Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Ford Ranger

1235713

Comments

  • geraldholtgeraldholt Member Posts: 4
    RCO = Red Carpet Option. This is a special financing done through Ford. I have 35 payments at just over $200.00 and for the 36th month, I have three options: 1) turn the truck in back to the dealership [like a lease], 2) pay the balance in full and keep the truck, or 3) refinance the remaining balance at a MAXIMUM of a 5% higher interest rate [5.25%]. I plan on keeping the truck and taking advantage of the special financing. I believe that my total interest for the first 35 months is something like $81. I know that I'll probably end up paying off the truck in 6 years, but with this kind of financing, it doesn't bother me. Not to mention that in addition to the special financing rate, I got $1000.

    As for the 4-cylinder, I'm not so sure that the $500 that you save off the price is worth it. I looked at my Owner's Manual and the maintenance required on it versus either of the 6-cyliners would quickly eat up the cost savings.

    The price of my V-6, along with the A/C, was noted as a credit on the invoice. I think this only affects the sales tax portion of the sale.

    Gerald
  • diazodoktor2diazodoktor2 Member Posts: 23
    Re DAVEJAY: I have a 1996 Ranger 3.0 V6/Automatic. My Ranger has always has grabby brakes especially in damp weather. After a few warm -up stops all is OK. Also it has always had a squeek/moan that comes from the rear brakes the first time it is backed up after sitting overnight. After driving off it does not do it again till next day. This does not bother me any but drives my wife nuts "can't you have them DO something about that noise" ? Yes dear, tomorrow for sure. I figure it is somerhing associated with the rear anti-lock system or self adjust as they are supposed to adjust when you back up, right? Anyway I love my truck too. Still in warranty so will get around to let the dealer look into it. One new problem that has cropped up is it sometimes will not crank as if battery dead, "click,click. Battery OK so could be the neutral safety switch as if you keep jiggling gearshift selector or go to neutral i'll then start. other than that @ 31500 MI. It's a great truck. Not a rattle or squeek in it ,very tight and quiet.
  • geraldholtgeraldholt Member Posts: 4
    After talking to my salesman, I found out that Ford's RCO isn't available in all parts of the country (heck, it's not even available in all parts of Texas). If you can get an RCO, I'd do it soon because the deal runs out on July 5th.
  • vonnyvoncevonnyvonce Member Posts: 129
    Have a 98 Mazda B2500 which now that warm weather is here pings terribly. Recent 90 degree days on the highway I could hardly step on the gas pinging was so bad. tried various brands of gas and even up to 93 octane with no success, Dealer says "all in spec". Any ideas or similar experiences???
  • sushisushi Member Posts: 99
    I have a 97 B4000, but I don't get pinging at all. Maybe it's a 4 cyclinder problem? Also, can anyone confirm that Mazda 4x4's have a higher clearance than the Fords?
  • davejaydavejay Member Posts: 18
    I haven't had any pinging or other noises. In fact, the 4cyl in my truck has been flawless. (knocking on faux wood tabletop)

    When I bought my 2500SE, you had to go up by about $1000 to a B3000 for the 6cyl...add the 4cyl $500 credit to that, and you've got a substantial difference...at least, at the time.
  • fostervillefosterville Member Posts: 13
    I just got my '99 ranger supercab a month ago. I'm wondering if a slight vibration on the front passenger seatback when going thru a bumpy road is normal. It doesn't happen on every bump, it's only on the very bumpy ones. There's no problem with the tracks, it's just the seatback wiggles slightly. Should I take it back to the dealer if there's something they can do? Any feedbacks are welcome, thanks.
  • sushisushi Member Posts: 99
    Nope, the seatbacks shouldn't wiggle that much. Take the dealer for a spin in it and see what they say, and make them make it not wiggle!
  • 7540875408 Member Posts: 1
    I see from some of the listings here I am not the only person to have MAJOR problems with a RANGER. I,ve had mine, a '98 supercab XLT, 2.5l and 5 sp, for 8 months, 22,000 miles and it has been in the shop for a total of 22 days. To date the following has been repaired or attempted:

    the throttle body has been replaced
    power steering pump replaced
    instrument cluster replaced
    instrument light rheostat replaced
    headlight switch replaced
    hood has been repainted
    the dash lights continue to go out intermittently
    the clutch is very harsh on second to third shift with the occasional gear grind (this is with the clutch pedal on the floor) dealer says no problem found.
    clutch makes loud clunking when clutch pedal depressed and released (dealer says normal)
    engine stall on quick decel (dealer says no problem found)
    absolutely no power with a/c on!!!

