Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Ford Ranger III

1323334353638»

Comments

  • Yes you could. It's the same engine, but I'm not sure about the electronics, but it should be compatible. I had a 93 2.3l, dual spark plug, great motor that lasted 140,000 miles and was still going strong.

    I would goto a local parts store, and check out the Haynes or Chilton's repair manuals for both vehicles in question. That would confirm any miscellaneous items like wiring, vacuum schematics, and would give you a good idea of any accessories or intakes you could reuse.

    Food for thought, If you have a 93 mustang, it probably wouldn't cost you a whole lot more to put in a 5.0l v8. You just need a donor car with transmission, brakes, differential, and springs. Most of those items can be left off until you can afford it later(except the transmission), but you would get more bang for the buck. But the brakes and suspension of the 10 year old 4 cylinder won't last long-term with a v8 powered drivetrain. There are alot of resources in magazines or on the web about doing a 2.3l to 5.0l conversion.
  • eharri3eharri3 Posts: 645
    IT was a rock solid little motor, the most trouble free part of the truck without a doubt. But if I were looking to put something under the hood of a Mustang it'd be WAAAAY down near the bottom on the list of options.
  • Looking to buy a new Ranger truck. Daily commute minimal, but I take periodic road trips and have limited budget so gas mileage important. No towing; no cross country expected. Currently driving 1997 Saturn SL2 (premature death on the horizon) 1.9L 5spM, so the 2.3L 5spM will probably seem peppy to me. Here's the dilemna: I've had my eye on an extended cab for the extra interior protected storage and all I've seen have the 3.0L Auto which drops gas mileage from the 20's to the teens. So, the question is extra space or gas mileage?

    Any thoughts from anybody? If I go with the 2.3L single cab, will I be wishing for that extra space 6 months down the road and not caring about the drop in gas mileage? And, it bumps up the price of the vehicle - is it worth it?
  • eharri3eharri3 Posts: 645
    ID really only recommend a regular cab compact truck of ANY type as a second vehicle.

    I had a regular cab Ranger for 5 years and even though the truck was very useful for hauling and moving lots of stuff back and fourth between school and home and for household projects, at times it was a real pain in the you know what. Think about it...think you ever might want to carry a TV AND stereo AND computer all at the same time? Then that's one fragile piece of electronics you'll have to figure out some way to secure in the bed. Not to mention it effectively eliminates the possibility of carrying any passengers at the same time.

    Think maybe you might want to stop at a hotel to spend the night on some of those road trips? Then you have two choices if you don't want to risk getting the luggage you stored in the bed stolen. Cart it all into the hotel room at night and then back down stairs when you start out in the morning, or else invest money in a locking cap or hard tonneau. I dont imagine right there there's much difference between what youd pay for a quality cap or tonneau and whatever the extra cost is for the 3.0/extended cab.

    Even if you just want to leave the truck unattended for a few minutes at a rest stop, if you have to store all valuables and luggage in the bed, you're taking a chance that it won't be there when you get back if you dont have any locking storage in the bed. I think the most annoying thing for me was if I had one or two fragile pieces of cargo that I didn't want in the bed, it meant I could no longer fit a passenger in the cab with me.

    I dont know about the newest Rangers, but I know up until 98 or 99 you could get a 4-banger extended cab. But with the heavier truck, all else being equal, a 3.0 that doesn't have to work as hard to move the extra weight probably wouldn't be that much of a mileage penalty anyway.

    Either way, Id say find a way to get the extended cab truck, even if you take a slight mileage penalty in the process. You'll be more likely to end up with a vehicle that will meet your needs for long enough that you can hold onto it for a very long time, instead of getting sick of the lack of interior storage space and having to trade in a few years.
  • Thank you eharri3. This will be my only vehicle so I'll definitely give serious thought to what you wrote.
  • Check out the Mazda Pickup's (same as the Ranger) they offer a 2.3 engine with the extended cab.

    James
  • eharri3eharri3 Posts: 645
    Now own 04 Dakota Quad.
  • bolivarbolivar Posts: 2,316
    Yes, I think the extended cab is worth it.

    With 2 people in a standard cab, you can't even bring home the groceries from the store very well. The sacks will be blowing around in the back.

