Hi,new on this forum.Any comments good or bad about the 95 ranger 4x4 with the 2.3 engine?I may look at one for sale locally,it has 108,00 miles with a 5 speed,Air,stock,in good condition and the fellow is asking $2800.I've read and heard they're underpowered on hills.Would the stick shift help in this?...thanks,Dave

Welcome Dave, there's a moderator (john112deere) on here that has a Ranger with over 250,000 miles. I'll point him in this direction to answer your questions...

Hi Dave welcome to FTF
I have a 86 Ranger 2.3 4 wheel drive 5 speed.
I will say they are a but under powered on hills but no worse than any 4 cylinder truck. Yes the 5 speed helps tons over a automatic.

I like my 2.3 they are almost bullet proof and run forever with normal maintenance. They get mid 20's gas mileage and parts are cheap and they are so easy to work on. The 96 has more Hp than mine and they pull them selves pretty well over all. You will have to drop a gear on steep hills. I live in a mountainous area and I would buy another one anytime. It is a shame ford dropped the 4 wheel drive option with the 2.3. They only offer the 4 wheel with a 4.0. You can't beat a 2.3 Lima engine

i dont have the 2.3 but i have the 2.9 with standard tranny. to me its hard to beat a ranger, i have to say that i love my ranger, and when it finally quits on me i plan on gettin another one

The 2.3 isnt a bad lil motor, and if it ant got enough pep for ya you could always add a turbo. Same engine that was in the svo 'stangs

Bah...had most of a post here, and lost it. I'll try again.

Anyway...as Brad said, I've got a '97 2.3 with about 262k miles on the original engine. I love the truck.

They ARE a little pokey- if you're hauling heavy, demand good acceleration, or drive regularly at high altitudes, it may not be the truck for you. But they do move out well enough to survive (mine was a commuter into Boston for it's first 200k), get good mileage, are dead reliable, and will haul a bit on occasion. (Not quickly, but they'll haul it.)

At only 108k miles, that truck should be just getting broken in, but at 14 years old...rust could be something of an issue, depending on where you live. Not that they're rust-prone, but here in New England nothing will survive that many years unscathed... The radiator support panel seems to be the first place to really rust, so check that over extra careful.

My suggestion is that if you think a small truck with limited power might fit your needs, go and drive it. Drive up some hills and see how it feels. 60k miles of driving one and I'd buy another in a heartbeat...but I know there are people who would hate it's lack of power, and if that's you, it's better to find out before you buy it.

If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask 'em...

First off, welcome!

Geography gets important on that truck. I can't say anything bad about a 4 cyl Ranger- but $2800 for a 14 yr old 2WD is a ton of $$$'s unless it's absolutely mint condition. I don't mean clean, I mean damned near shrink-wrapper new.

Any rust issues?
Regular or Super Cab? (that's a $1000 question in itself)

Ranger

Actually the truck sold the day before..fellow never cancelled the ad.Don't have to worry about rust as this is the California foothills,inland.It was a 4WD and said he let it go for $1800.Might of had some issues....thanks for the replys....Dave

Too bad...

If your search lands on any other Rangers, most of what was said still applies- the V6 trucks will suck more gas and have more power, but they're still pretty darn reliable.

The 2wd models aren't so much fun in the snow or off-road, but if you don't need 4x4, they'll improve your mileage some and save some cash to buy, too.