Howdy, Stranger!

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





Ford Ranger III

145791057

Comments

  • kit1404kit1404 Posts: 128
    And, like I said before - the Ranger finally gets the old Explorer engine - the overhead cam version of the old 4.0 engine that has been in the Ranger forever. As my history of Ford vehicles reminds me, the push-rod 4.0 started life as a 2.9 V-6 that originally came from Europe as a car engine. Ford thought it was strong enough to bore out to 4.0 and that was the original Explorer engine in about 1991. Unfortunately, it has taken nearly 10 years for Ford to develop anything better for the Ranger. But, the Explorer - with more capital financing - got an overhead cam version of this same engine with its latest design in about 1997. It also took a few years for this design to be really strong. Now, the overhead cam version of this old 4.0 will be the base engine in the Explorer - it will get a nice V-8 very soon. Ford had to do this to compete with Jeep's small V-8. Anyway, yes I am on the same planet. The Ranger finally got a new 4-year-old design from the Explorer. Where is the V-8 for the Ranger? Isn't that what it needs to be really competitive? The new V-6 just keeps it in the ballpark. My point - the Ranger doesn't get much development money from Ford. Buy the F-150 - it is the center of focus.
  • I happened to stop and take a look at the new rangers. Boy do they look good. The salesman also told me that an SVT Ranger will be made soon with a V8. He did not know what V8 would be in it, but it would have one. I wish the 5spd manual tranny 4x4 would come out soon. That is what I am looking for.
  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,119
    The Ranger ranks 7th out of the 10 best selling vehicles in the United States. This is pretty good in my book for a compact pick-up.
    kit, there is a price difference between a Ranger and an F150. You can get pretty well loaded new 4x4 Rangers for about 18K. A comparably optioned F150 will cost you at least 2-3K more. On another note. If you ever go offroading in many cases a full size won't fit into places a compact 4x4 can. I do agree Ford let its gaurd down too long with its engine line-up in the Ranger. Toyota and GM stomped the Ranger when it came to HP figures. I don't think your going to see a V8 Ranger anytime soon. The demand is just not there. A V6 does me just fine for what I need to haul and tow.
  • kit1404kit1404 Posts: 128
    The Dodge Dakota has the new overhead cam version of their V-8 this year. And, yes it has had its problems. But, my point: Ford sells so many Rangers based on price, not on best available equipment and lately not really on best quality. So many people shop compact trucks and cars based on the amount of the monthly payment. I guess that is where we get into the 2 or 3 grand more - to me, the F-150 is worth about 50% more in actual cost. It is that much more vehicle. If Ford really wanted to make a statement with the Ranger, it would already have a small V-8. But, then I think they may be thinking about catch-up mode - the pressure is on - and the Ranger will probably be a much better vehicle in the near future.
  • dannygdannyg Posts: 131
    Just for the record, let me say that I for one don't want or need a V8 Ranger or full-size pickup. Like a lot of people, I use my old V6 Ranger for general utility and light hauling/towing. I don't want or need a V8.

    My only complaint is I'd like truck that gets better MPG. I tend to buy cars/trucks and keep them 10 years or so. There's no telling where gas prices will be in a few years. That's why I'm looking forward to test driving the 2.3L 4cyl Ranger when it becomes available. I'll buy one of those or maybe an S10.

    Just my thoughts.
  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,119
    The reason why more people buy Rangers is because they are the best value for your dollar on the market today. As far as people only buying Rangers because of the price, this is bull.... The same can be said then about the F150/250 series. These trucks are far less expensive than a comparable Dodge or Silverado. Fact is Ford can mass produce both of these trucks in high volumes and pass the savings onto the consumer. The Ranger is a good compact truck. It can be had in just about any model with any engine, drivetain, axle, bed.. you can get, or not get the options you want. The Ranger hasn't been the best selling compact pickup for 13 years straight just because of price....
  • xena1axena1a Posts: 286
    I agree, I think the demand is there for a V8 Ranger. I owned a '99 Mazda B3000 4X4 and was happy with the truck except for one fatal flaw. On road trips, the engine was underpowered and noisy. It also had a pinging problem that necessitated that I run hi-octane fuel in it. I was holding out for the 4.0L SOHC Ranger or B-Series when on a whim, I test drove the 4.7L V8 Dakota. Momma Mia! I was smitten. There is just something very seductive about a V8 and a 5-speed! Well, I've made the switch and have been very satisfied. The Dakota only costs me an average of $2 more a week in fuel and is an absolute blast to drive. I'm not knocking the Ranger/B-Series. I like those trucks. They are a good value and there is a lot that is right about the product. I just was not happy with the 3.0L. I guess what I am saying is that there is a market for compact trucks with V8s and I would like to see the Ranger with that engine choice...
  • kit1404kit1404 Posts: 128
    Ford should be looking hard at a compact truck to meet the needs of the folks that just need a good around-town, cheap and cheap to run pick-up. Plus the needs of those who want something other than a full-size, but with most of the amenities in other words - comfort, power, etc. in a smaller package. The Ranger filled both bills for many years - the Dakota sets a new target. Interesting to me, Dodge doesn't even offer a compact pick-up anymore - just the mid-size Dakota and the full-size Ram. And, by the way, Ford is not always the cheapest in the full-size arena. Depends on new-year introductions - currently the Dodge is cheaper, but for several years they were the most expensive. GM is higher right now - probably won't last for long. These things change, so should the Ranger.
  • dannygdannyg Posts: 131
    Good point, Dodge doesn't even make a compact truck anymore. Me, I want a true compact truck with the good MPG that comes with a 4cyl or small V6. The Dakota really defines a new type of truck, the midsize. That truck is right for someone else.

