Locki99, the same can be said for yourself. My opinions don't count because I have owned Fords that have had great reliability/quality. Did you visit www.rangerstation.com and see all the Ranger owners/sites that are satisified and have 100, 200K+ miles on them?
My new 2000 ranger 5 speed will klunk during acceleration and deaccelartion , this does not appear normal. 2.5 swb. Does anyone have this happening. The dealer says its normal, I don't believe it. e-mail mphvyh@bellatlantic.net
Oh damn, your right! I haven't been to this site in a while and it must have changed somehow?! What the?!! I will have to remove this one from my favorites now and try to track it down. OOPS
No, yours and everyones opinion is valued and if you have had issues, yes, post.
I have had no real issues so far with my 99 4.0L. I do recommend that a person changes to synthetic after maybe 10K. My engine is running real good at 25K. No vibration or real noise that I would complain about. I have had an intermittent reoccurance of the wipers coming on by themselves and will get that redone in short order. The only other thing was a drivers side door switch, the door ajar and dome light remained on.
I would like to know about the scorpions too. They are not a 3ply sidewall but the tread looks fairly good. For your purposes in AZ, if you do not do any heavy 4 wheeling they should do fine.
BTW, when you come to Westcliffe, do you come thru 4 corners or up I25 from NM? If you come the former, I have a cutoff that should save you maybe 40 miles. It is off LaVeta pass, 2 miles before the summit.
Seriously sorry you have had issues with Ford. It looks like you gave them a 2nd try. The new Consumer Reports still rates the Ranger well. It is based on their independent tests and also the inputs from owners experiences. The April issue of 2000 lists the soft areas for Ranger in electical and suspension, the swithes I have had go bad and I assume the squeaky springs and perhaps my issues with shocks, stock, that are not the best. I will replace my shocks with Rancho's when I get the time. Also maked down, but in all cases a half red circle, not real bad, is integrity and hardware. Otherwise, the ratings are identical to Tacoma, which is regarded as a very high quality vehicle.
CR rates the 95, as very bad for electrical problems. The engine for that year is rated half red circle and for the 98/99 a full red circle which is the best rating. You had a 95 right?
Again, sorry for you trouble with Ranges, but you are doing what I would do. Fool me twice, shame on me. Now I had issues with the quality of the 81 Toyota truck I bought and that was the LAST Toyota I bought new. They would not stand behind the product, 2 dealers one in Colo and one in Calif. so I just chose not to buy thier product.
So I understand where you are coming from having been there. And perhaps it is fair to say that the crap shoot of buying a vehicle is not in the favor of Ford, however the price and terms may, in many peoples minds, make up the difference.
Seriously sorry you have had issues with Ford. It looks like you gave them a 2nd try. The new Consumer Reports still rates the Ranger well. It is based on their independent tests and also the inputs from owners experiences. The April issue of 2000 lists the soft areas for Ranger in electrical and suspension, the switches I have had go bad and I assume the squeaky springs and perhaps my issues with shocks, stock, that are not the best. I will replace my shocks with Rancho's when I get the time. Also marked down, but in all cases a half red circle, not real bad, is integrity and hardware. Otherwise, the ratings are identical to Tacoma, which is regarded as a very high quality vehicle.
CR rates the 95, as very bad for electrical problems. The engine for that year is rated half red circle and for the 98/99 a full red circle which is the best rating. You had a 95 right?
Again, sorry for you trouble with Ranges, but you are doing what I would do. Fool me twice, shame on me. Now I had issues with the quality of the 81 Toyota truck I bought and that was the LAST Toyota I bought new. They would not stand behind the product, 2 dealers one in Colo and one in Calif. so I just chose not to buy their product.
So I understand where you are coming from having been there. And perhaps it is fair to say that the crap shoot of buying a vehicle is not in the favor of Ford, however the price and terms may, in many peoples minds, make up the difference.
Latest word is that the 2001 Ranger will feature the current OHV 3.0L V6, the +200HP 4.0L SOHC V6, and a new 2.3 OHC I4. Check out http://www.blueovalnews.com for the latest.
