What does /o/ think of these?

>>17576345

Not really. The 2.9l in that generation cracked heads a lot. Rusted quickly, and tipped over easily. If it's 4x4, then wheel it and don't get too attached. I would recommend an early 90s Explorer as a much better alternative (if you can find one - C4C killed a huge number of them).

>>17576367
Quit spouting everything you read on Google as if it's going to happen to every production 2.9.

Yes, numerous cases of the heads cracking have been reported. In fact, googling problems with the 2.9 you'll see it's at the top of the list.

It'd make a great first car, assuming he isn't going to drive it like he stole it. Assuming he'll make sure it doesn't over heat, ever.

And being that it's going to be his first car, there's a good chance he'll kill it before the engine goes.

>>17576345
not too bad, just a 1st gen ranger with a stubby bed and a roof. If it's still running 20+ years later
>The 2.9l in that generation cracked heads a lot
probably isn't an issue. I don't know if any came with the 2.3 but If it did I would go with that, I had a 1st gen 2.9 efi ranger. All the power of a 4cyl with the economy of a v6.

>>17577075
>All the power of a 4cyl with the economy of a v6
lol

>>17576345
That has to be at least 30 years old by now? Not something I'd take to college 300 miles away. Puttering around town? Maybe. You will be working on it.

>>17576345
Sure is, I'm driving one as a matter of fact. I dream that Alphonse is sitting in the passenger seat when I drive it. As a matter of fact, I named my Bronco after him.

>>17576345
I would rather a 2-door XJ with the I6.

I love mine but the gas economy is making me doubt it.

>>17576480

I had one. Had a small coolant leak, thought it was head gasket, turned out to be a head. Replacement was fine for rest of ownership. It happens. The 4.0 of later years was better was all I was saying.

>>17577233
You speak my language friendo, it's that or something similar basically. 2 door XJs are hard to find reasonably priced though.