# ford ranger overheated..



## travis91 (Jul 26, 2005)

Last night i was backing up a trailer in my freinds yard and my truck started spuddering the temps wernt high but i figured it was just too heavy of a trailer to be backing and then the temps got high and the motor cut off.. i opened the hood and wiggled the heater hoses and one of them hissed and after pulling the rad cap it was out of water.. now after filling it back with water it would start and idel very very rough and now it wont start at all. it will turn over but not run. what do you think is the problem?


----------



## topside1 (Sep 23, 2005)

Compression leaking out of your truck's head gasket...No compression, no explosion...Topside


----------



## topside1 (Sep 23, 2005)

It probably overheated because your heater hose sprung a pin hole leak. Radiator's fluids run under presssure. Small leak, pressure leaks out and water temp's hit boiling rather quickly...Topside


----------



## travis91 (Jul 26, 2005)

it didnt blow up, and yeah the heater hose sprung a pin hole leak i knew they needed to be replaced i was just putting it off. so im guessing i need a new head gasket.


----------



## topside1 (Sep 23, 2005)

No one said it blew up.....the without compression you get no explosion (gasoline in the cylinder).


----------



## topside1 (Sep 23, 2005)

Overheating warps the cylinder head thus the head gasket no longer seals..that's more than likely why the engine will not start...


----------



## travis91 (Jul 26, 2005)

oh lol.. sorry i misread.. i just called my mechanic and he said the engine i have very rarely warps the head


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

I replaced the head gasket in my 3.0 last winter with the same issues. Its not that hard but a bit of a PITA. Get your heads machined if you do the work yourself and you might as well replace the valves while your at it.

The only problem I had is that the CEL kept lighting for different things and I chased a few sensors for awhile.


----------



## topside1 (Sep 23, 2005)

Guess your mechanic is right.....Good luck.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Just about any engine with an aluminum head will warp the head if overheated. Even all cast iron engines with super thin castings arent much better. Overhead cam engines tend to not have separate cam bearings, they used the head casting as their bearing. The slightest bit of warp in the head and the cam WILL wipe out the head. These heads have to be heated and twisted in special machine to rebuild them. Not like the old cast iron push rod engines where you just resurfaced bottom of the head.

Now old school engines like Dodge slant six or Ford 300-6 you can usually overheat multiple times and at most you replace head gasket, usually not even that. Just let them cool and add more water to the radiator. But those days are gone, now we live with high tech engines that are highly susceptible to damage from minor overheating or other problems that shouldnt matter. And they cost more than a good used car to rebuild the engine. In other words its a throwaway car once original manufacturers warranty expires.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

salmonslayer said:


> I replaced the head gasket in my 3.0 last winter with the same issues. Its not that hard but a bit of a PITA. Get your heads machined if you do the work yourself and you might as well replace the valves while your at it.
> 
> The only problem I had is that the CEL kept lighting for different things and I chased a few sensors for awhile.



I've never owned one, but have heard the 3.0L is one of the more durable modern engines. And you can use the front drive version from the Taurus in the Ranger line of vehicles to replace the rear drive version 3.0L. Have to change the head gasket for type head gaskets used on Ranger version, if you do, since somehow the coolant flow is backwards and the gaskets cause a flow restriction if used in opposite application. On positive side used Taurus 3.0L engines are a real bargain, you can get a good one for like $200 to $300. The transmissions are what usually went in the Taurus. About same as a good used 2.3L. Low price on good used engines tends to indicate an engine that holds up and lasts fairly well so little demand. Remember the Dodge minivans with the 2.6L Mitsubishi four cylinder. Good used engines for those back at the time brought big bucks.

Now the 2.8, 2.9 and 4.0 V6 used in Ranger/BroncoII/Explorer are not good design and not cheap to work on. I've seen people waste a lot of money on them. I'd avoid them unless really cheap vehicle or very low mileage vehicle. Now the 4.0L werent horrible, Ford threw lot money into making a silk purse out of the proverbial sows ear, but they still have the same inherent oiling passage weaknesses of the 2.8 and 2.9 versions. They start lifter ticking, their days are numbered.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

HermitJohn said:


> I've never owned one, but have heard the 3.0L is one of the more durable modern engines. And you can use the front drive version from the Taurus in the Ranger line of vehicles to replace the rear drive version 3.0L. Have to change the head gasket for type head gaskets used on Ranger version, if you do, since somehow the coolant flow is backwards and the gaskets cause a flow restriction if used in opposite application. On positive side used Taurus 3.0L engines are a real bargain, you can get a good one for like $200 to $300. The transmissions are what usually went in the Taurus. About same as a good used 2.3L. Low price on good used engines tends to indicate an engine that holds up and lasts fairly well so little demand. Remember the Dodge minivans with the 2.6L Mitsubishi four cylinder. Good used engines for those back at the time brought big bucks.
> 
> Now the 2.8, 2.9 and 4.0 V6 used in Ranger/BroncoII/Explorer are not good design and not cheap to work on. I've seen people waste a lot of money on them. I'd avoid them unless really cheap vehicle or very low mileage vehicle. Now the 4.0L werent horrible, Ford threw lot money into making a silk purse out of the proverbial sows ear, but they still have the same inherent oiling passage weaknesses of the 2.8 and 2.9 versions. They start lifter ticking, their days are numbered.


