Ford Ranger: 4 cyl v 6?

I'm shopping seriously for my first pickup- I think either the Ford Ranger or Chevy s-10 (extended cab)would best meet my needs. I'm looking at either the 3.0 automatic or the 2.5 5- speed, 1998-2000.

I will be using the truck 95% commuting 24 miles roundtrip to work, and some recreational stuff hauling kayaks. I will probably use it 300 miles a year towing a small coleman camper on flat terrain.

The idea of getting the rated 17 MPG out of the 3.0 turns my stomach.

Any advice on the 2.5 in terms of longevity and the minimal towing involved(I know the vehicle is "rated" to pull the weight of the camper.

Roger

Reply to
Roger
Loading thread data ...

I don't think you can get the 4 in the extended cab with the Ford. I could be wrong, however.

Plasyd

Reply to
Plasyd

I don't think longevity would be an issue with the light work you describe. Get the 4 if you want the better gas mileage. It shouldn't have any trouble at all infrequently towing a light trailer on flat terrain.

Reply to
Sal Monella

I have the 3.0 Supercab Ranger and I get about 300-350 Miles per a tank. It rounds out to about 22 MPG city driving and about 25 MPG highway. I drove from Ohio to Nebraska and filled up three times, and that's over 750 miles. I've towed a 2,000 lb trailer with my CRX (1,500 LB car) on it from Missouri to Omaha and I haven't had any problems with it. My sister however tried to tow my CRX and ended up having problems with her brand new S-10 Extended Cab so I would always go with a Ford before the Chevy.

Reply to
cjbartholomew

I can live with 25 city driving out of the 3.0. I thought it was rated less than that, though. And the 4 cyl. extended cabs are awfully hard to find. Can I reasonably expect to get mid-twenties around town out of the 3.0?

Roger

cjbartholomew wrote:

Reply to
Roger

Hi Roger,

I don't know what it is about the 3 L engines, but very few people I have talked to get more than 22 or so highway and as low as 15 city. The two 2.3L fours I had got 23-25 highway and around 20 city. I got tired of shifting the gutless things after two of them and got a 3 L with automatic. Getting 20 highway, but the damn thing has the power to merge and it's got much more pulling power than the 4. But the 4 WILL pull the trailer you mention on fairly flat ground, no problem.

Reply to
Scott

Reply to
cjbartholomew

I'm shopping seriously for my

Depends on what you can live with.

I have a 2003 Ranger short-box with the 2.3 litre engine ordered direct from the factory. Dealers don't stock these because there's no money in the low end.

Surprising power for a small engine. I throw some bricks in the back for snow traction.

The biggest surprise - summer gas mileage (CDN/Imperial gallons) - 33-35 miles per gallon in hot weather.

Winter mileage - looks a bit lower but still above 25-28 mpg (Imperial).

Bottom line - loa up with a bigger vehicle and pay in gas and greater up-front cost.

Go on the cheap end and you'll save throughout the life of the vehicle.

Why buy a 1998-2000? Perhaps you could save more by ordering a new 2.3 litre from the factory, which gives you warranty, free road-service for 36 months + a friendly dealer.

Reply to
Windsurfer

I don't get this thing with the mileage. It is a truck. It is not aerodynamically shaped; it is supposed to be used to haul things. I have a Ranger, too - but if I was worried about gas mileage, I'd own a Neon, or some other little shoebox.

I love the 4X4 when it snows, and I love the higher proofile that means I can see above all the little shoeboxes. And I love the fact that I can stick a box full of stuff into the thing and go somewhere with it. All these things contribute to crappy mileage, and so what?

But again, I already said I don't get this thing with worrying about mileage..

HR.

