Can I have any fun with this truck?

I've decided to quit fooling with the project cars for a little while. I've decided to focus more on getting out of debt, and buying a house. Basically, all I've done for the past two years on my project car is buy parts.

With that being said, I'm wanting some ideas for my daily driver that I more than likely won't be getting rid of any time soon.

It's a 1995 Ranger extended cab, with a 3.0 v6, and a 5 speed. Not really the ideal platform to start with, but it's what I've got, and it's paid for. I'll be focusing mainly on the debt, and home savings. However, I will still have that need to tinker on something.

I'm thinking on down the road to work on the handling a little bit, with 195,000 miles on it I'm sure some of the suspension components are on their last leg. I don't want to do too much to it, because I have to keep it reliable enough to drive every day, just hopefully a little bit more enjoyable to drive.

Don't spend a dime on it that you don't HAVE to.

That's just my vote though.

You can tinker on the engines of the Lawnmowers that you can put in the back of the Ranger to mow yards for extra money while you are saving/paying off Bills.

I would use it as an appliance, no more.

just keep up the basic maintince so it can stay a reliable DD

do some rattle can flames on it.

I watched a guy auto-x his Ranger. It was quite amusing, and it looked like a lot of fun.

I vote for suspension, wheels, and tires (all at bargain prices, of course).

The 3 liter has NO hop up parts of any kind for it, so you are pretty much "locked out" of the engine compartment. Rangers are about THE toughest small trucks to lower if you go that route in an attempt to improve handling. Besides, being an extended cab, aren't you looking at near terminal understeer with this thing? I had a '94 regular cab SWB Ranger...with the 4 cylinder/manual tranny combo, these Rangers are very long lived, even when somewhat abused. Your biggest expense in the near term? A clutch replacement. My went out at about 82,000 miles, thanks to ALOT of jack-rabbit like starts.

Do as everyone here has already said...perform just enough maintenance to keep it running. I changed the tired OEM shocks for a set of Bilsteins, they were a bit too rough riding for about a week then settled into a great riding truck.

Screw all of that.

Suspension + wheels + tires + 302/T5 swap = winnar!

integraguy wrote: Do as everyone here has already said...perform just enough maintenance to keep it running. .

you know, it keeps being said as though we're telling you to "give-up". Not at all.

You would presumably modify this car for your amusement.

Maybe you'll get just as much amusement by doing as little as possible to the truck. Make a game of it, like hypermile-ing. You could be hyper-notspendinganymoney-ing.

vulcan's can take a load of neglect, let's see how much exactly.

I finally quit trailers for a '98 Dodge Dakota Sport 3.9 V6. Small cab, regular bed. White with "fleet" trim. It looks like it belongs to the cable company. $100 fiberglass clamshell tonneau on the back.

I replace parts as necessary, usually with OEM quality if the job is a pig. The cost of ownership is way low,

John Brown wrote: Screw all of that. Suspension + wheels + tires + 302/T5 swap = winnar!

Werd.

i can understand your perdicament, sir. i was in the same boat a few years ago, and am trying not to get back there now.

as far as mods go, rangers are a PITA. buddy of mine had a mid 90's, 4.0, 5 speed. he had it lowered with DJM parts, ADDCO sway bars, and 17 inch mustang wheels. rode pretty good, handled pretty good. we still hauled a lot of stuff in it.

i also did the high performance truck thing. 98 dakota ext cab, 5.2, 5 speed, 3.91. modified the motor/drivetrain, put poly bushings and hotchkis suspension, added wheels and tires and body parts, etc. when it got totalled by a truck load of illegals, they actually offered less than i paid for the truck stock less than a year earlier.

but overall, modifying trucks can be fun. and expensive. just remember your goal: out of debt, restocked savings account. a little tip: i set aside 100 dollars each month to blow on speed parts. we have routiene mantinence figured into the monthly budget, and i get a little p[lay money. i make it a game with myself: see how much you can do for 100. look at the old board under project drivabeater for how thats working.

Michael

There are some things you can do as money and time permit:

http://rogueperformance.com/WelcometoFredland.html

I've got a 1991 Dakota 2.5L/5 speed . . . just got done with headgasket this past weekend and not going to make an autocross demon or anything out of it . . . but something fun to tinker with now and then is fun . . . learn some skills, do things dirt cheap, and hone those qualities for finding another project down the road. I've got my 1974 MGB (CB) sitting patiently right beside it now . . . just begging for some TLC, but next week I'm getting married and I know I'll have much better things to do after my big day.

