Howdy, Stranger!

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

Ford Ranger III



  • seyorniseyorni Posts: 9
    Midnight. Thanks for replying to my inquiry about The torque peaks of the 4 banger vs the six. I'm planning to buy a long bed standard cab and I don't believe the smaller engine is even offered in this configuration. Anyway. What would be the cheapest way of lowering the torque peak of the 3.0? Engineering it significantly higher than normal driving RPM is just, well, bad engineering! A waste of engine potential! It would even cut into gas mileage as people rev higher to reach peak power. What were these engine designers smoking?
       On another subject, I've seen several comments about Installing K&N (read "less restrictive") air filters on these trucks. All well and good, but if you're going to open up the intake end of your engine, ideally, you should balance it with a less restrictive exhaust as well. And, most important, keep in mind that these changes will lean out your engine. You'll need to adjust your mixture to keep engine temps down and achieve good power/efficiency. Easy with a carburetor but somewhat problematic with fuel injection.
  • Trying to get into the heads of the Ford engineers might proove to be an effort in futility.

    I do know that at highway speeds (75mph) with a 4.10 rear gear,the 4th manual gear will put you right around 3900 RPM. Which would be perfect for towing. It does seem a little high, but the vulcan 3.0 is a stout little motor. I used to own a 93 2.3l, and never had the valve cover off in over 140,000 miles.Never got below 20mpg. My current 3.0l has much improved power, even compared to the current day 4v 2.3l, but my MPG is currently aroung 17mpg in the city. But that could be because the engine still has 2,100 miles on it, and hasn't broken in yet.

    End result, it really depends on your application. A daily commuter behind a 2.3l would be perfect for economy. Those who would could use a little more towing capability, the 3.0l. Then the 4.0l is a big increase to power for a small option price. If you want a reg cab, long bed, you should be able to order that truck with a 4.0l from any dealership fleet salesman.
  • I bought a used 99 Ranger Extended Cap 3.0 XLT I Have had problems with the shifting since I got it with it being hard to go into gear. I was told to pump the clutch if this helped it was the master cylinder. It did help so I took it in to have the MC replaced they did I was driving the same day and the clutch went all the way to the floor and was engaged in gear. Had it towed they said a locking ring had come off that they hadnt gotten it on right. They put it back together same day it doesnt it again. The tech says there is no retaining clip just the ring that locks into place this doesnt seem right anyone know what might be the problem??? Thanks in Advance.
  • 1busman1busman Posts: 33
    My 01 supercab 4x4 has the 4.0 sohc w/5 spd auto and 4.10 gears. Crusing between 70 and 80 I average 18 to 20 mpg. I have to agree with brucellinc in #987 wind can really kill gas mileage. Once on the way to Portland, OR from the SF Bay Area I only got 15 mpg. This was in real heavy wind and I just about had my foot to the floor. Driving back and forth to work (60 miles a day) which is about 70% freeway I average 17.5 mpg.
  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,119
    since I have visited this room. Back in 1998 I purchased a Ford Ranger XLT stepside kingcab 4x4 with a 4.0. Truck was pretty much loaded with every option. I bought the truck for $19,600 dollars. I put on some better and larger tires, an air intake system, step bars, rock guards, spray in liner, and a flowmaster exhaust system. After 97,000 miles the truck has performed wonderfully. I have had a brake job done, transmission fluid changed, along with all other maintenance performed. I also did a timing belt at about 70,000 to be safe. These are great trucks. But, my wife is wanting to sell it since we have a car, an SUV and a truck. I am going to try to hold her off as long as I can. The truck looks new, runs great and is very reliable. I have waxed it and washed it kept it looking great..
  • frey44frey44 Posts: 230
    The 4.0 Ranger V6 uses a timing CHAIN, not a belt. You have done the IMPOSSIBLE...replacing a timing belt that the motor does not have. Congratulations !
  • dom55dom55 Posts: 4
    Here's equipment and what I paid: Auto, AC, Power equip group, Appearance pkg, Tilt w/cruise & leather, vinyl jump seats, class III trailer hitch receiver, Slide rear window, privacy glass, full size spare.

