Alright guys, well I'm a newbie, and I wanted to start posting and getting some background info on a dream of a ranger build. The mission, build a capable prerunner for the desert, that is more than just a desert truck to only be taken out a few times a year. I want a truck I can beat on in the desert, screw around on some rocks, and the occasional grocery toy when I feel like driving something other than my daily. So far my plan is rather simple... Find the a late 90s ranger with TTB (hopefully an xlt cab, 4.0, manual truck), buy the Giants motorsports d44 LT conversion kit with shocks, build my own internal cage, and bed cage, buy the giants 64" deaver set up for the rear, and some king 2.5 inch resi shocks, either a Ford 8.8 or 9 inch for the rear. Thinking 35s or 37s? Fenders are in there somewhere as well as the normal odds and ends like tires wheels and lights. This would be a work in progress and not done all in one big sweep.

The reason I'm looking at the TTB train is the ease of lifting, the price mainly, and the ability to keep a strong 4x4 system in case I want to do some slower stuff.

So what do you guys think? Any advise, any better deals to be had that I should be looking at? I should also be looking into the classifieds here for the ranger of choice. All said and done I'm thinking this build could be done for less than about 12k in parts. Please tell me if Im crazy lol. The trucks primary use would be a dedicated off-roader for the desert but the ability of a 4x4 pre runner is amazing when done right so I'm intrigued.

 

Check out some of the builds over at dezertrangers forum. I'm pretty sure there's a couple guys over there that have done similar builds.

I can't say much about the TTB, as I've got an 05 2wd with SLA that I'm lookin to throw a long travel kit on.

 

Sounds good. Thanks for the feedback. Looking over the numbers, and horsepower ratings and all, while ranger is still the route I want to go, I might go a bit newer and get the IFS style ranger. We’ll see. There are many more of the post TTB rangers for sale around me, and many that are the xlt, 4.0, manual combo I’d prefer. May or may not drop the 4x4 though I dont know yet.

 

If you go with IFS, I can help you out there. The 2wd Rangers are beasts, I've had mine in some pretty nasty stuff with the best of them. If you do go IFS, either stick with 2wd or get a few extra sets of CV axles to keep handy, because the long travel kits play hell on them. Camburg, I believe makes a 4x4 LT kit, and a cantilever kit for the rear if you don't want to cut into your bed for a cage. If you go 2wd, blitzkrieg motorsports makes a nice kit for the front for about $5k, and it changes the front out to dana 35 snouts. There are tons of IFS long travel kits if you know where to look.

 

Yeah I have to agree with the 2wd rangers being beasts and I’d think a large part of it has to due with the power to weight ratio and how you can get a good amount of travel out of them with arguably minimal changes compared to full sized trucks. Another reason to go newer and stay 2wd is the cost involved in re gearing both axles for a 4x4. So now I’m looking at about a 2002 or newer ford ranger xlt cab, 2wd, 4.0 sohc, manual if possible, and maybe white but color doesn’t really matter. And I’ll be building a bed cage for it myself. I’m 20 so this project is all about me learning to build a beast like this through the trial and error as well as just gaining the experience and ability to weld.

 

1997 to 2003 4.0l SOHC engines had a common issue with timing chain tensioners, they lost pressure and timing chains would break their guides causing a rattling sound.
And the 4.0l SOHC has a Rear timing chain so engine needed to be pulled to repair the rear chain and guides.
The newer designed tensioners, 2 of them, fixed this issue in factory 2004 and up models, 2004 can also have this issue if it has 2003 build date
If you get a 2002 and there is no rattle then plan to replace the 2 tensioners as soon as practical, once the rattle starts the engine must come out to repair it.

If you like diesel then google: Cummins 4bt ranger

The 4BT engines are fairly bullet proof and provide loads of power
Also quite a few builds have been done with Rangers over the years so lots of info on it

4BT swap forum here, includes some Ranger builds: http://www.4btswaps.com/forum/forum.php

 

My reading, while it was short, said that all engines after 2002 had the better chain tensioner from ford. Like I said it was short reading, so I could be flat out wrong. I had done some reading and did find this. As far as pulling an engine, we have done it before at my house and we can do it again, this 4.0 V6 is tiny compared to a 454 big block lol. That being said, its a pain. I was just thinking the SOHC version would be better for power in the dirt, while also getting better MPG. I do want the 4.0 due to power in the dirt, and don't the 3.0s have head gasket issues? Now this might be stupid, but is there a specific delineation between ford ranger xlts, and ford ranger edges? I am seeing kits labeled for each and with me wanting to buy one it would be good to know why...

I do like diesel, but I will be looking at a 2500 in the future for all my towing needs. Leaning towards a GMC/Chevy 2500 4x4 with the lbz when I can afford one.
Thanks for all the info. Also curious about real world mileage on the 4.0 ext cab 2wd doing about 70-75 on the freeway, if anyone can let me know that would be great!

 

Well there are some Ranger owners with 2003's and earlier 2004's that would disagree with that, lol.

