpg. This purely sucks. I have owned 3 old style full size Jeep Wagoneers in my lifetime. One with Buick 350, the other two with AMC 360 engines. All with automatic and the two AMCs with full time 4wd. They ALL got better mileage than this Ranger with overdrive. The best of them getting an honest 16mpg. The worst around 14mpg. My old Ford 3/4 ton 4wd pickup with the 300 I-6 gets about 12mpg and has lot more power.

I will try advancing the timing bit more, but thats about it for this engine I think short of a rebuild. Might hit 15mpg on a long hiway trip in 2wd and a tail wind.


----------



## Ken Scharabok (May 11, 2002)

Don't know if this would interest you, but there is an 88 Ranger V6, auto, in a junkyard up the road. Was driven into yard after being rolled on its top (they checked oil before doing so). $100 you pull.

Don't remember specifics, but I spoke with my mechanic about replacing my burned out 4-cyl in my 84 Ranger with this engine. He said he though it would fit. Decided it would be about like dressing up a pig.

In Waverly, TN, probably an 8-hour drive from you.


----------