    I'd like the Ranger to remain a real compact, but it would be fine if Ford wants to build a V8-powered midsize Dakota competitor. Just don't stop building compacts the way Dodge did!
  • dannygdannyg Posts: 131
    Looks like 2001 Ranger info is at last at Ford's site:

    http://www.fordvehicles.com/trucks/ranger/

    At last!
  • bigmaxbigmax Posts: 11
    In 2000 you could get a fully loaded or a stripped
    model ranger or any option in between in 6 or 7
    foot bed with 4 cyl .In 2001 you can't get a 7 foot
    bed with 4 cyl, and the only options you can get
    with a 4 cyl are tilt & cruise, automatic and an
    appearance package. No cassette/CD,No sliding rear
    window. To get the cassette/CD from the factory I
    have to get a 3.0 L V6 Styleside Appearance Group
    (336A)Thats fully loaded with 5 speed automatic
    (don't want) chrome wheels, white letter
    tires,cassette/CD (want that)power windows mirrors
    locks and transmitter (don't want any of those and
    a bed rail cover.
    Whats with that,last year you could order options
    seperately, this year it's all or nothin.
    If I buy a 2001 ranger 4 cyl standard shift I will go to a Truck assessory store and have a sliding rear window
    installed and a electronics store to have a
    cassette/CD alarm installed at fords lost.The only
    thing I won't get is a 7 foot bed,oh well.
    The 1 reason I want a 4 cyl is the price of gas,I beleave we will never see $1.00 gas again and gas will be least $1.50 and closer to $2.00 It will be my only vehicle and I need a truck to haul grass,leaves,sticks,small boat and other dirty stuff. Hey I live in the country.
    BIGMAX
  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,119
    If you can wait for the new 2.3. This new 4cyl engine is more powerful, more torque and gets better MPG than the present 2.5
  • dannygdannyg Posts: 131
    No 4cyl with the long bed? Damn! I've got an old V6 Ranger with the long bed & I'd like to buy a new long-bed Ranger. I'd really really like to improve my MPG so I wanted to test drive the new 2.3L 4cyl!

    But here's something odd. If you look at the bottom of the Ford Media page, it lists towing capacity for both 4cyl short-beds and long-beds!

    http://media.ford.com/products/presskit_display.cfm?vehicle_id=238&press_section_id=398

    Now I'm confused.
  • bigmaxbigmax Posts: 11
    Dan, I have the 01 ranger brochure and even on the XL the 7' bed has the 3.0 L V6.
    I hope it's wrong. The 7' weighs only about 60 pounds more than a 6' bed.
    A friend has a 97 4 banger 7' Bed 2.3 shift it yourself 5 speed and I love it, sure you have to shift to make it up a long hill but it will make it up most in 4th and he gets at least 25 mpg. Hey thats great for a pickup. He has a 10' aluminum boat with trollin motor and he loads it in the back with the battery and tackle and you don't even know its there.
    I hope ford realizises that fuel mileage is important to some people and they let you get the 7' bed with the new 4 banger and let us get all the options thats avalable with the V6 and seperate the options I don't want automatic,power locks windows mirrors.But I do want CD/cassette and sliding rear window and cruise/tilt wheel.
    Al
  • bigmaxbigmax Posts: 11
    I question the accuracy of media.ford.com.
    They say the 3.0L V6 has 14 to 1 compression ratio.
    I now believe the brochure is correct on the 7' bed.
    Al
  • dannygdannyg Posts: 131
    If it really is true that there's going to be no 2.3 with the long bed, Ford may just have lost a sale. One of the main reasons I really like the Ranger is it is a compact truck with a good-sized bed. I was looking forward to buying a new 2001.

    I guess I'll buy used (again), maybe an old 2.3L Ranger or a Frontier. At least the Frontier has a 6.5 foot bed.

    I read somewhere (in blueovalnews.com I think) that they have changed their mind about offering the 4.0L with the regular cab. Believe it or not, they originally weren't going to offer it. Now I understand they will. So maybe they'll change their mind about the 2.3L as well.
  • Even if the 2001 rangers arent availible with the 4 cyl and a 7' bed, the 3.0L V6 is only about $300 more and you get very close to the same gas mileage, but it has more power
  • I looked all over blueovalnews.com for a mention of a regular cab 4.0 being offered in the US but I didn't see it. Where is it? In the forums they mentioned canada has it...could one go to Ottawa and buy a truck? Just kidding...I think...
  • bigmaxbigmax Posts: 11
    The 2.5 manual average mpg is 24 the 3.0 is 19
    The 2.5 auto average is 22 the 3.0 is 18
    The new 2.3 is supposed to beat the 2.5 by 2 mpg average that would be 26 for the manual 7 better.
    Also you can't get the 3.0 with the manual on the XLT 7' box. To get the manual with the 7' box you have to settle for the XL without a lot of features like no box light no armrest storage no map pockets in the doors no map lights no carpet.
    Ford has really screwed up the options for 2001.
    check out www.fueleconomy.gov
    Al
  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,119
    Are those numbers for the 3.0 with a 5spd? I have seen numbers for the 3.0 at 19city 21highway for a 3.0 5spd 2wd Rangers.
145791057
This discussion has been closed.