Reply to
Rowbotth

Well, the 4 cylinder/5 speed is rated at 24/29 MPG and the 6 cylinder/automatic is rated at 18/22 MPG. That's a difference of over $200 in gas for the average driver every year. So why get the 6 cylinder if the 4 will do the job you need it to do? I've had both, and I thoroughly enjoyed the 4 cylinder and had no problems towing a 1500 pound Coleman trailer with it. I've also owned the 6 cylinder automatic and that was a nice combination (I bought that one used because it was at a good price so I didn't have a choice on the engine/transmission since that's what came with it). The 6 was a lot stronger and had a higher tow rating, but the 4 gave me about 6 MPG more than the 6 and did everything I wanted it to do.

Reply to
Haggerty

I traded in my 2000 Ranger 4x4 on a 2004 F-150 4x4 and fuel mileage was never a concern. Like you said, it is truck, not an economy car.

I have had little economy cars before and I sure don't want some underpowered truck to drive. I would never consider buying a 4 cylinder Ranger.

Reply to
Mark Jones

Currently I have the 3.0 6. In the past I had the little 4 banger. I drive in LA and I can tell you, I'll never go back to the 4. The 6 has the power to get out of its own way and to safely merge in heavy traffic. The 4 was really scary some times. As to fuel economy, I keep a log book on my vehicles. Each time I service or refuel, I record the date, mileage, cost etc. The 4 cyl used to get an average of 23 mpg in combined city and highway driving. The 6 with its 4:10 rear end gets an average of 21.4. So given the small difference and the fact that with taller gears there would likely be no difference, I'd say the 6 is a better deal.

Reply to
Reece Talley

Funny. My 4 cly. give me 25 in town, and as high as 30 on the inererstate.

Plasyd

-- No information is any better than the assumptions of those who gather it. (paraphrased) Theodore Roszak v1.2a r TW 0/0/r tG 0- 0 DSotM 2 0 44.7%

formatting link

Reply to
Plasyd

I have a 4 but wish it was a 6. My 1983 was a 6, and it had plenty of power, but this 96 is a bit weak when hauling a bed full of camping equipment or stuff from Home Depot! I'd say go with the 6 if you have a choice, I got a great deal on this 4, so I took it. James F. Hodgdon Jr. Hodgdon Scale Models

Reply to
Hdgdn

Perhaps the LA freeways are the cause, I don't know but my figures are accurate. I went back into the book and looked just to be sure. My 4 banger was a 1994 XL extended cab with the standard 5 spd. and AC. I used the AC about 70% of the time and it DID have an effect on both power and fuel consumption. Still, I just can't imagine how one would get better than 25 mpg out that truck unless on lived in Kansas and never encountered a hill or a curvy road.

Reply to
Reece Talley

Thank you all for your input. Just about everybody was helpful. I am a scared about this Rowbotth post, though. "I don't get this thing with the mileage. It is a truck."

My point is, which most of you got, is that I want a practical vehicle that will do what I want with the maximum efficiency. "I don't get this thing with the mileage????" My research has led me to believe that people who drive the truck market (parden the pun)are not motivated by practicality. Other than the few who actually use them for work vehicles or for other special snow considerations, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. "I don't get this thing with worrying about mileage..."????

But for the rest of you who understand that there is sensible middleground between Big Foot and a Neon, I thank you very much.

Roger

Rowbotth wrote:

Reply to
Roger

Too bad they don't still make a Ranchero for you.

My point, chumly, is that a truck has the wind resistance of a 4 X 8 foot sheet of plywood, and the weight of a tank. Exactly how much did you expect for your nickel, anyway? The virtues of a truck, with the mileage of a Neon? Trucks have shitty mileage. Memorize it. Repeat it until you get it.

Gawd.

Reply to
Rowbotth

SW Washington State. Lotta hills.

But I also have a *sports car* and drive the truck gentle.

'03 Ford Ranger, 2.5L 5 speed. Decent little truck.

Plasyd

-- No information is any better than the assumptions of those who gather it. (paraphrased) Theodore Roszak v1.2a r TW 0/0/r tG 0- 0 DSotM 2 0 44.7%

formatting link

Reply to
Plasyd

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.