I have driven both routes from Tucson to Westcliffe. I have found that the simplest way for me to get up there is straight up I-25 to Walsenburg, then hiway 69 over to the Wet Mnt Valley. Is the shortcut you are referring to the Pass Creek Pass route from 160 over to Gardner? Still investigating tires for replacing the Firestone's. I might go with the Scorpions, not sure yet. It's starting to look like July1-16 for my trip up there. Looking forward to it...
I looked at 2000 year Rangers today. Test drove a 2.5L XL Reg cab w/ automatic and a 3.0L Supercab XLT w/automatic.
Price difference between the vehicles is $3500 to $4000. Is it worth the extra money for the 3.0L supercab? I will drive this vehicle til it falls apart, so trade in value is meaningless to me.
Both trucks seemed to have about the same acceleration, both handled the same except the supercab had a little bit better ride.
Will appreciate any comments and advice from ranger owners.
I looked at 2000 year Rangers today. Test drove a 2.5L XL Reg cab w/ automatic and a 3.0L Supercab XLT w/automatic.
Price difference between the vehicles is $3500 to $4000. Is it worth the extra money for the 3.0L supercab? I will drive this vehicle til it falls apart, so trade in value is meaningless to me.
Both trucks seemed to have about the same acceleration, both handled the same except the supercab had a little bit better ride.
Will appreciate any comments and advice from ranger owners.
I also am seriously considering a new Ranger. I haven't test driven yet but I know I want a manual shift. I am leaning towards the 2.5 for fuel mileage and price reasons and also because of the post I have read about the loud noise that develops in the 3.0 and 4.0 engines. Does this noise also appy to the 2.5 does anyone know?
I ran into a flock of 10 wild turkey there last weekend. They scattered before I could get the camera out.
I learned more about the Scorpions. They have a great tread pattern and drive well. The main difference in a BFG is the lugs go out more to the side giving almost a side lug performance. Good for gripping rocks. That and the 3 ply sidewall, a bit better protection against rocks and the bead protection ring. Also, the BFG tread pattern seems to be a bit wider, maybe due to the lugs. I think the Scorpion is a better all around tread.
Mine is kinda quiet. Synthetic oil must help. Been running it for over 10,000 miles.
In regard to what I am hearing on engines, all I can say is I work with a guy that has a 96 4.0 with 70K on it and another that has a 99 4.0 with 9K and my 99 has 25.5K. None of us have had problems with the engines. Consumer Reports ratings from users of the products DO NOT indicate any serious problems being reported. The WORST it gets for engine mechanical is an "average" in 1992.
I do not DOUBT that there may be problems in SOME engines on the Ranger, however, I do not personally KNOW anyone who has a problem and the independent sources I use do not REPORT problems like I have heard are in the engines.
The super cab rides better perhaps because of the wheel base. Resale value is with the supercab.
My son runs with a guy that has an 88 Ranger with a 2.9 v6, 166+K miles and I saw the pictures when he was pulling a Bronco off a hill. His 2.9 uses oil but still runs stong.
When I mentioned the v6 engine noise I was mainly referring to the posts where people had reported loud noises that sound either like a "diesel engine" or like the engine was "knocking." I'm glad to hear that, for the most part Rangers have been trouble free, because I really would like one. I agree synthetic oil is the way to go. Should you start that at your first oil change or wait until the motor is broken in?
I have HEARD that the newer engines do not need a break in period. But I am a bit older than a great deal of the posters and having grown up in the 60-70's prefer to break in an engine first. I did it for my 15,000 mile service time frame.
I do not know what to say regarding posts on engine problems. All I can say is a major source I use, Consumer Reports, does not report any major problems and it is in part based on subscriber inputs (maybe 6 Million subscribers), people that use the products rated and their own testing. They keep a vehicle 6 months and run all vehicles over the same tracks for testing. Did they test every engine in a vehicle line? No. But I still respect their opinion.
I would add to my personal knowledge a Mazda owner down the street with a 97 3.0L engine. No engine problems either.
About the only thing I have experienced or have 2nd hand knowledge (I talked with other owners in person) is the wiper issue, the door chime issue and squeaky springs. Spray on grease corrected the springs.
