Thoughts on Ford Ranger

[MXFORD514]

I just want to hear some of your thoughts on the 1998 and up Ford Rangers.

 

[racsan]

never had one, personally i prefer the '93-'97 series. i like the ttb front end and being able to easily convert to manual hubs. sure the older pushrod 4.0 is only 160 hp compared to the 200+ ohc, but there was some early trobles on the ohc with the timing chain tensioner. 160 hp is plenty for me in a ranger chassis anyhow. not a fan of power rack & pinion steering, would rather have the old-school power-assist gearbox. i 'spose someday i'll end up with one. didnt care for the '93 "makeover" when i had my '88, now i love it.

 

[polarbear]

'06 the day the kid picked it up. One of the last times it ever looked like that.

Generally, it looked like this

or this

when it wasn't hauling quads to Sand Lake

or riding the dunes

The kid drove that truck pretty much the way he rides his quads

So- Cliffs Notes: in two years and 106,000 miles suspicious: ), three clutches, four sets of tires, one set of front hubs, more brake pads than I can count... oh, and a drive line (sheared off on a stump).

That list should give you an idea of how the truck was used. He drove it like he stole it, on road and off. Final verdict- tough little truck. Taken to hell and back, only once came back on a tow strap (see driveline comments). 4.0L V6, 5-spd, 4.10 gears

 

[smokey]

I have first gen rangers but my friends have the newer ones. They are tough little trucks that is for sure.

 

[slmann]

Have had a few over the years and always liked them and never really had any major problems. I would own another one.

 

[blacksnapon]

I like them!

 

[john112deere]

'98+, huh...

-4x4 from '98 to mid-'01 used an auto-locking hub mechanism that's failure-prone and pricy to replace. Aftermarket manual locking hubs were available as of a couple years ago.

-For the four-cylinders, '98 through '01 (I think) used the Lima 2.5, which is basically a stroked version of the 2.3 that started out in the Pinto. I don't think the extra 200 ccs is an improvement, but it's one of the best engines Ford ever built. After that, they went to a Mazda-built DOHC 2.3...never driven one, but they're supposed to be good engines too.


I've put at least 100k miles on Rangers over the last seven years. For me and how I use trucks, I wouldn't want a 2wd with anything but the four-cylinder, and in a 4x4 I'd want the 4.0...nothing particular against the 3.0, it just burns as much gas as the 4.0 without the power- and isn't really any more durable. ('07 was the last year they offered a 4-banger 4x4, but they're scarce as hens teeth and a lot of people think they're too slow.) Wouldn't want a standard cab if it was going to be my primary vehicle.

Tough, basic little trucks- I love the things, but they are what they are.

 

[Fordzilla80]

I love my Ranger, but I hate my 3.0. Way too small of a motor for the truck. The technology is lacking as well, It's an OHV engine when almost all other engines made around the same years are SOHC or DOHC.

I would suggest staying away from the automatics unless you have a few extra thousand dollars to upgrade a few poorly designed items within the trans. They can last 150,000 with no issues, but they can give you fits at 50,000 miles, just like mine is. The M5 and M5OD manual transmissions are much better, however they have their own fail points as well, such as the slave cylinder. But the slave cylinder is a much cheaper fix than the Automatics are.

Just my .02 cents.

 

[03F150ESCB-Bob]

I consider myself to be the foremost exprt on rangers 99 up. I had a brand new 99 that i tortured for 10 years. It was a 4 cylinder 2wd longbed and i took this thing all over the country and hauled all kinds of things that the truck was not rated for... a 81 chevy on a tow dolly. a 72 cab from Walpole Ma to Parkton NC.. a yard of dirt numerous times gravel stumps etc.. the truck never missed a beat. It was getting old so i decided to sell it to a kid who still has it now with almost 200K on it and he is still using the original motor and trans.. its on its second set of plugs and wires everything else is all original
I had a 2000 3.0 and a 2007 3.0 both 2wd extended cab short beds both ran well.. One had an unfortunate end when it was hit by a cable truck.. the other well lets just say i fell in love with the 2011 F 150 with ecoboost.
The ranger is a great truck but not the most comfortable if youre big.. im 6'280 lbs. on long trips even with the extended cab i wasnt comfortable. My wife is also not a supermodel weight and she found it a but uncomfortable too. I was able to tow with the truck but of course the f 150 has alot more payload capacity but all in all if the F 150 hadnt come out with the ecoboost and the mileage it gets, id be still using and happy with my ranger

 

[BuzzGun79]

Ive had the chance to work on many Rangers in the past,the 99& up are a much better unit.stay away from the I-4 engine. if you live were theres snow,forget the 2wd version even weighed down they get no traction.the 4x4 trucks are decent in snow & reliability.but personaly i would go to a base F150 before buying a ranger.

 

[FordF-SuperDuty]

Ive had the chance to work on many Rangers in the past,the 99& up are a much better unit.stay away from the I-4 engine. if you live were theres snow,forget the 2wd version even weighed down they get no traction.the 4x4 trucks are decent in snow & reliability.but personaly i would go to a base F150 before buying a ranger.

I'm guessing Ian will have something to say about this!

 

[smokey]

I would pick a ranger over a F series truck as a daily driver. Better mpg easier parking and you can still haul stuff.
A F series if it was a work truck needed to haul heavy loads and pull heavy trailers.
I have a 2.3 ranger it is 4 wheel drive it goes great in the snow,not so good in 2wd but no 2wd truck is good in snow. The 24-25 mpg is why I have the 2.3 to bad the stopped offering it in a 4wd model.

 

[BuzzGun79]

LOL we all HAVE OUR OPINIONS. i wouldnt own a ranger if my life depended on it.so now we get personal eh.my so called crap comes from experience! buy one i dont care you gotta live with it not me.

 

[slmann]

I don't think he's getting personal. Ian drove a 2x Ranger around in Maine snow for years. That's all he's getting at.

 

[racsan]

my first ranger was a '88 supercab 2wd with the 2.3 it didnt do too bad. proper tires and weight balance, think i only ever got stuck in the snow once. (got stuck in a field one thanksgiving, went to drive around the barn and didnt realize how wet it was, all 4 tires sunk at once, lain' frame! 4wd wouldnt have helped there) im glad i have a 4wd now, the milage isnt as good, have the 4.0 also, but boy does it ever eat snow! its easy to forget how bad it really is with 4wd though, i make it a habit to have hubs locked in but start out in 2wd just to get a feel for the road. i would have another 4 cyl again, there great on fuel but just dont have the torque i need for trailer towing.

 

[BuzzGun79]

i meant know offense to anyone who owns a Ranger,i wish you the best..personaly ive had to many bad experiences & know their weaknesses.i will say the 98-up trucks are a heck of alot better now since they were first introduced.i just want that v-8 power in my trucks.

 

[clutch]

In defense of the "3.slo", mines been pretty darn good, got an '04 Edge package, I like it 'cuz it sits a little higher, and I like the rubber flooring too. It's got the 5spd, and when I keep her around 3k rpm, she gives me over 20mpg. Good stereo, get an extra cab tho, I'm 5'11", slept on the front seat a time or two, not the most comfortable, was better when I had my dog for a foot rest (rip), lol. 4x4 would be nice, 'cept I like an old manual t-case, 4-cyl. would be interesting too, like an old Model-T! just solid, realiable, and cheap little vehicles. Almost traded mine in this past winter on a newer Cummins, but I just couldn't do it, bought an old IDI instead, because yes, Ranger is lousy in the snow if I ever replace her, I'm thinking Subaru Forester.