    DSB application submitted and accepted, awaiting results , can't wait to dispose of the rolling defect. as for as customer relations i've found ford very weak. I'm active duty military so the service work is being done at a dealership other than where purchased-don't even think of asking for loaner car- those are for the customers that buy from that dealership only.
  • mr_rrrmr_rrr Member Posts: 13
    vonnyvonce -

    Today I brought my 3.0L 1999 FFV ranger back to the dealer for a 3rd attempt to fix a pinging problem. It only happens on warm days at highway speeds when using 87 octane fuel. The dealer replaced the "coil pack" for the second time, but this time they replaced it with a factory tested unit. The ping appears to be gone but I only drove a little over 100 miles today, and the temp was in the lower 70s. Have you checked Ford's website for updates to the owners manual concerning octane and pinging?

    My manual states the engine will ping lightly under some driving conditions. It seems those conditions are warm days at highway speeds when using an 87 octane fuel.

    75408-

    On the second visit I mentioned the clunking noise that occurs when the clutch pedal is depressed or released. They said it's normal. My opinion is that it's annoying but it doesn't sound like there's a lot of force behind it so it's probably not a problem.

    I've also had the gear grind problem but it happens infrequently during a quick acceleration. and I've never been sure the clutch was fully depressed. I'll have to start paying more attention to it. Thanks.
  • diazodoktor2diazodoktor2 Member Posts: 23
    My 1996 3.0 v-6 has started pinging as well. has gotten progressively worse. Kept stepping up in octane. Am at 93 now & it runs pretty good unless you are pulling a slight grade and keep pushing it to maintain speed. It'll still ping slightly.

    It's almost out of warranty so I will be taking it in next week to have starter checked (ithink solenoid is goin bad) and also mention the pinging prob. I'll post if I find out anything that may help you.
  • davejaydavejay Member Posts: 18
    I've also got a wiggly seatback in my regular cab. It amuses me.

    Guess I'll go bug the dealer about it. :)
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    No pinging on my 99 XLT 4.0 4X4 and I run 85 octane at the altitude of Colorado.
    Average 18-19mpg around town and 22-23 (got 25 once) hwy.
  • mister_rrrmister_rrr Member Posts: 5
    I'm starting to feel bad about my continual whining, but the ping is back. If I didn't drive so many miles I'd just use the 93 Octane and hope it didn't get any worst. Then again, if Ford had told me I needed to buy 91 (in reality 93) octane fuel as specified in the REVISED owner's manual, to get acceptable highway performance I would have bought a Dodge Dakota or an F150.

    Am I the only person in the world who didn't know the 3.0L litter engier didn't run on regular unleaded? In my own defense the EPA, Consumer Reports, and every Ford Dealer I've spoken to, all claim the 3 liter runs on 87 Octane.

    I've owned three Fords in the last 14 years. Two F150's and the Ranger. I feel like a father who has three kids, one of which he doesn't like.

    To all you 4.0L owners; what tipped you off?
  • sushisushi Member Posts: 99
    Well, the 4.0 litre was only slightly more expoensive, and you get so much more torque.. I didn't know nuthin about the octane.
  • geraldholtgeraldholt Member Posts: 4
    I have a 99 3.0L Ranger XLT and it doesn't ping using 87 octane. Of course I've just rolled 6K miles and maybe the problem hasn't made itself known yet. Where did you find the "revised" owner's manual?? The one at http://www.ownerconnection.com that states it's for the Ranger is for some other Ford/Lincoln/Mercury model (there's no V-8 for a Ranger).
  • hmerglerhmergler Member Posts: 85
    For those interested, I found a site that has some pricing information on the new 2000's. It is www.webcarbook.com. Although some of the options they list, use the 1999 option prices, they list some new packages and also list the standard equipment that should be on the new Ranger.

