Ranger thoughts?

[canucker]

Kinda getting tired of cars. Im considering buying a ranger to boot around for winter. Out here we get a decent amount of snow and ice so 4wd is a must. Im looking at the early 90's models (92-96) rangers. Lookign for the V6 3.0 not too big of a engine but good enough to maybe have some fun off the roads.

Im also thinking 5sp instead of auto. ive driven my dads GMC 2500 HD 5 sp and hate haveing a stick in such a big truck. Im assuming that a ranger will shift and feel more like a car? Ive been told that the automatics in these are questionable.

also whats the main advanatges/ disadvanatges between electric and manual transfer case?

ive been to the ranger station and im lookign for a bit of a un-biased opinion.

thanks for your time

[abawp]

I own a 99 Ranger 3.0L V-6 with a 5-speed, here are my thoughts.

Im looking at the early 90's models (92-96) rangers. Lookign for the V6 3.0 not too big of a engine but good enough to maybe have some fun off the roads.

If you can, go newer with the 4.0L V-6. The 3.0 is a damn fine engine don't get me wrong, however there is simply no sense of urgency with how it accelerates and will require frequent gear changes when the going gets a little steep. I'm hesitant to think it'll actually handle it's GVWR of 6,000 lbs so if you're looking for something to haul this might be something to keep in mind. I have, however, hauled a bed full of yard debris and dried/seasoned wood, probably totaling about 500lbs +/- with no issues. It's a torquey motor, it's just that the 4.0 will be moreso.

Im also thinking 5sp instead of auto. ive driven my dads GMC 2500 HD 5 sp and hate haveing a stick in such a big truck. Im assuming that a ranger will shift and feel more like a car?

Mine feels almost identical to my father's F150's manual gearbox in how it shifts. Shifts like a truck if you ask me.

also whats the main advanatges/ disadvanatges between electric and manual transfer case?

Well the advantage to electrical switch-on-the-fly 4wd is you don't have to get out and lock the hubs manually. Again, comparing to my father's truck with it's manual hubs and gearshift transfer case, it's just one less lever to worry about since mine is a turn switch on the dash. It's been my understanding that electrical transfer case control is not ideal for off-roading since it can leave you stranded if it fails (broken electrical connection) whereas the manual stuff is less prone to fail. However for the on-road user who wants ground clearance and 4wd I think it's a non-issue. I must say that it sure was handy to be able to switch to 4wd quickly to get through the snow drifts whenever the PNW had it's 1-week of winter.

Anymore questions feel free to ask. I basically know the motor inside-and-out at this point since I had to do headgaskets recently.

[canucker]

ive thought about the 4.0 but i dont plan on using it for hauling anyhting heavy around. the most might be some landscaping supplies in the bed and even that will be limited. The 3.0 Im assuming as a bit more fuel effecient.

is there a buyign guide anywhere for rangers?

[abawp]

The 3.0 Im assuming as a bit more fuel effecient.

is there a buyign guide anywhere for rangers?

The EPA ratings are nearly identical and in real world driving should favor the bigger engine since you're not having to hoof the throttle as much.

(hopefully this link will work)
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find....15349&id=14559

As far as buying guides, I was unable to find anything specific but if you can open up the Ranger forums I would start lurking for a little while.

http://www.fordrangerforum.com/

They're pretty stout little trucks and from what I can gather, should last a long time but can still be prone to problems if abused or neglected like anything else. Just look for the typical things like oil condition (check for foam, non=good) and level, coolant system operation, 4wd operation (if equipped), A/C operation (if equipped), interior controls operation, and check for oil leaks around the oil pan.

[gimpin]

i bought a 2011 ranger last spring and I have nothing but good tings to say. the ride isnt harsh and it has met all challenges i've thrown at it (which includes towing a full size van and trailer).. mine is a 5spd with the 4L and although the mileage is not as great as most cars, its not far behind. ford has some great incentive programs now as they try to clear their lots.. 16k all in was all mine cost me

[thr]

I bought a 94 Ranger Super Cab 4x4 4L this past summer^^he has a SOHC motor, the older ones like mine are OHV, much less power I think^^ ...terrible gas mileage and terrible acceleration, but its an auto so maybe that hinders it quite a bit. Other than the speed and MPGs, I like the engine, it never seems to be working too hard and has a bunch of torque. 4WD works well and isnt clunky. My low range switch doesnt seem to be working Compared to other small trucks (tacoma, fronteir, dakota...) i think this one drives most like a car and had the best ride, aside from a 2011 2wd 4cyl Tacoma I test drove, but it had small road tires, the rest had proper truck tires