 You know the 3.0L is durable but its not much in the power or fuel mileage aspect. We ended up buying the Ranger from one of our sons who neglected it but was in financial straights or I wouldnt have bought it (I'd rather have a 4 cyl/5spd Ranger for what we use it for). They are prone to cooling system issues and the anti freeze is usually muddy even after just flushing the system.

Interestingly though, we have a Ford Five Hundred sedan we just about stole (a 4 or 5 year redesigned Taurus that never caught on) with a 3.0L and its as smooth as can be and we are averaging 28 mpg (it does have a 6 speed auto).

Too me, the Ford automatic transmissions have always been their weakness and these two vehicles of mine are no different. I am probably going to be looking at a trans swap on the Ranger soon.


----------



## travis91 (Jul 26, 2005)

my truck is a 1988 2.3.. i wonder if its even worth fixing


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

If body is good, then a good used 2.3L is cheap if you do labor of installing it. Look around, should be able to get a 2.3L in good shape for around $300. I have friend that bought a 90s era 2.3L Ranger some years back for his daughter. Engine went bad soon after he bought it, former owner had overheated it would be my guess. He hired engine rebuilt. It was a 90s era so eight spark plugs and all the computer and fuel injection crap. Took me about a day to remove the engine and about same to reinstall it after the rebuild. His daughter drove it cross country and it held up fine for her until somebody ran into her and totalled the truck.

The 90s era 2.3L/2.5L fuel injected Ranger engines are very good. Ford finally got them right. Treated with some good maintenance, they will go like 300k. The earlier Pinto era version 2.3L always had head problems when the miles racked up, maybe get 150k if lucky. I remember going to one estate auction where some guy died that had a 70s era 4cyl Mustang. Still looked nice, he had taken care of it. Must have been a dozen or so 2.3L junk heads setting around there. The head would go and this guy would just buy another one from junkyard I guess.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

salmonslayer said:


> You know the 3.0L is durable but its not much in the power or fuel mileage aspect. We ended up buying the Ranger from one of our sons who neglected it but was in financial straights or I wouldnt have bought it (I'd rather have a 4 cyl/5spd Ranger for what we use it for). They are prone to cooling system issues and the anti freeze is usually muddy even after just flushing the system.
> 
> Interestingly though, we have a Ford Five Hundred sedan we just about stole (a 4 or 5 year redesigned Taurus that never caught on) with a 3.0L and its as smooth as can be and we are averaging 28 mpg (it does have a 6 speed auto).
> 
> Too me, the Ford automatic transmissions have always been their weakness and these two vehicles of mine are no different. I am probably going to be looking at a trans swap on the Ranger soon.


Yea, I heard that the 3.0L wasnt much for low end torque, but at least it was durable unlike the 2.8/2.9L. Its another car engine that should never be put in a pickup. I still think Ford was really stupid for not designing the Ranger around the 200/250 straight six engine. Modernized like AMC/Renault did with the old AMC 258 straight six. That would have been so much nicer, especially on the 4wd Rangers/Broncos. The 2.8/2.9/4.0 boondoggle cost lot sales I think, especially when GM started putting 4.3L in the S10. And Jeep ate both their lunches with their modernized 4.0L straight six. Just shame Jeep discontinued their compact pickup with that engine early on. I guess it was when Chrysler bought AMC/Jeep from Renault. Chrysler already had a compact pickup.

Fords old C6 was a strong transmission, but their newer ones were weak and high dollar. I never understood the logic of any of the car companies cheaping out on transmissions. Both manual and automatics. They got into bad habit of making them just barely strong enough to hold up to stock engine. Of course this meant lot of them failed under warranty. Not only cost GM/Ford to replace them, but they got a bad reputation for their cars and people went to Japanese companies. Lot of the early GM overdrive automatic transmissions were so troublesome that owners were giving up the mileage gains and having shops retrofit their cars with the old TH350.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

HermitJohn said:


> Yea, I heard that the 3.0L wasnt much for low end torque, but at least it was durable unlike the 2.8/2.9L. Its another car engine that should never be put in a pickup. *I still think Ford was really stupid for not designing the Ranger around the 200/250 straight six engine. * Modernized like AMC/Renault did with the old AMC 258 straight six. That would have been so much nicer, especially on the 4wd Rangers/Broncos. The 2.8/2.9/4.0 boondoggle cost lot sales I think, especially when GM started putting 4.3L in the S10. And Jeep ate both their lunches with their modernized 4.0L straight six. Just shame Jeep discontinued their compact pickup with that engine early on. I guess it was when Chrysler bought AMC/Jeep from Renault. Chrysler already had a compact pickup.
> 
> Fords old C6 was a strong transmission, but their newer ones were weak and high dollar. I never understood the logic of any of the car companies cheaping out on transmissions. Both manual and automatics. They got into bad habit of making them just barely strong enough to hold up to stock engine. Of course this meant lot of them failed under warranty. Not only cost GM/Ford to replace them, but they got a bad reputation for their cars and people went to Japanese companies. Lot of the early GM overdrive automatic transmissions were so troublesome that owners were giving up the mileage gains and having shops retrofit their cars with the old TH350.