    Price 18,442
    NY tax 1521 (8 1/4%)
    Reg/Title 125 (2 yr registration)
    doc fee 148
    rebate 2,500
    TOTAL 17,736
  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,119
    timing chain... Fact still stands that my Ranger has been trouble free with normal maintenance. I notice the Ranger vs Tacoma room is gone?? I am a Tacoma owners worst nightmare..
  • I got 2000, but 2500 now? I missed out... Anyway, I owe less on my 2003 Ranger than my girlfriend does on her 2001 Honda Accord. And I have only made 4 payments so far... LOL. I also pay 135 bucks less per month...

    scape, I tried to re-open the Ranger vs Tacoma thread 2 additional times, but it always gets closed due to certain known instigators. It was a good place for two camps of truck fans to get together, but certain "planets" seemed it was a mountain that needed to be battled over.
  • polsenpolsen Posts: 25
    I'm trying to find sources for ladder racks. I hope I can find one that is relatively inexpensive and easier to remove. Does anyone know of Internet resources or the type of local shops that carry this item?
  • evernerfevernerf Posts: 5
    I'm looking for some info on this truck I am considering buying. Its a 98, reg cab, long bed, 4 cyl, 5 speed. I had a 96 ranger and liked it ok.

    1. Does the 2.5 use a timing belt or chain? Is it an interference engine?

    2. Is the extra cab room noticable over the 96 model? I always needed a little more leg room.

    3. Anything to watch out for before buying? it has 56k miles and is in excellent condition.

    Thanks for any help!
  • ronmcqronmcq Posts: 16
    I've been in the market for a commuter/light duty truck and had pretty much settled on a regular cab XLT Ranger 4cyl 5spd for the economy (29mpg hwy). I felt kind of cramped in the cab though and really wanted the dry storage and grand kid seating of the extra cab. On a whim I looked at the new Mazda trucks on this site and found that they listed a 4cyl X cab not offered by Ford. I've looked through most of the postings here and didn't notice any information on this vehicle. Has anyone had any experience with this unit? I'm told Mazda currently has a $3500 rebate which makes this unit pretty attractive. I'm not concerned with tow/hauling as I also have a V-10 Superduty. Are the mileage figures given fairly achievable?
    Thanks, Ron
  • the 2.5 is the 2.3l with a longer stroke. The 2.3l has a timing belt, and so should the 2.5l. The 2.3l Is a non-interferance motor, as should the 2.5l, but I cannot say for sure. That extra stroke might be just enough to cause valve-piston contact.

    I would really sit in the regular cab for a while. Me? I own and like it, it's got plenty of room for me, but I have the back of the seat all the way back (I'm 6'1" with long legs). It fits me well, but not much room to spare. My girlfriend really wanted me to get a extended cab so she could recline during longer trips. It's just very useful space. My next ranger will probably be extended cab...

    Things to watch out for? Well the best bet is to take the vehicle to a mechanic for a full point inspection. DIYers will need to check belts, vacuum hoses, condition of liquids, a few spark plugs, especially brakes, and definitely take any used vehicle for a good test drive. Hope that helps
  • evernerfevernerf Posts: 5
    I'm going this weekend to give it a closer look. I must be getting older to even consider a long bed small pickup!
  • bri66bri66 Posts: 220
    My Ranger just turned 260,000 miles on my way to work tonight and was wondering if anyone knows of one that may have more miles on it.
  • dudleyrdudleyr Posts: 3,406
    Couple of questions on the Ranger. I am looking at getting a new work truck for my companies lab to use. The primary driver is about 5'9. How much room is there behind the seats in the regular cab model. I don't want the v-6, so I need to get the regular cab. Is there enough room to cram a couple of duffle bags if the seat isn't scooted back all the way?