    Here's a summary of some of the new standard stuff:

    1. Bi-color tail-lights (Personally, I like the tri-color lights. I think they are safer as your turn signal doesn't supercede your brake light.)
    2. Single-note horn (Are they saving that much money by reducing the horn from a dual-note?)
    3. Removable ash tray cup for the center console (Aah, so that's where they put the savings from the horn.)
    4. CD Player is standard (At least in the 2WD SuperCab XLT, as that was what I was looking under)
    5. 3.0L engine discount is not listed anymore
    6. New wheel group (Gets you the OWL tires and chrome wheels for $0, basically offsets the engine cost)

    Can't think of anymore off-hand. I'd like to hear people's comments on the changes to the Ranger.

    I'm wondering if I should wait till 2000 model year to buy as it would cost me that extra $500 (for the 3.0L 6) as I would not go for the OWL tires and chrome wheels on a '99.

    - The Merg
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    Mister_rrr:
    Did not know about the pig. Just wanted the 4.0.
    "Ahr, ahr, ahr! More power" as Tim the tool man would say.

    Has Ford looked at your computer? Did it happen suddenly or was it always that way?

    Can't help you man, other than the computer thought. But I did not notice it and I run the 85 octane here seems to do good.

    Hey Merg, what about the higher hp engine? I have a single note horn and hate it! Gonna take a trip to Pep Boys tonight and correct that.

    Hey sushi, is spoog for real? You and I know we got the better deal but he must do more off-roading than I ever will.

    I comment back to him on that 4 wheeler mag. Since 1993, Ford has been mentioned 4 times as it's "Truck of the year". 93, Mazda (its a Ford), 96 Ranger XL SuperCab Truck of the year, 1998 or 99 Super Truck of the year for F250 and Ranger XLT SuperCab 1998 runner up Truck of the year. Toyota was mentioned twice.

    "It's good to be the king." and use the mag he mentioned in support of Ford/Ranger.

    So far I like it and am trying for Colorado personalized plate "HAZEGRAY" due to my navy roots. It is the metalflake Platinum so it's "Haze gray and underway". A pretty little truck. Looking for a paint shop to do some custom pinstripes in the color of the light gray in the 4X4 decal. Should set it off nicely.
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    sorry, ping, not pig.

    Spell check new it was a word, pig!
  • sushisushi Member Posts: 99
    If spoog is for real, then he must go Off-roading ALL the time. Both you and I know that a Tacoma is lousy in the city, which is why I bought the B4000. It's the best balance and the best deal. As for reliability, I know tons of people with screwed up rangers and screwed up Tacoma's, so it's not really a huge deal for me. The biggest thing I don't like about Toyota is the smaller toqing capability, the worse crash rating/less stiff frame. The hash handling which I want a compromise betweeen city and off-road, the back jumpseats, and the crappy seats that it has. I like the Tacoma's off-road capability, but I am not a 24/7 off-roader.
  • hmerglerhmergler Member Posts: 85
    According to the Web Carbook site, the engines still seem about the same. The 2.5L I4 gets 119 HP and the 3.0L V6 get 152 HP. As for your single-note horn, what type of Ranger do you have? Is the Web Carbook info wrong that the '99 SuperCab XLT Ranger has a dual note horn?
    Also, how hard is it to replace a single-note with a dual-note?

    Thanks,
    The Merg
  • hmerglerhmergler Member Posts: 85
    I noticed that if you try to connect to Web Carbook, it might not let you. The way I get in is that I first go to the following site: Ourisman Auto. Then I click on one of links at the bottom to create my own car. Once you do this, a cookie is placed on your computer that will allow you to connect to the main page at Web Carbook any time you want.

    - The Merg
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    Well I really never looked but it sounds like a single note horn. Maybe they gave me 2 of the same tone. There is a high and a low tone horn. I think you just splice in a 2nd horn in parallel then mount the other some place where you get a good ground.