I like my truck. A lot. It works very well

[keck]

I was unable to find anything specific but if you can open up the Ranger forums I would start lurking for a little while[IMG]http://www.spgames.info*******[/IMG]

[mad haggis]

I've personally owned 3 Rangers (two 4x4 and one 2wd) and a 4x4 Explorer, and although I am by no means a Ford guy they were probably the best trucks I've ever owned. Pretty reliable, and I beat the rat piss out of each one and they kept asking for more. Plus they romp pretty damn well if you put good meats on 'em. The auto trans is junk, definitely go for a manual. I learned how to drive stick on a '98 Ranger; very easy. The 4.0 is definitely the one you should get - the only 4.0 I owned was in the 1991 'sploder, and for whatever reason it was faster and got slightly better mileage than my buddy's '97 Ranger with 5sp and 4.0 I really like the explorer, despite how much I hated it for grenading hubs and breaking door handles. The 2.9 and 3.0 are both good motors and respond well to modification, but the only one that got better mileage than the exploder was the 2wd single cab 3.0l 5sp ranger - I could squeeze around 35mpg on the highway with that sucker.

[wrigh003]

I have a 2WD 2.5L from 1998. It's a great truck, and has only required very minimal maintenance over the last 14 years- oil changes and the occasional coolant flush, plus a few hundred bucks spent on the worn out front suspension a few weeks ago. Mine gets mid 20s on the highway.

I've always heard that the 3.0L was a bad compromise- got the power of the 2.5L with the fuel economy of the 4.0L.

I would absolutely buy another Ranger in a second, and probably will if this one ever gives up the ghost (which it shows no signs of doing). Ford knew what they were doing on this thing. I'm looking for a fiberglass cap for mine, they are tough to come by on the used market unless they are wrecked/ruined.

[Florence19]

[IMG]http://www.***************/avatar3.jpg[/IMG]I've always heard that the 3.0L was a bad compromise- got the power of the 2.5L with the fuel economy of the 4.0L.

[mad haggis]

Ford knew what they were doing on this thing.

This. Unless of course you need to bleed the clutch or change the clutch slave cylinder..
For the most part in my line of work, we know that the engineers were nice enough to single out the biggest problem in their vehicles: they circled it and colored it blue.

[BRealistic]

The 2.9 and 3.0 are both good motors and respond well to modification, but the only one that got better mileage than the exploder was the 2wd single cab 3.0l 5sp ranger - I could squeeze around 35mpg on the highway with that sucker.

Midget, please.
35 miles... per.... gallon?
Ok- what year Ranger was it?
The early 3.0 2wd Rangers (pre-93) seemed to cams/tuning/gearing that allowed 30 mpg in 55 mph highway cruising.

Anyway, I had a 2001 3.0 Ranger (Mazda) 2wd ex cab 5 speed. I averaged 20-22 mpg normal driving- which was actually fairly good for me.
Ford made some tuning/cam changes for 2003(or 04) that made the 3.0 more viable- including adding a 5 speed automatic.

But whatever.. the op is looking at 93-95 Rangers... with 4x4? Hmm. I say 4.0. The real world difference in mpg is just not there unless you really watch the rpm and gear selection. Now in a 2wd 5 speed truck the 3.0 can eke out a few more mpg. But with 4x4, go 4.0.
The only x-factor here is it seems much easier to find 3.0 Rangers than 4.0 ones.

[BRealistic]

[IMG]http://www.***************/avatar3.jpg[/IMG]I've always heard that the 3.0L was a bad compromise- got the power of the 2.5L with the fuel economy of the 4.0L.

The Vulcan 3.0 is unfairly maligned in the Ranger.
The pushrod 3.0 Vulcan is one of the best domestic (non V8) engines ever made.
It was: Physically compact, cheap to make, stupid reliable even when driven hard, easy to repair, and makes good midrange power.

