Newer Rangers

After passing on the 85 4WD 4v 460 4 spd. F250 I didn't need, I find myself ogling newer little Rangers. Since they are so popular, I would appreciate any input on the latter years' known issues, years to avoid, etc. Are the sixes good? Are they Mazda engines? Is the four adequate for light duty? Do the autos suck? What issues are there with the 4WD systems? Others? I want a stick four or an auto six.... when I can afford it, I'll be buying a

2001+. I am on the fence with the 4WD question, since it's used infrequently....

Muchas gracias

Reply to
Wound Up
Loading thread data ...

I had a 91 4cyl 5 spd, a 98 4x4 4.0 5spd and now an 04 4 cyl 5 speed. I can tell, the 43 (or so) more hp in the 4cyl. made a world of difference. It is no racer, but it does fine on in the city and on the highway and I'm meeting the mpg numbers 24/29. The 3.0 V6 will give you some lower end torque, but gives only 5 more HP over the 4 and fuel eco. dips down to 18 in the city.

My 04 stickered for 16,000 something, but I got it for $11,300 incl. tax & title (new). It is very basic. Only options were the cloth bucket seats and AC. If you can find any 04s left on the lots, you can get deep discounts. I got mine 6 weeks ago. I haul up to 600-700 lbs for my side business and it does fine for the little trucklet that it is.

Sorry, I can't answer all your other Qs other than no problems with any of them.

John

Reply to
JohnR66

I have an 02 Edge with the 3.0 and a 5 sp. I bought it new for under $13 with tax and Lic. I had a 94 with a 4 cyl and a 5sp before that. I like my truck. The ride is much improved and with the 3.0 and the 4:10 gears, I still get 22 mpg on the highway. Both of my trucks are/were extended cab models with A/C and premium sound but no other frills. My son-in-law has a

96 4WD with a 3.0 and a 5sp standard cab. The ride in my truck is a lot better and the gear box feels tighter.
Reply to
Reece Talley

the 2.9 is excellent

the A4LD transmission is light-duty

but the 2.9 / A4 combo is a joy to drive, good mileage

one thing...86 was the first year for FI, and it will not adapt to altitude more than about 6000 feet.....our 86 was pretty much useless over 7500 feet

Reply to
TranSurgeon

To talk about the 4x2 versus 4x4, I've got a 4x2 that I've had for 7-8 years. Outside of mud holes which I stay away from (no 4x4ing in my 2x4), I'm going to mention my experience with winter snow. Originally having bought it with the 4x2 to save $$$ I had some issues with snow, but found the solution to be:

  1. winter time - 5 bags of construction sand always at the back end.
  2. the use of winter tires on standard rims (versus the wider profile rims the truck has for the summer)

With this setup I don't worry about snow or winter. The rear-end in the truck of course is the locker type so there's no messing around with only a wheel spinning.

Outside of this, there's two special things I keep in the truck in case of very deep snow or being stuck in a icey snowy parking hole.

  1. traction ?????? - 8"x16" metal grate that you put in front of the tires and they grab onto. Will rocket you out of those places you can't even move from.
  2. tire chains for those remote wilderness places, or back road (dirt roads) that the plows haven't hit.

Can you do 4x2? YES.

I've made it all these years on it, and hope to do many more. Originally it was $6000 more to get 4x4. What a savings it has been.

C.

Reply to
Chris

Interesting... this is what I was wondering about...

Yeah, Tacomas look overpriced compared to newer Rangers. I new quality lagged several years ago, but I've heard good things about the new drivetrains. I might load it with 1000 lbs from time to time. I read they're good for between 1200-1600 (if you want to max them out). Thanks...

Reply to
Wound Up

Thanks for the input. I would like the extended cab, but you can get the standard cabs for so much cheaper... I don't need much else, a/c and -maybe- cruise...

