|
Author
|
Topic: Ranger Truck Opinions
|
ccode67
Gearhead Posts: 913
From: douglasville,ga,usa
Registered: Mar 2001
|
posted 05-16-2002 02:12 PM
   
OK guys, I need some info, I am considering the purchase of a new Ranger. I want your opinions on the engine choices. 3 litre or 4 litre V-6. Not just the power but reliability for the long haul, gas mileage etc.. Thanks. ------------------
Stuart MCA #48902
M&M #1091
67 stang 5 speed, 351W, Edelbrock Performer RPM package
91 f-150 xlt
98 explorer xlt sohc v-6
IP: Logged |
UnbridledFury
Gearhead Posts: 1135
From: Tacoma, WA
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 05-16-2002 03:43 PM
I'd go with the 3.0. They seem to be more durable than the 4.0. I have a 3.0 in my Ranger and it has well over 180,000 miles on it with no problems.------------------
Motor Safe! George
1975 Mustang II
1994 Ranger XLT 4X4 (180,000+ miles)
2000 Windstar
Unbridled Fury Productions
http://www.pierce-county-mustang-club.org/
M&M Member #47
September 11, 2001 - A day we shall never forget
US Army, Retired
IP: Logged |
johnmustang
Gearhead Posts: 1695
From: Vancouver Island , British Columbia , Canada
Registered: Nov 2001
|
posted 05-16-2002 04:11 PM
I would go with the 4.0 , my brother just sold his and it had 437,000 kilometers on it ( about 263,000 miles ) and still running strong. JOHN  ------------------
65 2+2 FASTBACK
68 COUPE
87 TAURUS WAGON
98 F150 XLT TRITON V8 4.6, 4 WHEEL DRIVE
Member:Vancouver Island Mustang Association
M&M #1710
MyPhotoPage
MY TRUCK
IP: Logged |
70SportsRoof
Gearhead Posts: 350
From: Scottsdale, AZ, In the hot hot Valley of the Sun
Registered: Dec 2001
|
posted 05-16-2002 08:10 PM
I'd go with the 4.0 myself. I used to work with a guy who had a Ranger with the 4.0. He said he had drove a 3.0 before and the 4.0 just seems to have better power. Don't worry about mileage. In front of me I have a brochure for the 2002 Ranger and it shows that as far as mileage there is only about 1 gallon difference between the 3.0 and 4.0. I've been thinking about a Ranger myself, and I'll be looking for one with the 4.0.------------------
1970 Mustang Deluxe SportsRoof (my daily driver), 1946 Ford pickup, another 1946 Ford pickup, 1947 Ford parts truck, 1957 Ford Fairlane 500 Town Vic
IP: Logged |
H8CHEVY
Gearhead Posts: 236
From: Southern Cali
Registered: Jun 2000
|
posted 05-17-2002 01:48 AM
I definitly would buy the 4.0 The 3.0 motor doesnt provide much power with a trailer or big load in the back of it. But my 95 4.0 just cracked both heads at 125K. Dont know if its a freak thing or not. It sure pulls my trailor out to the desert no problem though!
IP: Logged |
Rory McNeil
Gearhead Posts: 671
From: Surrey, B.C. Canada
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 05-17-2002 04:19 AM
Are you looking at a Ranger 4x4? I have a 2002 Ranger sales brochure here, & it looks like you can`t get a 4.0 in a 2 wheel drive anymore. Too bad.  ------------------
78 Fairmont 428 4 speed 10.20@130mph
80 Fairmont 302 5 speed 12.8@105mph
85 Mustang NHRA Stocker under construction, 302 5 speed
IP: Logged |
ccode67
Gearhead Posts: 913
From: douglasville,ga,usa
Registered: Mar 2001
|
posted 05-17-2002 10:12 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Rory McNeil:
Are you looking at a Ranger 4x4? I have a 2002 Ranger sales brochure here, & it looks like you can`t get a 4.0 in a 2 wheel drive anymore. Too bad.
I need to check on that, I'm looking at 2 wheel drive trucks.
IP: Logged |
SUBMARINER MUSTANGER
Gearhead Posts: 513
From: Grandview, Missouri
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 05-17-2002 01:20 PM
As a Ford technician, I'd definately go with the 4.0 liter! Both power plants are just as reliable as the other......don't see too many of either one in the shop past their warranty. I personally have a 2001 Ranger 3.0, but after driving the 4.0's, I wish I had spent just a little more and got the 4.0. For me, it was clearly a monthly lease payment issue, or I would have gone with the 4.0 Good luck with your decision! ------------------
Sub Stanger/1990 LX 5.0 Vert
2001 Ford Ranger (4 Door Extended Cab)
IP: Logged |
ccode67
Gearhead Posts: 913
From: douglasville,ga,usa
Registered: Mar 2001
|
posted 05-17-2002 02:00 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Rory McNeil:
Are you looking at a Ranger 4x4? I have a 2002 Ranger sales brochure here, & it looks like you can`t get a 4.0 in a 2 wheel drive anymore. Too bad.
They don't offer a 4.0 in a regular cab, they do offer the 4.0 SOHC in a 2 wheel drive Super Cab. It's a $1000 option.