    PEOPLE WITH PINGING:
    Well it is not out for the 99's yet but I always buy a HAYNES manual. They have a real good troubleshooting chart in section 0 or 1. Pinging, as I recall is a result of timing issues. As these new models cannot be timed with a timing light, I would suspect computer issues.
    As I said, no pinging issues with my 4.0 so far.

    Sushi:
    Yeah spoog must go off-road more than me too.
    Consumer Reports balances it's evaluations and takes input from users. In that area, Tacoma falls short. Repeated quality/reliability has been basically dead even for the two. Price is much higer on the Tacoma but you do get what you pay for. Ranger is a check rated "Recommended Buy" from CR for, I think, the last 3-5 years. Tacoma does not get that nod.
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    sushi:
    To explain why I commented on spoog's referenced 4 wheeler mag., I am a quality engineer. I read the data and saw many inconsistancies in the article on the Ranger data. It leads me to question the rest of the article. Plus, give that TRD model to a bunch of off-roader lovers and which vehicle do you think they will pick?!? They, i think, where blinded to anything from the Ranger based on a very well performing offroader TRD.
    But again, the mag was wrong on may of the features of the Ranger. Payload, 4, not 2 wheel anti-locks and so on.
    Pluse I have measured a Tacoma TRD. It is under 12.5 inches lowest clearance. And that is the key, what is your lowest clearance.
  • f220swiftf220swift Member Posts: 103
    For a little more money and a lot less whinning buy a new F150 with a 5.4L and get a real truck.
  • shayes1shayes1 Member Posts: 12
    I agree, those fools who forked out 25k or higher
    for a Tacoma could have had an F150 with the
    5.4 motor for the same money. Be smart, buy american!
  • hmerglerhmergler Member Posts: 85
    F220swift,

    I checked out what you suggested. I looked at the lowest line F-150 Extended Cab and compared that to the Ranger I am thinking of purchasing. The MSRP of the Ranger is $19,500 incl. dest. With the 5.4L V8 and comparable options on the F-150 (I do realize in some cases, the F-150 comparable option or standard feature out does the Ranger's) the MSRP is $25,000. A little more money, huh?

    - The Merg
  • sushisushi Member Posts: 99
    I would love to shell out more and get an F-series, but it's too big for me to maneuver in the bush and in the forest.

    Cpousnr, The lowest minumum clearance on my B4000 4x2 is 7.4 inches. The 4x4 SE has 9.9 clearance. The TRD has higher clearance because of it's big tires. (Remember though, bigger tires, worse handling in the city) If you wanted higher clearance, you could buy new tires, but I won't really need a clreance that high. I will pick my trail and sports.... I don't want to have to readjust my speedometer and odometer everytime I change tires. Yeah, I think Ranger is a better all around truck. I don't go off-roading enough to glorify a Tacoma, especially for the price. I have friends and family too, and when they see a nice truck, they are not going to say (Hey! let's go off-raoing in the rockies!) They will say (Can I have a ride?) and I need a decdnt ride in the truck as well.
  • cole1cole1 Member Posts: 1
    I have a 98 XLT Flare Side with 2.5l and 5speed. This is a great truck. The only problem I have ever had was a wild idle. She would rev up all by herself at stop lights and such (to like 2000 - 2500rpm). I found it somewhat amuseing because people thought I wanted to race them. I drive the [non-permissible content removed] out of this truck, and it has never let me down... built Ford tough
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    sushi:
    You raise a good point. I can and have had two in the front and one in the back riding in my truck with luggage in behind the driver. The Tacoma has less room in the back and i think the seets face forward. Not viable for my needs.

    I like you want something that gets me where I wanna go and is reasonable. I posted the Consumer Reports webb page so people, for $2.95 can see for themselves the Ranger was check rated many many years in a row as a "Best Buy" i.i value for your money. It's ratings on all areas that CR rates cooling, electrical, integrity, etc are CONSISTAINTLY equal to the Tacoma.