I will say this about the 4X4's. As I understand it the new Pulse Vacuum hubs have performed flawless. I speak of the hubs because they are not the old autohubs. Anybody with the old autohubs should change to manual hubs at a cost of maybe $200-250. It is just neat a heck to be driving, see a muddy or icy patch on a hill, flip a switch and your in 4 wheel drive high.
Basically, get the 3.0 if you're going to be doing much towing/hauling/offroading. The 2.5 is a decent engine, but it doesn't have the torque to let you haul/tow much. It does get better MPG, definitely a consideration these days!
A 2.5L automatic regular-cab 2WD is rated to tow about 2200 lb; a 3.0L auto supercab 2WD about 3960lb.
Let us know which one you get. I'm trading in my old 1985 Ranger this year, so I'm interested in the experiences of all new owners.
It is, BY FAR, the BEST source for Ranger information. You can get to boards to discuss ANY Ranger topic. 4X4, engines, suspension, driveline, you name it it is there and some of the most informative people you can meet.
I've just purchased a 3.0 auto to replace my 2.5 auto. In years past I had a 3.0 auto as well. My new 3.0 doesn't seem to have as much pickup as that first 3.0 (but maybe that's my fading memory). It does, however, do much better on the interstate. With my old 2.5, even a slight hill on the interstate was a real strain. I ended up frustrated and tired. The new 3.0 doesn't accelerate nearly as fast as my wife's Accord, but I'm much more comfortable driving it. I'm glad I got it.
I own a new Ranger Supercab XLT 3.0 Auto. I hate to say it but I would never buy another ford. I had a 98 Toyota XCAB SR5 and sold it so I could buy a Ranger. I love driving the Ranger, however it has been in service Dept. 9 times. The Tacoma was never back to the dealer ever. Beware of buying a Ranger.
Hate to hear you're making trips back to the dealer with a 2000 model Ranger. Maybe you could try another dealer it you're having a reoccurring problem. I have a 99 Ranger that has not had any problems at all so I don't have any dealer experience to date. So far it's been a great truck.
Myself,I don't plan to do much hauling and no towing. I am mainly looking for a commuter vehicle so probably will go with the 2.5 but with a manual gearbox. To all recent buyer, I would very much like to know how your dealer experience was when buying the vehicle. Since the Ranger is so popular, are they more unwilling to negotiate a good price? What should I expect to pay for a base model? Near MSRP or near invoice?
I have a 98 ranger with the 2.5L engine. With less than 30,000 mile on the truck the processor went bad. Now with 66,000 the truck is starting to miss like when the processor went bad, I'm just curious if anyone else has had problems with the proceesor or the 2.5L engine.
It would almost seem like you have something else in the circuit of the computer that is taking it out around 30-40K.
Did you try a tune? EGR valve giving noise? Replace plug wires(their good for maybe 40-50K)? Replace Cap and rotor if they are equipped with them? Replace fuel filter(good for 30-40K)? Time engine? Could also be intermittent fuel pump. Try a can of HEET incase you got some bad gas?
I think your best shot may be that board URL, very keen people over there.
Anybody know anything about the Sohc. I know it generates around 200h.p. and about 240torque so it looks pretty good to me. I am going to buy a new pickup next year and this one appeals to me. What's the gas mileage like? Reliability? Does it have the pinging problems? and how about wieght compared with the current 4.0?
I've tried buying 3 Rangers at my local dealer. Each time, they were 1500-2000 over the dealer 10 miles away. I have paid invoice each time, and I keep any rebates. It has really been pretty easy; I wait until there is a significant rebate (I'm assuming that means that sales are slower than usual), I buy vehicles in the dead of winter and I walk in and offer invoice and kind of wave around the pages I download from Edmunds. I don't pay any other fees (documentation, etc.). My last purchase took about 10 minutes to make the deal. The only real question is what my used vehicle is worth; I've found that telling them what I want (again from Edmunds) seems to increase their offer.
