Don't worry boys. There's a silver lining here. With my 2.9 hatred, I'm driving market prices down on them, on every single website that mentions them. So in the end they're cheaper for you dick tucking 2.9 fangirls.
Welcome Visitor! Please take a few seconds and Register for our forum. Even if you don't want to post, you can still 'Like' and react to posts.
Why?Don't worry boys. There's a silver lining here. With my 2.9 hatred, I'm driving market prices down on them, on every single website that mentions them. So in the end they're cheaper for you dick tucking 2.9 fangirls.
My 2.9 has been in service for 32 years and hasnt exploded.Hey this threads been going for a day now - there's a decent chance that 2.9 has blown up in the mean time!
32 years in two weeks. And yup. Still going.My 2.9 has been in service for 32 years and hasnt exploded.
Soooooo....i doubt that one is going away anytime soon.
Either way...Neither one of those 2.9's have been in CONTINUOUS SERVICE for that many years. Huge difference.
A member just posted here (or possibly on another Ranger forum, but I think here) a couple days ago about his 2.9 starting to burn coolant.. I see several of those posts every year. It's absolutely the norm, though it has slowed down because there simply aren't very many of them left on the road anymore. I've seen a LOT of Rangers with the same problem over the years. Seen a lot of them for sale because of it. Seen a lot of them scrapped because of it.Either way...
The 2.9 is no where near as bad as some make them out to be. Yes youve had bad luck but lets be real here....thats not exactly the norm.
Every engine ever installed in a ranger has issues...but for some reason the 2.9 seems to get hammered harder then the rest for it.
You also have no idea how those 2.9s were maintained or beat on either.A member just posted here (or possibly on another Ranger forum, but I think here) a couple days ago about his 2.9 starting to burn coolant.. I see several of those posts every year. It's absolutely the norm, though it has slowed down because there simply aren't very many of them left on the road anymore. I've seen a LOT of Rangers with the same problem over the years. Seen a lot of them for sale because of it. Seen a lot of them scrapped because of it.
I've said it before but it bears repeating. When an aftermarket company goes through the considerable effort and cost to design and cast a redesigned cylinder head for an engine, and it's not a performance head but meant to be a direct replacement, just to fix the flaws in the original, there's a nation-wide problem with that engine/head design. R/D isn't exactly cheap to do such a thing and they have to be sure there's enough of a problem to see a return on that investment.
None of the posts I've seen in the last couple years had anything to do with a blown hose. Some were due to a failed thermostat, but if an engine is so "sensitive" that it can't handle one overheating event without cracking the heads, then those heads are made of glass and were designed wrong.The 2.9 is sensitive, ill give it that, but if you choose to keep driving 30 mi after you blow a hose then thats not exactly the engines fault.
They ditched it cause the 3.0 was cheaper because it was in both the taurus and ranger.None of the posts I've seen in the last couple years had anything to do with a blown hose. Some were due to a failed thermostat, but if an engine is so "sensitive" that it can't handle one overheating event without cracking the heads, then those heads are made of glass and were designed wrong.
NONE of my cracked heads on the 2.9 were due to a blown hose, yet I still cracked several heads. Some cracked for no apparent reason. Without ever being overheated. Even with a brand new radiator, water pump, and thermostat being installed. As well as new head gaskets and head bolts. On two different blocks, if the same thing keeps happening, even after buying a completely new cooling system, you got yourself a LEMON of an engine..
The 2.9 is more than sensitive. It's a major design flaw on Ford's part. In more than one way. There's a reason they ditched it..
Do you have the direct documentation from the bean counters at Ford that prove that statement, or is it purely opinion?They ditched it cause the 3.0 was cheaper because it was in both the taurus and ranger.
Do you have documentation it wasnt axed for that reason?Do you have the direct documentation from the bean counters at Ford that prove that statement, or is it purely opinion?
...aaaaand exactly how I knew you'd answer.Do you have documentation it wasnt axed for that reason?