Just as an FYI . . . Dodge Shadow/Plymouth Sundance seats fit perfectly in the Dakota (up to 1994 I would imagine) . . that's what my sister put in her 3.9L/5spd model with just one minor bracket bend. I'm wondering how some Neon seats would also measure up, because I could probably find some more supportive versions of those. Have fun!!

MyOldMGB: Slap a DOHC Neon head and a turbo on that truck and have some fun with it! Unfortunately the FWD turbo parts don't really work on the Dakota, so you'd have to build a custom exhaust manifold via http://jgstools.com, etc.

Dropped spindles and a rear shackle kit should help a bit along with the requisite shocks, springs, swaybars, and wider wheels/tires. I'm not sure what could be done for the steering (to improve feel and ratio)

Neon's seat brackets are unfortunately completely different (brother has a Neon, bought some racing seats and mounting brackets for it, doesn't fit any of the other older FWD cars) The seats could be adapted of course, sans neon mounting brackets.

BTW, nearly any Chrysler FWD product from 1984-1992 uses the same basic seat mounting solution. The smaller cars (Omni/Charger/Rampage are different) So Daytona/Lebaron/Lancer power seats are what you're looking for ;)

Good luck! Stefan

motomoron wrote: I finally quit trailers for a '98 Dodge Dakota Sport 3.9 V6. Small cab, regular bed.

What's with trailers? They don't cost insurance, are cheap to fix, and can be hauled behind econo-cars.

Yea -- the problem that I think my sister ran into was Daytona seats were a bit wider??? At least that's what she said . . . hmm . . . I haven't taken a tape measure to one myself.

Nope, exactly the same. I've swapped them between shadows, daytonas, etc just fine.

Anyway, back to the Ranger. The twin I-beams can be a pain to deal with. Not that Colin Chapman wasn't able to make it "work" but that was with much lighter vehicles and he was a bit off anyways ;) If you're lucky to not have them, you are in better shape.

My recommendation? I have a Ranger as the family spare car. It's the uber-weak 2.3L, but at least it's got a manual trans. Get you a decent headunit that will take an aux in for your iPod or whatever, and just drive the thing. Get your jollies out changing the oil on it or learning how to replace a timing belt or sticking a new clutch in it.

Later on, when you are living in your new house and have a place/time/money to get something to mess with, go for it.

This might sound a little left field but have you considered picking up an old bike and tinkering around with that? Hey, it's something to put in the back of your truck and if something goes wrong with your bike, you still have your main four wheels..!

Twin I-beams aren't great for handling on pavement, but that's not what they were designed for. They are pretty rugged, and not too hard to set up for the loose stuff. For a pickup used as a pickup, they are not a problem.

Isn't/weren't the 2.5 4 cylinder engines in Dakotas the same engines used in Jeeps...that is the old VW/Audi 4 cylinder? I wasn't aware that the 2.5 used in Dakotas is in any way related to the engines used in "K" cars and other Chryslers. I mean the the AMC/Jeep 4 cylinder was re-engineered to be RWD in the '80s while the Chrysler 2.5 was never used in any other RWD vehicle (except the Dakota?). Can someone point me to an "authority" on this? I ask because I often see 2.5 Dakotas for sale here...even extended cabs and if it's the newer Mopar 2.2/2.5 family of engines that powers this Dakota it would be a blast to find and and go to town on modding. I prefer the second gen. Dakotas...any pros/cons to this model?

Read it and weap:

http://www.turbododge.com/forums/f68/

Stefan

" Read it and weep (sic)".

Sorry, if this was in answer to my last post, I don't care to register and then look for an answer to the question:

is the OHV Dakota engine the same as the OHV Jeep engine, that was once a VW/Audi engine? Or is this some weird bastardization of the Mopar 2.2/2.5 OHC as a few posters here seem to suggest? Converting an OHV to a DOHC engine is quite an undertaking, tho Ford did it for the 4 liter Ranger engine, so I guess it's doable.

The Dakotas had the OHC 2.5 through '95, and went to the Jeep motor in '96.

Back to the original Question: Yes, you can have fun with a Ranger. Fill the bed with JELL-O, get a keg and some young women with questionable values. Let the JELL-O wrestling begin