In a heavier tall and wind resistant vehicle like a Ranger, it tends to need lower gearing for highway use which hurts economy.
But anybody that has driven a 5 speed 2.5 2wd Ranger and a 5 speed 2wd 3.0 Ranger on the interstate will not say it has 2.5 power. The 3.0 Ranger will easily bang against it's speed limiter (91 mph), while the 2.5 is a drop a brick on the gas pedal for cruise control affair (same with 2.3 duratec on highway).

I love me some unappreciated vulcan 3.0.

[wrigh003]

...while the 2.5 is a drop a brick on the gas pedal for cruise control affair...

True. I can't imagine what a 2.5 with an auto would be like, I need to push the gas pretty hard to get to highway speed.

When we got the thing, I thought "what kind of vehicle doesn't have cruise control, this is 1998, dammit..." then I drove it some.

[mad haggis]

Midget, please.
35 miles... per.... gallon?
Ok- what year Ranger was it?
The early 3.0 2wd Rangers (pre-93) seemed to cams/tuning/gearing that allowed 30 mpg in 55 mph highway cruising.

Anyway, I had a 2001 3.0 Ranger (Mazda) 2wd ex cab 5 speed. I averaged 20-22 mpg normal driving- which was actually fairly good for me.
Ford made some tuning/cam changes for 2003(or 04) that made the 3.0 more viable- including adding a 5 speed automatic.

But whatever.. the op is looking at 93-95 Rangers... with 4x4? Hmm. I say 4.0. The real world difference in mpg is just not there unless you really watch the rpm and gear selection. Now in a 2wd 5 speed truck the 3.0 can eke out a few more mpg. But with 4x4, go 4.0.
The only x-factor here is it seems much easier to find 3.0 Rangers than 4.0 ones.

Was a '91, 2wd, 5speed. Single cab long bed. Oversized tires (from a Cherokee). Camper top removal mod definitely picked up a couple MPGs.
Def. agree on the 4.0 with 4x4

I love me some unappreciated vulcan 3.0.

agreed. Some of those guys build them things with amazing results... Haven't followed any builds close enough for any off-hand examples though.

[Mabe]

My old 03 2WD 2.3l 5spd remains one of my favorite cars of all time. Bought with 73k sold with 143k. Had a whopping $8 of repair parts needed aside from brakes tires and oil.

The truck had a sole to it. Slow as dirt but fun to drive. It was like my MK2 diesel with a 6'bed.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

[BRealistic]

My old 03 2WD 2.3l 5spd remains one of my favorite cars of all time. Bought with 73k sold with 143k. Had a whopping $8 of repair parts needed aside from brakes tires and oil.

The truck had a sole to it. Slow as dirt but fun to drive. It was like my MK2 diesel with a 6'bed.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

Wait- 2003 is old now?

And you think the Duratec was slow, you should drive an early 2.0 or 2.3 Lima model.
Had a coworker with a 2.0 fuel injected(!) 1985(?) Ranger 4x4. (never seen another fuel injected 2.0 Ranger)
It was slooooooooooooooooooooooow but got amazing fuel economy and was stupid reliable.

Sent from my THX 1138 using LUH 3417

[Beer can]

4.0L owns 3.0L. I own a 2008, xlt 4wd w/ the 4.0L. The mileage is similar so you might as well get the extra grunt. I've also got a manual trans and my mileage is better then the auto.
Like someone else mentioned, check out one of the few ranger-forums and lurk. Don't Be afraid to ask after you've searched and had no luck.

[emkaytree]

Caddy

[Mabe]

I loved my old 03 2.3 duratec 5spd. It was slow, but it was happy to rev and play along. You could beat on it and still stay under the speed limit.

The truck was simple, slow and felt very agricultural....and fantastic.

.

[Geno-Bob]

I own a little bit older Ranger. 1988 XLT, 4x4 with the 2.9L V6 engine. I have had this thing since middle school. Considering what little work I have done to it, I think it has done very well. I also have a 1990 bronco II, equivalent to the ranger in every way (engine wise). Both of them are 5 speeds, and I would say they do pretty good. Although, I highly doubt they were created with freeway speeds in mind. If there is any kind of hill you have to downshift into 4th.

Talking about hubs, I have the automatic locking hubs in my bronco, and manual in my ranger. I prefer the manual locking hubs just because once you lock them, you know they are locked. With the automatic... sure the lights on... but are they REALLY locked? In my bronco's case... sometimes... usually not. Just something to keep in mind.