    No place for basic tools, coat, etc inside the cab. I had a standard cab 1966 Ford, it just had no room at all outside the bed.

    I'm not sure, but I think the seats also move back more in the extended cab. If you are tall at all, you better check to see if you will even fit into a standard cab....
  • Personally I prefer the standard cab Ranger. Less weight, easier to park. Looks better to me too. Also I like having the frame around me for protection. I have the 3.0 and auto trans.
  • go for the extended cab, I've had both and extended is well worth what it costs. Be aware however a 4cyl extended cab is really underpowered. go for a 3.0 (pings & all). It will pay for itself in short time in overall gas savings. If you do any hwy travel at all the 4cyl will drop to < 19 MPG. I have a 01 4.0 and it will get 24-25 on hwy with air @ 70MPH. My old 4 cyl would drop to 17 in same conditions.
    Note resale value. Look for 2-3 years old and save 50% or more. I made expensive mistake in that I just had to have the new 4.0L in 01. Should have waited....
    Good luck, its a good truck
  • rangeroorangeroo Posts: 4
    I have a 97 Ranger 4x4 Super Cab in need of new tires. The size on there now is 31x10.5x15 and I would like to stay with the same wheels. I live on the coast of Washington state, so the conditions are rainy and mild temps. We can drive on the beach here, so having tires that would be good in sand are important. My other main criteria is for something that is quient on the highway. This is not a daily driver and would not be used for a lot of highway miles, but I would like a tire that is good for at least 50K miles.
    My price range is intermediate.

    Any specific recommendations would be greatly appreciated. Also, please give any info on which tire brands are good or bad to buy. Thanks very much.
  • dwrestledwrestle Posts: 72
    Why don't they make a 4x4 2.3I Ranger? I would definitely buy that truck, put a turbo or super charger in it. Since they don't what would a FX4 get mpg wise. With a standard tranny?

    by the way what are the 3.0, and 4.0 gas mileage with a standard tranny, with 4x4 or FX4.

    Also what is the replacement for the 3.0 going to be.
  • yadmanyadman Posts: 8
    I just purchased an 04 Ranger XLT and have a question about the oil dip stick. I've asked a couple of dealers and they have different answers.

    The stick has two holes drilled into it, one for the "Add" mark and one (I presume) for the "Full" mark. The odd thing is from the lower hole to a spot dead center between the holes is the typical hash marks one would normally see when there are no holes at all.

    So the question, is the oil full when it's at the top of the hash mark (center of holes) or when it reaches the top hole?
  • jkidd2jkidd2 Posts: 218
    I read on another website this morning that the Ranger is gonna be offered with leather seating @ some point in the 2004 model year.

    Thats the first I have heard of it.

    Would be interesting to see.....I always thought a Ranger King Ranch Edition would be cool!

    jkidd
  • bolivarbolivar Posts: 2,316
    It in the options list now. I don't know about what else you also have to order....

    I've never seen one.

    And, I think it's bucket seats only, not 60/40.
  • dmoulddmould Posts: 76
    I have a 2001 Ranger XLT 4x4 with the 4.0L SOHC and manual transmission, and usually get about 17 - 18mpg, right in between the rated 15mpg city and 20mpg highway. This truck is not any better on gas than a full size with a small V8. The front driveline is always turning, so that contributes a lot of drag and affects the fuel economy, especially when the weather turns cold.
    I have seen some Rangers on the lot with the leather bucket seats, they look good. I like the higher backrests on the 2004 models.
  • eharri3eharri3 Posts: 645
    Eh? My 04 Dakota Quad V8 barely manages 15 most of the time. Most of the full sized trucks I know of get less, and would kill to get what you're getting.

    As for tires...Bridgestone Dueller APT IIs where the last set on my Ranger. I put them on at 90 and they barely look worn when I got rid of the truck at 107K. In fact I had an oil change at about 100K and they thought I had just put on brand new tires when they had 10K on them.

    These tires got great traction in snow and sand, but the handling sucked. VERY floaty in tight corners and made for squishy transitions on the highway. But they were definitely quiet. I paid about 400 at Sears before all the extra stuff like mounting and balancing.
This discussion has been closed.