IP: Logged |
Dad Vishus
Journeyman Posts: 71
From: Moscow, Iowa, USA
Registered: Dec 2001
|
posted 05-17-2002 02:01 PM
My new 02 Ranger FX4 has about 350 miles on it now. The first fillup got 17 MPG. That was about 140 miles of half town half highway miles.The motor is the 4.0 with a 5 speed and 4.10 gears. It also has 31" tall tires which kills most of the gear. It's also 4WD. Don't know if that mileage is typical or not, but I was happy with 17. My 98 F150 4WD with the 5.4 got about 12. The 4.0 5 speed has plenty of pep and is fun to drive. Factory rating is 207 HP.
IP: Logged |
rellik74
Gearhead Posts: 113
From: Trinidad , Colorado, USA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 05-18-2002 10:36 AM
It depends what you want to do with it I have a 98 Ranger 4x4 4.0 auto. If you are going to do a lot of highway with big hills get the 4.0, if you are going for mpg get the 2.3. I had a 94 with the 2.3 and it is great in most situations except BIG hills.
Get the manual transmission, The auto in my 98 went out at 55,000 miles the 94 has 130,000 miles and the org. clutch.
IP: Logged |
Rory McNeil
Gearhead Posts: 671
From: Surrey, B.C. Canada
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 05-19-2002 02:15 AM
Yeah, that 4.0 ain`t too shabby. A friend of mine has a 4.0 5speed RangerXLT, he bought new. I THINK it`s a 92, it was the last year of the original square body style. Anyhow, I went with him on a trip to the dragstrip in Ashcroft BC Canada a few years back, towing his 3000 lb 440 powered Dodge Demon, up some fairly decent mountain passes, & it did a pretty decent job. His truck has the 4.10 gears. Its no 460 F350, but when you pull into a gas station, thats not neccasarily a bad thing!  ------------------
78 Fairmont 428 4 speed 10.20@130mph
80 Fairmont 302 5 speed 12.8@105mph
85 Mustang NHRA Stocker under construction, 302 5 speed
IP: Logged |
mellowyellow
Gearhead Posts: 4414
From: So. Fl.
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 05-19-2002 08:31 AM
A woman here wanted a Ranger and got shabby treatment at two Ford dealers. So....she went to a Mazda dealer, and got exactly what she wanted for several hundred less. Same truck,different grille and rear 1/4 panels.
IP: Logged |
Mike65
Gearhead Posts: 1538
From: Columbia,NJ, USA. 65 Fastback, 69 Coupe MCA #-04549
Registered: Dec 2000
|
posted 05-19-2002 07:56 PM
Hi Stuart,
I had a 96 Ranger 4X4 w/a 4.0 litre which had 86,000 miles when it got wrecked (RIP) & I had never had a problem w/it. Now I have a 2000 Ranger w/the 4.0 litre. BTW theyt were both extended cabs. Go w/the 4.0. ------------------
Mike & Robin
65 Mustang Fastback
69 Mustang Coupe
87 LTD CV
99 Explorer Sport
00 Ranger XLT Extd Cab M&M #- 890
MCA #- 4549
www.mike65.mustangsandmore.ws
IP: Logged |
ccode67
Gearhead Posts: 913
From: douglasville,ga,usa
Registered: Mar 2001
|
posted 05-20-2002 07:05 AM
Looks like everybody likes the 4.0, now I just need to check the $$$ difference and make a decision.Thanks everybody.
------------------
Stuart MCA #48902
M&M #1091
67 stang 5 speed, 351W, Edelbrock Performer RPM package
91 f-150 xlt
98 explorer xlt sohc v-6
IP: Logged |
todmeg
Gearhead Posts: 244
From: sayreville,nj
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 05-22-2002 07:51 PM
hey ccode- i wouldn't buy a ranger / mazda right now unless you can get one built in a plant other than edison NJ. i live only minutes from the plant which is closing real soon. they went from a 24/7 operation down to a day shift only 5 days a week plant. i ran into a uaw guy who has been building cars/truck for ford for 17 years. we talked for a while and i asked him if i should buy a truck from him(ford) he said nope. the morale there is undersdtandably low. i am not sure where else they build the trucks but i would not buy one built in edison. other wise i drove a ranger 3.0 and it flies! the 4.0 is faster but eats a lot more. uhhhh after shopping toyota, ranger/mazda i opted for the nissan. but i still love my AMERICAN BUILT ford maverick! good luck in whatever you decide!------------------
scott
todds' dad(19fordmav72)
another Warsteiner lover. and warsteiner isn't all that expensive!
also.. you can run but you can't hide!
IP: Logged |
TomP
Gearhead Posts: 3967
From: Delta BC Canada
Registered: Dec 99
|
posted 05-22-2002 11:51 PM
3.0L ?  4.0L ? 5.0L !  ------------------
64 T-Boltish Fairlane 427 HR 4spd 10.05 at 133.7 so far another 64Fairlane project 428 4spd
53 F350 ramptruck 428 4spd
87 Ranger 5.0 5speed
'bout half of a 67 Mustang FB was a 390 [This message has been edited by TomP (edited 05-22-2002).]
IP: Logged |
Mustangsandmore Forums
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