Geno-Bob

[canucker]

kinda forgot about this thread lol

Ive decided that the ranger is what i want now. Ive decided on the 2.3 2wd (apparently there is a 4wd model but very rare). main reason i want it- same mpg as my cabby. so im finishing up exams and starting a good paying landscaping job in a week then going to try and find a ranger.

My g/f has a 97 escort and that thing is amazing. its got over 290km on it and still does good on gas and is reliable as hell.

im figureing $1500-2000 will be enough for what im lookign for

[jaystone]

My low range switch doesnt seem to be working

Just to make sure, when you select 4 low, you need to be either in neutral or park. Unlike switching from 2 high to 4 high on the fly, low requires you to be stopped and in neutral or park.

[Geno-Bob]

Just to make sure, when you select 4 low, you need to be either in neutral or park. Unlike switching from 2 high to 4 high on the fly, low requires you to be stopped and in neutral or park.

Yeah, unless you want to tear your transfer case into 1000 little pieces. I even stop for 2H to 4H... It generally is safe below 15mph, but I stop nonetheless.

Geno-Bob

[brandonwillyumz]

Was a '91, 2wd, 5speed. Single cab long bed. Oversized tires (from a Cherokee). Camper top removal mod definitely picked up a couple MPGs.
Def. agree on the 4.0 with 4x4


agreed. Some of those guys build them things with amazing results... Haven't followed any builds close enough for any off-hand examples though.

When you put bigger tires on it, did you account for it when calculating your MPG? With bigger tires, your odometer would think you traveled farther than you did.

[jaystone]

nice to see a fellow union sparky on here. IBEW L.U. 68 here.

[Taytor]

I havnt read through all of the responses, so here are my thoughts....

Im also a moderator on Ranger-Forums dot com....so you might think my opinion is a little biased lol.

Ive owned my 04 Ranger XLT for a few years now. I love having a small 4x4 5-spd pickup.

If you are really looking for a good off-road capable Ranger, then look for an 03 FX4 Level II.
They arent going to be easy to find, but a Level II with a manual transimission is awesome.

If you aim to get a ranger and lift it w/bigger tires, then buy a tuner. Trust me. That way you can re-calibrate for tire size.

I can post up info all day on rangers lol.

[Taytor]

Kinda getting tired of cars. Im considering buying a ranger to boot around for winter. Out here we get a decent amount of snow and ice so 4wd is a must. Im looking at the early 90's models (92-96) rangers. Lookign for the V6 3.0 not too big of a engine but good enough to maybe have some fun off the roads.

Im also thinking 5sp instead of auto. ive driven my dads GMC 2500 HD 5 sp and hate haveing a stick in such a big truck. Im assuming that a ranger will shift and feel more like a car? Ive been told that the automatics in these are questionable.

also whats the main advanatges/ disadvanatges between electric and manual transfer case?

ive been to the ranger station and im lookign for a bit of a un-biased opinion.

thanks for your time

If you go with a 3.0, then get a manual. I would honestly recommend a 4.0 OHV for late model 90's.

Electronic t-case is awful lol. If one switch goes bad, then nothing will work. I am actually in the process of swapping my electronic t-case to a manual. Guess why? Yup, my switch and motor went bad.

[jaystone]

Why the 2003 FX4 vs any of the other FX4 Rangers?

[Taytor]

Why the 2003 FX4 vs any of the other FX4 Rangers?

Because 2003 is the last year that they offered a manual t-case.
If you are ok with an electronic t-case, then any other fx4 will be ok.

Fx4 level II come factory with bilstein shocks and Alcoa rims.

[jaystone]

got it. saw an 02 fx4 for sale locally and was intrigued by the manual transer case and 5 speed.

[Taytor]

got it. saw an 02 fx4 for sale locally and was intrigued by the manual transer case and 5 speed.

If the truck has the 4.0 SOHC engine, then that is a desirable setup for a ranger.

[robwalmer]

The car has the best engine and horse power and it is the most unique car i have ever seen and would like to buy one for my kid also.

[Señor Peligro]

I have a 95 3.0L, it is NOT more fuel efficient than the 4.0L, pretty terrible on gas actually.

[Taytor]

I have a 95 3.0L, it is NOT more fuel efficient than the 4.0L, pretty terrible on gas actually.

True.

The 3.slow. All the power of a 4 cyl. with the gas mileage of a v8 lol.