Reply to
Wound Up

When I took my 89 Tempo to Santa Fe NM the thing could -barely- get out of its own way... figure 98 hp and 124 lbs/ft at sea level, new, then load it up, and subtract 20% from that up there. Scary! And I had the "altitude buzz"! Thanks for the input.

Reply to
Wound Up

That diff. would be key. I would also do the other things you've mentioned, having seen that to be the typical practice...

No kidding... that's why I'm on the fence. Also more hardware to worry about, more expense to maintain. We get a decent amount of snow and ice here, but I figured weight + snow tires and a "posi" differential would be adequate. I've seen a lot of 2WD Rangers of various years running around during the past couple of weeks. I appreciate you sharing your direct experiences with them and 2WD in bad weather. The grate thing is also a very good idea, I'll have to remember that. Thanks.

Reply to
Wound Up

let me tell you, Monarch Pass west of Salida was a bit much ( 11,312 ft), we were in 2nd with serious thoughts about low

the senior citizen in the motor home, laying on the horn behind, didn't help

Reply to
TranSurgeon

I have a 2004 Edge package v- six, 5 speed, flare side. The bed is small but it looks good, I get better mileafge than my buddies with 4wd. I have not had any issues with it at all. I have been to the beach( myrtleBeach SC) twice. I ive in west virginia But I havent had any problems . I curently have over 16,000 miles on it. The truck came in real handy when we moved last month . I would recommend a ranger to anyone .

Reply to
!!!!!! %%%%%%

'01 std-cab, 2WD, alum 2.3L OHC 4cyl (Mazda), 5sp manual.

Very light, good ground clearance, good traction in rough terrain, even with stock tires (haven't tried snow yet). Glad NOT to have 4wd. Very spunky around town on level ground--more acceleration than I need. But lack of low RPM torque gets annoying at speed on steep grades on highways, where it's sometimes necessary to downshift into third to keep up with traffic.

22 mpg city-only, 25 mpg mixed (expected better).

The stock vinyl bench seat is uncomfortable (no lateral support), and the cab is too narrow for 3 adults. Might as well have buckets.

Only 10k miles and air conditioner and windshield washer have crapped out. Other than that no problems.

nf

Reply to
nutso fasst

I bought a 2001 Ranger XLT extended cab 4x4 / 4.0L new and have thus far been satisfied with the performance. The 4.0L definitely gets the job done. I have had a couple minor problems(electric mirror switch, loose gear shift knob) but otherwise no other major issues @ 65K miles. I avg. 18-19 highway MPG with the 5-speed manual with a 4.10 diff.

De Nada...

Yet another $.02 worth from a proud owner of a 2001 Ford Ranger 4x4 and a

Reply to
Grover C. McCoury III

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 17:57:21 -0400, "Grover C. McCoury III" snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrote something wonderfully witty:

Huh, I just bough 2/11/05 a F-150 SXT for $19,200 out the door with a

4.6L V8 and auto. I get the same milage and it is a helluva a bigger truck.

I used to be a S-10 guy, but do not like the new Colorado's at all, especially the seats. Would have bought another S-10 if they were still made. The price difference between the Ranger and the full-size F-150 just wasn't enough to make me go with the Ranger.

Reply to
ZombyWoof

I have a similar model but it's an 02. I like the truck but there have been issues that Ford doesn't seem to want to resolve.

I have a water leak somewhere that I can't find, possibly from the rear window but who knows. The antilock breaks gave me trouble from the start but they say they work fine. The tires wore out after a year but after some fighting they finally gave me a new set for free. The engine revs erratically but that's normal they say. The driver side door hinges are worn and need replacing but that's going to cost $175.00. And there's lots of other annoying things too.

As I said, I like the truck but I doubt I'd buy another Ford product again, mainly due to the poor service. My previous truck was a Mazda 1990 4x4 and the service from that dealer was fantastic. I really should have bought a Mazda this time but it's too late now.

Glen Smith

Reply to
Glen Smith

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.