    I paid $17,300 vehicle cost for a 99 nice, not fully equiped XLT 4X4, added skids myself for $130 and change, spray liner (the ONLY way to go. Try Ameriguard vs Rino Lining) and $65 for a bug screen and I have a nice looking unit that goes where I want rather nicely. Gonna add a bed cover for $169. So lets see, total before tax and license that is $18,014, roughly 19K with tax and license. I get 18-19mpg around town and 22-23, twice 25 on the road.

    If you can beat the value for that price, buy it!

    HECK I paid $18,600 for my 94 Intrepid new!

    I cannot complain yet.

    The F150 is more expensive and will not fit in my garage, too long. When I build on my property in So. Colo, maybe I will.

    By they way, I have an Uncle that has farmed in PA since the 40's. The only truck he buys is Ford F150s and the big one for hauling hay etc. He must have had 15-20 of them. He loves Ford trucks.
  • sushisushi Member Posts: 99
    I paid $16700 Canadian for my B4000. Tinted same as XLT except no A/C, and no power group. I got the bedline for $300 Canadian. All brand new. I think I got a good deal.
    To me, this is the most practical truck I have ever sat it.
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    sushi:
    You raise a good point. I can and have had two in the front and one in the back riding in my truck with luggage in behind the driver. The Tacoma has less room in the back and i think the seets face forward. Not viable for my needs.

    I like you want something that gets me where I wanna go and is reasonable. I posted the Consumer Reports webb page so people, for $2.95 can see for themselves the Ranger was check rated many many years in a row as a "Best Buy" i.i value for your money. It's ratings on all areas that CR rates cooling, electrical, integrity, etc are CONSISTAINTLY equal to the Tacoma.

    I paid $17,300 vehicle cost for a 99 nice, not fully equiped XLT 4X4, added skids myself for $130 and change, spray liner (the ONLY way to go. Try Ameriguard vs Rino Lining) and $65 for a bug screen and I have a nice looking unit that goes where I want rather nicely. Gonna add a bed cover for $169. So lets see, total before tax and license that is $18,014, roughly 19K with tax and license. I get 18-19mpg around town and 22-23, twice 25 on the road.

    If you can beat the value for that price, buy it!

    HECK I paid $18,600 for my 94 Intrepid new!

    I cannot complain yet.

    The F150 is more expensive and will not fit in my garage, too long. When I build on my property in So. Colo, maybe I will.

    By they way, I have an Uncle that has farmed in PA since the 40's. The only truck he buys is Ford F150s and the big one for hauling hay etc. He must have had 15-20 of them. He loves Ford trucks.
  • spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    Ranger results:


    Following in the footsteps of its close relative, the '98 Ranger adopted many of the mechanical modifications incorporated into the Explorer two years earlier. Among the biggest changes include an entirely new double A-arm front suspension with light-duty torsion bars. The new IFS, combined with an all-new rack-and-pinion steering setup (which offers its own steering fluid cooler), won high praises from our testers over our 800-mile test. Specifically, the Ranger scor ed well in Highway Performance categories that centered around maneuverability and long-distance cruising. Testers noted the new steering proved especially quick to react in tight-chicane situations. No doubt about it: This new Ranger out-handles, out-ste ers and out-corners any Ranger before. By a mile.



    We would characterize the drivetrain, specifically the transmission, as biased for highway performance as well. All 4.0-liter Rangers (and Mazdas, for that matter) ordered without the manual tranny get the first five-speed automatic transmission offer ed for any pickup. Our testers split over the need and/or usefulness of a mileage-biased transmission geared for empty-load flatland running. Those in favor noted the nearly seamless transitions from one gear to the next, and how the transmission itself c ould, if the vehicle was driven right--no jackrabbit leadfoot starts--tack on another 50,000 miles of life to the engine.