 Totally agree with you there, didnt you do an engine swap like that? I think I remember your thread about it and I just thought..bingo.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

I put a 300-6 in my 4wd Ranger using tranny and transfer case from a 60s era Bronco. Gross overkill for a ranger, but I already owned it and finding a good used 200 or 250 is pretty rare though they would have been an easier fit. I dont drive lot miles anymore and have three vehicles. I tinker with Ranger every once in a while. The one thing, if I did it over, is find a way to stuff a ZF 5spd in there even if it meant a body lift and I hate seeing vehicles with lifted bodies let alone own one. That old 3 spd leaves a lot to be desired and the 300 would prefer cruising at much slower rpm out on hiway. Those ZF 5spds used in the F250 and F350 were a treat, basically an old granny 4 speed with an overdrive 5th gear added. Ok they shift like a truck but then the Ranger is a truck.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

HermitJohn said:


> I put a 300-6 in my 4wd Ranger using tranny and transfer case from a 60s era Bronco. Gross overkill for a ranger, but I already owned it and finding a good used 200 or 250 is pretty rare though they would have been an easier fit. I dont drive lot miles anymore and have three vehicles. I tinker with Ranger every once in a while. The one thing, if I did it over, is find a way to stuff a ZF 5spd in there even if it meant a body lift and I hate seeing vehicles with lifted bodies let alone own one. That old 3 spd leaves a lot to be desired and the 300 would prefer cruising at much slower rpm out on hiway. Those ZF 5spds used in the F250 and F350 were a treat, basically an old granny 4 speed with an overdrive 5th gear added. Ok they shift like a truck but then the Ranger is a truck.


 I thought it was something like that John, what a great project. Are you still considering the ZF? I would think if you gave up the 4WD and did a little cutting and welding it would be doable with no lift (I dont like body lifts either). Or how about one of the old 4 speeds with a granny? 

I have a fantasy of dropping a 289 in the Ranger with a 4 speed like we used to do with the mini trucks or early S-10s and the Chevy small blocks. If only I wasnt broke!!


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

It would be lot work and I dont drive the Ranger that much. The way the axles are geared mean that a 4spd granny tranny wouldnt do me any good except granny first would mean I never have to shift transfer case into low range. I can get gears for the stock Ranger rear axle as low as at least 3.08:1 but cant get them for the front. Really need axle gearing of 2.43 to 3.08 to get rpm of engine down at hiway speeds without an overdrive. Course with those ratios, you would need granny gear first just to start from a dead stop.

I cant remember exact axle ratio on Ranger now, but its like 3.55:1. Perfect with an overdrive but makes the old 300 turn too fast at hiway speeds without an overdrive. The 300 really likes rpm between 1500 and 2000 rpm. You push it over 3000 rpm and you just get lot more noise, worse gas mileage, and no more power. Its a tractor engine, developes peak torque at around 1800rpm. Most V8s reach peak torque between 2500rpm and 3000rpm and peak horsepower up around 4000rpm. Small OHC engines reach peak torque 3000+ rpm and peak horsepower up towards 5000rpm, higher if they are designed for it.

I wouldnt own a 4wd except my driveway is steep. Unless its bone dry, you need 4wd to crawl up it. Either that or deal with chains and load of firewood in back for traction. It also frequently washes out so need some ground clearance to navigate the ruts. The county road has some steep hills too, but county does get out the grader and add gravel when necessary usually. Wasnt so when I first moved here, county road at times would become very soft and hard to navigate and they graded it only twice a year. 

If I didnt need 4wd, be perfectly happy with a stock 4cyl/5spd Ranger. I dont need huge amount power if vehicle is geared right. That gutless 2.8L V6 that came in my 4wd Ranger just made me real mad. It was designed originally as like 2.4 or 2.6L high revving engine for sporty cars Ford imported from Ford of Germany. Remember the old German Ford Capri? It was a Euro design engine where most engines are designed to make power at high rpm. Well the 2.8L didnt have right cam to really rev and it had no low end torque so it was just a PITA that got horrible fuel mileage. Not an appropriate 4wd engine in any sense. I got like 12 to 16mpg with the V6 in the Ranger with a 5spd, usually closer to 12mpg!!! My old 4wd F250 with 4spd and 300-6 can get 12mpg and it weighs 6000# and has the aeodynamics of a barn door. I get around 18mpg with the 300-6 in the 4wd Ranger with 3spd. Think I'd get 20 to 22mpg if I had an overdrive plus the 300 would be lot quieter. The more you rev a 300 above 1800rpm, the worse gas mileage is and the noisier the engine is.


----------