It was a user issue until 2001 or so, wrong oil, running low on oil, not changing the oil, ect, anything but a design issue, according to Ford
Which is just how it goes for this kinda stuff with ANY car maker
Once there were enough failures for Ford to consider it a design issue they had to first find out what the problem was.
On paper it shouldn't have this problem or they would have fixed it before building it, real world is a whole other ballgame.
So if you read about a 2002 reference then I would say that would be when they came up with a fix for it.
Since this was NEVER a 100% failure rate, just a higher one, lol, they didn't throw away the problem parts, they used them in the engine assembly plants until they were gone and then the newer designed units were installed, so a couple of years

4.0l SOHC does rate 205HP with Premium fuel, but power and MPG does go down with Regular gas.
4.0l SOHC runs 9.7:1 compression ratio, to get the extra power, so will ping/knock on 87 octane, 9.4:1 is about the limit for 87 octane.
So Ford installed a Knock Sensor on this engine, it will advance the spark timing when ping/knock is detected, which lowers power so MPG as well.
Not a big deal, still better power than the 4.0l OHV, or 3.0l
But some compared it to 210HP from a 9.0:1 5.0l V8, not even close, lol

MPG varies with octane for this engine, as said.
But mid-high teens in OD at high way speeds would be expected
Some have reported low 20's, that would be using Premium gas and ALOT of downhill driving, lol.

Rangers are about as aerodynamic as a brick, add taller tires and its a brick holding an open umbrella

 

All this info above is very helpful, the knock sensor stuff I already knew, I had just assumed once the issues had been ironed out with the SOHC design the 4.0 was a great engine. I will more than likely run on 87, California gas prices suck, and Costco has the best price so that is what she would be drinking. Also, from my short reading the SOHC fully replaced the OHV engines by like 2000 right? Now the ratings for mpg you gave, is there much a difference in terms of manual vs auto? I would prefer a stick as I miss that in my life, and the stick on that chassis I think would make for more fun in the desert, as well as (and idk till when this was true) but I had heard that most autos drain more power than stick shifts in parasitic loss. I can honestly say coming from having two older BMWs, the autos blow (are gutless), and suck fuel worse than their stick shift counterparts both in town and on the freeway, so I am curious as to if it is the same in the ranger application.

 

Automatics have almost caught up with manuals in MPG but yes manual will still get better MPG maybe 1 MPG better when under 20MPG

Yes, there is a slight power drop with autos but they also have better gearing and are much stronger than manuals, having an automatic adds at least 1,000lbs to legal towing capacity because trans is stronger
Autos uses a torque converter which pretty much is an infinite ratio gear when starting out
When off roading or in slippery conditions this can come in handy, verses feathering the clutch

Newer automatics have TCC locking torque converters, torque coverters were the biggest power and MPG suckers for automatics, engine had no direct drive so there was a constant power loss, now the torque converts LOCK when you reach a certain speed and unlock for shifting and stopping, so direct drive to rear wheels, better power and better MPG

I still prefer manual, but nothing wrong with the later model automatics.

And service cost is about the same but most don't see it that way, lol
You HAVE TOO replace the clutch on a manual trans, just like the brake pads, it WILL wear out, period.
And if you have someone else do it it will run $700-$1,000
And you would HAVE TO do this TWICE before a well maintained automatic needed a rebuild, so cost wise not much difference.
But people often change clutches themselves and wouldn't rebuild an automatic

 

I know a fair bit about how all this stuff works, but where I disagree is with this point right here... Now some people, yes this is true, and with some cars this is true, but for the vast majority of cars its a toss up. Brother had a Honda Civic that had well over 300k on the clock on the stock clutch, no chatter, no slip, no grind, and if the pedal feel was any indication, still had plenty of life. On the other hand I had a BMW 525i with a 4 speed auto that was slipping like crazy from he moment I got it in between 3 to 4 shifts and it was purchased at 298k miles to my family and was gone before then. Also, the Chevy 4l60e more than likely with todays drivers wont make it far if at all past 200k.
Now to the part about liking a manual, I agree totally. I am used to wheeling in a stick in the dirt as we have a dune buggy running a 4 speed 091 (6 rib) bus tranny and I love being able to pick the gear I want and screwing around. I would also do a clutch change by myself, that would be far easier on a truck than it would be on some of the cars we have pulled trannys from. I was also under the assumption that the 5 speed used in the ford rangers was rather beef for its application no? Regardless, I hate the sluggish nature of most TC/single clutch transmissions, and that will only be worse on a truck that is about 15 years old. I can deal with some selector fork play over a slow auto tranny personally.

 

I officially bought a truck. Took some looking but I think i snagged a deal! 2006 Ranger FX4 Super cab, 2 dr, 4.0, auto. Best of all, its all completely stock pretty much like a grandpa special. Other than the typical maintenance stuff like belt, engine oil/filter, and other fluids deserving a change at the mileage of 125k its really clean! Drives and runs smooth! Doesnt really deserve a build thread since its going to stay stock other than a head unit and maybe HID headlightlight bulbs... and tires when she needs em!