Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Ford Ranger III
This discussion has been closed.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Comment: Replacing the original Firestone Wilderness HT's with Michelin LTX M+S tires gave us a noticeable improvement in both ride and handling precision.
Question: I would appreciate a shock absorber recommendation. I want improved control (the originals are beginning to allow too much heaving on bumnps) and an increase (or at least no significant decrease) in ride quality. Oops-- just noticed post 946... but further info./opinion would be welcome
Thanks in advance for comments/suggestions.
Do you really need new shocks at 14,000 miles?
If so, most of the gung-ho Ranger addicts recommend Blienstin (sp). I bet one will cost what all 4 of my Monroe cost. Or, they also talk about the Ranchero 5000. Think that is the model number.
Is it possible fuel filters are like what I've heard about new air filters in that it needs to get slightly clogged to be its most efficient? Can I expect maybe once the new Pep Boys filter is broken in that my mileage will go back up? OR should I take it out and get one from the dealer?
2x4 Supercab. It turn 241,000 miles last week. It blew a timing belt so now I'm thinking it's a signal to go shopping. Thinking of maybe upsizing to a F150....however this Ranger has been so good
hard to decide. Got 103,000 mi on the first set of Firestone tires (on the 3rd set now),still has the original everthing water pump,alternator,clutch etc. except of course, timing belt serpentine belt, plugs. Diff. bearings got noisy about 150,000 mi. so had all replaced, and changed the shocks to Monroe gas shocks....OK, but definitely a harder ride.
Anyway that's a testimonial to the Ranger. I've had many new cars thru the years, this is the first new PU and it's been great. Surprising the durability of the 4 banger.
70% of the miles were Calif. mountains and freeway.
But now I have a '03 3.0l regular cab with manaul. $2,000 dollar rebate off invoice was too much to resist, although I would love to see what the next remodel brings us.
Eharri--->Could be that, your intank filter, or maybe just a bad filter.
DC
I owe less on my 2003 Ranger than my girlfriend owe's on her 2001 accord.
I prefer to skip the 4x4 to keep things simple and cheaper. Also I have heard and read that steering and handling are not as good w/ 4x4. Thanks in advance.
I didn't have the need for a 4x4 as I am not an off-roading type of guy. The edge package does have a 4x4 suspension, so I don't imagine there is a whole lot of difference in handling in my 4x2. A 4x4 would probably only add a bit more weight up front, and would only really handle differently if the transfer case was engaged. Insurance is also much cheaper on a 4x2.
I got the limited slip so I would not have to worry when I do go on a few country dirt roads, or out camping. I have yet to experience any wheel slip, but it's good to know the limited slip is there in case I do hit some mud or ice that I wasn't expecting. For $295.00 dollar upgrade it should be well worth it. Just have it added to the bill of sale so you shouldn't have to pay for installation labor, etc.
Another advantage with the limited slip is that it is always "on", or ready to engage. No buttons to hit. It is also better than lockers or 4x4 systems in that a limited slip will have no affect on turning or cornering ability. Definitely worth the small price you pay for it.
One small note, I love my 3.0l stick in the regular cab 4x2. Plenty of power, however highway gas economy suffers a little with the 4.10's in the rear. I would go with 3.73's(or whatever equivalent there is) for a little lower rpm's while cruising. But if I had to tow, the 4.10's would definitely make it easy to get a load moving.
As for the final drive ratio, I was under the impression that the edge only came with 4.10, vs 3.73 in the XLT. If I had my choice I would be inclined to go with the 3.73. I don't plan on towing and am looking for a relatively relaxed highway ride.
I prefer the higher stance of the edge along with the vinyl flooring.
One item to note, my 2003 Edge is quieter on the highway than my girlfriends 2001 Accord EX. The wind and road noise is much better insulated in my truck. She gets better gas milage (4 cylinder Honda), but I can go places she can't... Had to get step bars so she could easily get in the cab, but when comparing the Rangers on the lot, I had to get the extra ride height. I love my truck, and will definitely enjoy it for a long while.
How about any other performance parts? Chips, air intake, etc? My main goal is to increase power to help out gas economy. As much as a catch 22 that is, I do admit I enjoy a little lead foot action here and there.
Your comments on highway ride quality are greatly appreciated. I need to check out the rpm vs mph numbers on the automatic.
http://www.rangerpowersports.com/features/svt/2.shtml
Regards to all truck loving perple,
Andy
midnight_stang Jan 29, 2003 9:26am
380hp/450lb.ft should be pretty mean in a regular cab ranger!
Dont like how much of a pain it can be to get on when it's cold outside and the canvas shrinks. Sometimes my fingers and palms will get blistered from the effort and I might only be able to manage a few every hours before I get tired from all that pulling and I have to take a rest. That's a problem youll have with pretty much any soft cover. Mine is a quality product, but I just dont like the general charactaristics of soft covers anymore other than low price.
If I had it to do again, I'd buy a hard cover. Reason 1: They lock. Reason 2: They lock. and Reason 3: Did I mention they provide locking storage? It may seem like a pain to part with the extra cash for a hard cover. But believe me, on those long trips where you can stop over in a motel without having to lug all luggage in your truck bed into your room and then load it back in the next morning, you will most certainly thank yourself for having bought something that provides a secure bed.
IF the Ranger is your primary means of transportation, you will thank yourself later for getting the hard cover.
2)what kind of gas mileage does the 4.0L 4x4, 4.10 rear get? I do alot of highway driving at 70-80 mph.
Overall is everyone happy with their Rangers I had a lemon 1999 and swore off fords forever but 0% and a friend in the biz is luring me back. Thanks
I have found the EPA estimates to be pretty accurate on this truck, but wind makes a big difference. The best I ever got was a tad over 20 MPG but I only got that on one round-trip. Going into a stiff headwind, I have gotten as low as 16.5 on the same trip. Around 18 or 19 is about what I average for highway driving. It goes down if I spend much time in stop and go traffic.
If MPG is what one nedds, AVOID a truck altogether.
Also, some of these motors will get a "marbling" sound, especially at idle when cold, that is most likely carbon buildup around the piston skirt area (so the theory goes).
My 4.0 does it, and has for a long while. It goes away when hot. I don't worry about it anymore. I am just thankful that it runs ! ;-)
I own a 2003 3.0l reg cab 4x2, and when I drive I rarely have to go past 3000 rpm.(and usually only in first gear). I am not a slowpoke either! Best thing to do is test drive both, and I am sure you will see what I mean. In a regular cab, the 3.0l rocks!
Also, the 3.0l don't ping anymore for 2003 and maybe even 2002.
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.
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.
;-)
Price 18,442
NY tax 1521 (8 1/4%)
Reg/Title 125 (2 yr registration)
doc fee 148
20,236
rebate 2,500
TOTAL 17,736
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.
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!
Thanks, Ron
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
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.
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.
http://www.cardomain.com/id/2k3edge
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.
Ron
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)