    On the trail, we found the automatic transmission to be a double-edged sword. The smoothness of the First-to-Second shift, combined with the inherent low-end grunt of the engine, was almost enough to overcome the taller gearing. And in the end, voting followed individual preferences for manuals versus automatics. Two testers noted both the manual transmissions (Mazda and Toyota) felt more "in control" on the twisty low-range trails of Truckhaven, where face-down compression braking was very helpful o n steep-trail crawling. In low-range, our automatic Ranger offered a rather delicate 22.8:1 crawl ratio (First x axle gear x low-range); the Mazda and Toyota offered 34.4:1 and 40.4:1 gearing, respectively.



    Likewise, where the stiffened front suspension cleanly handled all paved-road obstacles thrown in its path, the Ford IFS had trouble keeping up with the broken terrain of dry washes, hill climbs, and washboards. Admittedly, it is a rare vehicle that c an manage all the extremes with equal aplomb, but several testers commented that the Ford liked to spring a little bit quicker (and hop higher) off the rolling whoop-de-doos. For the most part, we found the sacrificed off-highway capability to be greater than the gained on-highway performance, and for that reason it didn't score well in the parts of our test that are most heavily-weighted; however, that isn't to say testers weren't squabbling among themselves to get into the Ranger for the highway drives up the mountain.

    Finally, testers showed their traditional colors by not favoring the dash-mounted rotary dial ("looks a lot like an A/C control--and no Neutral") of the Borg-Warner 44-05 electronic transfer case. The 44-05 never gave us a lick of trouble--we submerge d the gearboxes under freezing water, as well as subjecting them to high-heat, dust-blasted wash runs--and by going to a dial, floor space opens up, but our scorers' preference is for a lever-actuated system, or anything with a Neutral position, regardles s of the floor space it takes up.

    Like any good four wheeler, we found the Ford Ranger could do several things quite well, scoring highly in On-Road Ride and Handling and Interior Comfort. To us, the new Ranger is a nice-looking, comfortable truck that is easy to drive and easy to own . And it's made in plants with a reputation for quality. But the Pickup Truck of the Year has to do it all pretty damn well, and it has to be great off-highway. And so we introduce our 1998 winner.




    Copyright © 1999 Petersen Publishing L.L.C. All rights reserved.
  • spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    Toyota Tacoma Results:

    WINNER: TOYOTA TACOMA TRD




    Although the compact Tacoma XtraCab itself is not completely new, the Toyota Racing Development (TRD) suspension and locking rear differential package is. The TRD Off-Road Package offers oversized fender flares, alloy wheels, 31-inch tires, Bilstein shocks, slightly softer spring rates, and an electromechanical, button-actuated rear locking differential, all for $1,690.

    Our Surfside Green test unit came with the 3.4-liter, dual-overhead cam, 24-valve engine and five-speed manual transmission. The Tacoma came factory-equipped with the lowest axle gears of the test: 4.10:1. It was this combination of excellent gearing (First gear for the factory five-speed is 3.83:1) that made testers comment about how readily the Tacoma jumped off the line. In fact, during track testing, the Tacoma was substantially faster than the others, both loaded and unloaded (see page 30). Tract ion came courtesy of a more aggressive tread in the 31x10.50 Goodyear Wrangler three-stage GSA. We found it supplied surprisingly good cornering power on pavement, with plenty of potential for aired-down trail running.
    As well as the Tacoma performed on the track, it was on the trail where the premium import seemed most comfortable. Best-in-class ground clearance, the most aggressive tread of the bunch, and a crawl ratio of better than 40:1 made the Tacoma everyone' s choice for hill climbs and steep backside descents. Even our resident auto-tranny diehards had to admit that the lively throttle response, sure-grip clutch, and built-to-work gearing meshed together as well as any championship-caliber team. In each perf ormance-related category of our test, the Toyota won.





    It's not often that our collection of testers agree on anything (in fact, never), but this year's Pickup Truck of the Year was a unanimous decision. Praises relating to the TRD suspension mentioned its ability to control rutted, seriously choppy terra in better than any other vehicle we'd driven. One tester went so far as to note that during a few moments of an effortless dry-wash run, it seemed the spirit of Ivan Stewart had taken over his body. This is a truck that can go slow or go fast, on pavement or off.