    Also how is the 2.3 4-cyl for towing. I don't need to break any speed records while towing, just don't want to hurt anything. The vehicle would never tow more than 1,500 lbs.That shouldn't be a problem should it? I notice the 4-cyl is rated to tow 1,600 lbs.

    Hope things work out with the Ranger because the price is right with the $3,000 rebate. $11,900 for an XLT w/ a/c and block heater. List price is $15,825.
  • bolivarbolivar Posts: 2,316
    I've never been in a standard cab Ranger. I'm 5'7". I had a 1966 full size Ford, standard cab. I kept the seat all the way back and there was no room behind the seat. Nothing. Course, there was a fuel tank back there in those days.

    The 4 cylinder's power has been upgraded in last couple of years, but I did drive test drive one of the previous ones. Can you say 'weak'?

    I would not get a 4 cylinder to drive, much less to tow. I would not get a standard cab. And also, if you do any towing, get an automatic, it will be rated for more towing than a manual. And although the automatic is not a strong transmission, the manual is worse if you try to tow with it.

    P.S. I have a 1994 4L V6 Extended Cab automatic.
    P.P.S. Don't expect any decent gas milage either. It's a truck.
  • I have some pictures here that may give you a good idea of the room behind the seats...
    It's just enough to fit a subwoofer box, amplifier, and the tire jack kit. There is roughly 4-6 inches of space at the bottom, and it tapes down to 1-2 inches at shoulder level. Not much room, but my seat is all the way back (just barely not touching the rear wall or window). I think it may work for you, granted that the primary driver may not need as much legroom to drive comfortably. If that is not enough room, perhaps a cheap toolbox for the bed?

    Also I would think about the towing and engine choices again. If the truck will be hauling some weight regularly, and that weight is near the limit, I would definitely step up. You don't want to always be near your limit, you want to be comfortable while hauling/towing. I think the 3.0l may be a good compromise, and it should not cost that much as an option. Of course you will not see 20mpg in the city with a v6, but you will with a 4 cylinder. So depends on what the truck will be doing mostly. But the 2.3l is a very healthy engine. I had a 2valve version of it in a 93 ranger, and it lasted over 140,000 with nothing but maintenance.
  • ronmcqronmcq Posts: 16
    Dudleyr, I had the same questions as you and did a bit of research. I ended up getting the B2300 Mazda Extra cab last weekend. It's basically a Ranger (same engine & drivetrain) with different trim. It only comes with the 5spd manual which was fine for me as I'm looking towards fuel economy. I've only a couple of hundred miles on it but am quite satisfied so far with the way it drives and there is more than enough room behind the seats for duffels or small passengers. I got it fully loaded with the power and convenience packages for $15k with the $3500 rebate but before tax & lic here in California. Also the warranty on the Mazda is 4yr 50,000 mile. If you need the 4cyl and extra cab I'd consider this as an option. Hope this helps,
  • dudleyrdudleyr Posts: 3,406
    Thanks for all of the responses.

    I am aware that the 1,500 lbs that may be towed are near the limit of 1,650 lbs, but the Toyota and Nissan both tow 3,500 lbs with their 4-cyl engines that have a smilar hp and torque rating. I am just wondering if Ford underates the 4-cyl so more people will buy the 6. Even my little Integra can tow 1,500 lbs.

    Also the 3.0 v-6 only has about 8% more power and 17% more torque than the 4 at a huge penalty in fuel mileage (22 vs. 29 highway). This vehicle will be driven at about 70 mph on the highway about 4-5,000 miles a month during the construction season. No real big hills (SD), and not much starting and stopping (the hardest part on a vehicle that is towing).

    This is not a pleasure vehicle - it is all about getting the job done efficiently.

    Has anybody had problems towing with the new 2.3 liter engine (I know the old one wasn't as good).

    Also how did people manage just a few years ago when the 3.0 V-6 only had 130 hp - 13 less than the 4 now has (I know the torque was about the same)
This discussion has been closed.