    Ultimately, in addition to a strong engine, good tires, and supremely tuned suspension, the clutch defeat switch (the only one in a truck sold in the US.), lever-operated transfer case, and pushbutton locking rear differential were the icing on a toug h-truck cake. Although you have to pay a premium for a premium package, the TRD Tacoma, dollar for dollar, is the best on- and off-highway compact package (maybe of any truck) we've seen. This truck has features the others just don't offer, and they all w ork. And that's why it's our 1998 Pickup Truck of the Year.
  • spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    This URL is for the 4 wheeler mag webisite that
    contains the technical details, specifications, and accolades for the
    this Ranger vs. Mazda b200 vs. Tacoma comparison.
    Note: 4 wheeler mags tests are very harsh, they even freeze w and burn mechanical components. Check the accolade section for details.

    Im sure many of you will find this info very helpful. It's interesting to note that the Tacoma
    beat the Ranger in every single performance test.
    And that even though the Tacoma is more expensive,
    4 wheeler called it : " the best compact truck package(or maybe any truck) dollar for dollar."


    Hey HOLLYWOOD:

    is that petersons "downnsized comparison" on the web or in paper? Thanks, and what month/year?
  • spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    Also check out the great photos they have of the brakes, suspension, diffs, and engines.
  • f220swiftf220swift Member Posts: 103
    Sorry, I at one time owned a ranger with a 4.0L and it was a great truck. However, since owning a full size truck I have never looked back. If anyone is going to buy small I would recommend the 4.0L.
  • trenttrent Member Posts: 86
    Since the 4 wheeler specs for the ranger specify a 3:73 rear end does this mean they did not test a Ranger with the off road package, or is the 4:10 rear end new for 99?
  • sushisushi Member Posts: 99
    Hey Spoog, post that stuff in Ranger vs. Tacoma. That's where I would read about it.
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    Spoog is not for real. He doesn't even own the the Tacoma TRD with supercharger he spouts off about.
    He is the type of person who wants to only read his facts/sites/reviews that favor the truck he likes.
    I have thrown fact after fact and he doesn't pay attention. I have never said the Ranger is the better truck, only that they are more equal than some want to believe.
    He spouts Tacoma's 190 HP/220ftlbs of torque. But when I say, ok buy you have to reach 4800 rpms to reach the 190HP and 220ftlbs of torque, vs the 3980 rpms it takes to reach the Rangers 225ft/lbs of torque. Others have thrown facts at him also, and he doesn't listen.
    We all know we drive the better value truck, be it a Mazda or Ranger. The Ranger itself outsells the Tacoma 4 to 1, not even including Mazda sales. The Ranger has been in the top sales for 10 years now, why isn't the Tacoma? If the Tacoma were so superior why aren't the numbers reversed by now? After 10 years I believe people would have found the "better value" by now.
    I have 31" tires on my Ranger and it rides pretty nice. Although with the stock tires it did ride a little nicer. I am not a heavy duty offroader. If I were I would not have bought a pickup. True offroaders use Jeeps and vehicles in which the weight ratio is divided over each axle. I do however use the logging roads/forest roads in the Cascade mountains to find fishing spots/camping spots. I use my 4x4 and the Ranger has never let me down. I don't need a locker, for 1000 - 1500 I could have one put on and still come out ahead of a Tacoma TRD. I paid 19.6K for a loaded XLT Ranger 4.0 5spd. I ordered it from the factory. I know the Tacoma is more, I priced them option for option.
    I have gone up against a Tacoma TRD in the Cascade mountains. A co-worker has one and he loves it. He was like spoog/hindsite, very anti Ranger. After showing him I could do anything he could, he changed his tune. Although, he still would have opted for his Tacoma.
    See ya in the hills!
  • hindsitehindsite Member Posts: 590
    Vince,
    Kinda of funny since I own a 4x4 94 F150. When your posting a message unless you know for sure what my feelings are for the Ranger don't post it. If you are going to post something post it in the F-150 Owners / Tacoma VS Ranger topic and not in the Ford Ranger topic.

    Would you like to hear me say that the Ranger is number one in the compact truck market is number one. Okay the Ranger is number one in off roading. Happy now? See I don't really care about number one, because bottom line is what suits me.

    One more thing if you do reply don't call me names like you have. I haven't and you should have more civility.
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    Spoog:
    Thanks for the posts.

    Ranger owners, listen up. The Chief is speaking. If you EVER doubt the perfomance of a Ranger, read on. . .

    I took my stock '99 XLT SuperCab, 4.0 V6, 3.73 rearend, non-off-road optioned (I did however add skidplates myself for abouot $130) fully over Medano Pass in the Sangre de Cristo wilderness. You will not find it on the main maps. It rises to just under 10,000 feet and it is a road that makes Rollins Pass, an old railroad bed from the 20'-30s look like an interstate. In the space of 25 miles I went from steep 45degree climbs coupled with around 180degree swithch backs, holes like you would not believe, mud pits on 40degree slopes, 10 river crossings with 2 up to the bumper, one area I had to be guided between trees, with an ending in the Great Sand Dunes National Park. Steep slopes, switchbacks, rocks, water, mud, soft sand, THE WHOLE NINE YARDS! My wife's comments is that I wanted a divorce, I went crazy and wanted to kill her and wreck the truck.

    The Ranger took it and asked for more.

    I saw many Jeeps, a few F150's, 1 S10, 1 Dodge Ram, a few Suburbans and one bad a** Ranger, mine. I have heard here that mine would overheat running the air at altitude. Ha! Air was on all the way.

    I will post the pictures to prove it on my webb site in about a week:
    http://members.aol.com/cpousnr

    Impressive performance, accelerated like a champ on the 45 degree areas in excess of 9,000ft elevation, and for the whole 432 mile trip I estimate I used 25 gallons of fuel, somewhere around 18 mpg.

    In the words of Dirty Harry, "A man has to know his limitations" I have not found it yet in my Ranger.

    In a week go to my site and "Read em and weep."

    BUILT FORD TOUGH! Darn right!
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    Trent:
    I asked the same question on the rear end of the ranger. I will email the 4 wheeler mag to ask the same question.
  • spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    Wow. Your Ranger sounds like it did pretty
    good in the near arid region of the Christos.
    It's really not to wet over there is it?
    From what I recall, the roads and 4x4 trails are pretty well maintained over there. Not to much mud or swamp either to test out.


    If it is buil Ford "tough" , why has the Ranger had 44 recalls since 89-99? Just asking.......
  • sushisushi Member Posts: 99
    That is about all the 4x4 off-roading I will ever do, and the price is right!
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    Spoog:
    Truce!

    The mud was on the west side where the river crossing was the worst. Wet roads but not deep mud but in a few spots. Lots of loose dirt combined with rocks and still some downed small trees to cross. Mainly lots of rocks, very deep ruts/holes switchback and steep climbing which I would estimate at 45 deg or so with a 100-200 yard duration. My wife almost peed her pants on those spots.

    Total fuel used: 21.5 gal.
    Total miles run: 457.5 {yeah there was interstate but I was going 75-80 to get home before midnight)
    total mgp : 21.3

    Where I had the worst problem was soft sand. The sign said "lower pressure 15lb" and I did not. It went thu ok but did bog cause I was dragin the rear end. Could have used your clearance on the TRD!

    I dont know if I would get into mud running. I certainly would jack that Ranger up if I did and have a different tire. Do you think the type of shocks you have would help?
  • sushisushi Member Posts: 99
    Does anyone know where I could getr Canadian Invoice prices for the Ford, Mazda and Tacoma?
  • trenttrent Member Posts: 86
    cpousnr, you must be pretty light on the gas pedal due to your good mileage figures. With mileage a factor in my purchase I'm glad to hear someone gets above EPA estimate. I hate the thought of buying a new truck that gets worse mileage than my old one. I am looking at the 4.0 with 4:10 limited slip rear end and a 5 spd auto. Hope it gets as good a mileage as yours.
  • sushisushi Member Posts: 99
    What kind of after-makret things would void my factory warranty?
This discussion has been closed.