My local dealer was willing to sell at "invoice" with an additional $89 documentation fee and $250 lot fee (the salesperson had a difficult time explaining that one!). I've saved lots by driving a couple of miles down the road. I've bought 1 Honda and 2 Mazda's using the same procedure over the last 10 years.
My 2000 Ranger 3.0 automatic gets 21 mpg highway (at about 75-80 mph); It gets about 19 city. I've spent about $350 total on repairs (other than tires, wipers, brakes) to 3 Rangers since 1990. The Ranger has been very good for me!
My local dealer included an advertising fee as part of his $250 "lot fee" but the dealer that I have been buying Rangers from doesn't try to tack on any additional costs. It's just the truck, tax and license.
Hey Ranger Owners - this should make you feel good. The latest 2000 Consumer Reports Reliability Ranking ranks the Ranger (and I quote) "Worse Than Average". In fact, only two trucks ranked in the "Above Average" category for reliability. Tacoma and Frontier!! And before you go spouting off about how it's a biased ranking you'd better think again. The results are taken from surveys by actual owners. That's right - Ranger owners ranked their own trucks "WORSE THAN AVERAGE"
Go to www.carpoint.msn.com and visit the reliability section. It has data that contradicts Consumer reports. Consumer reports is known throughout the auto industry for being bias against domestics. Some items are ok on imports bet get bashed when the same item is found on a domestic. The Ranger is extremely reliable, and compare it agains Toyota's of pre Tacoma years and even Nissan.
I own a new Ranger and I agree that the reliability issue is real. I had a 98 Tacoma and never had a problem. It hurts to say it but the Toyota in my experience is more reliable.
I have a 99 Ranger SC 4.0, I've had it in twice, once for the Wacky Wipers and once for a slight brake pull. Other than that it has been great, bought it in August and now have 11,500 mile on it. My dad has an 86 with 120,000 miles and only one time in the shop for some transmission trouble (under warranty). He is picking up his 2000 on Monday, and still keeping the 86.
As for the Tacoma, you may have had good experience with it but I have a co-worker who has seen just the opposite. His Tacoma ate a timing belt @ 60,000 or so miles, and getting that fixed just brought on more related problems.
I'm not going to tell you one truck is better than the other. Lets face it they are both built by people who on any given day don't want to be at there job and don't put the quality into the vehicles they are working on.
On the gas mileage subject, I am getting about 17mpg now. Was about 15mpg until about 10,500 and then just went up to 17. Anybody seen any better out of a 4.0 5spd Auto with the OffRoad pkg?
I don't own a Ranger or a Tacoma so am not biased either way. But since the subject came up--here are the reviews given for the Ranger and the Tacoma in the Consumer Reports 2000 auto issue.
Ranger:
"The Ranger and similar Mazda B series are the best overall among compact pickups. But neither lets you forget you are driving a truck. Handling is good and the ride is stiff...Reliability has improved to average for all versions."
Tacoma:
"This unimpressive small truck sticks out conspicuously in Toyota's otherwise excellent product line. Handling is unimpressive and the ride is choppy and uncomfortable...Three good points: The optional 3.4 liter v6 is responsive, the controls and displays are excellent and the Tacoma is a very reliable workhorse."
I really love driving the Ranger there is no comparison between the two trucks as far as that is concerned. If I can keep it out of the shop I would be pleased with it. My problem is a slight brake pull to the left, it has been in to ford 9 times for a total of 21 days since Nov. They are setting me up with an engineer from ford. What was the pulling problem with your truck?
My truck was in with only a couple thousand miles for the break pull. They claimed it was a rotor problem (I'm not sure I believe it) and re-surfaced the rotors. It seemed to help. It will still pull only slightly to the left under really light breaking. Under hard breaking it is straight. Let me know what you find out. I am going to try to get mine in this week before 12,000 so they can check the alignment. Figured I should get it checked and let them realign it under warranty if necessary.
I read on the carpoint site that insurance rates for a Ford Ranger are very expensive, sometimes even double that of a passenger car. Is this true or not in anyone else's experience. Please let me know. I live in New Jersey where insurance is already outrageous so this is an important issue for me
Funny you should mention the brake pulling because my 98 Ranger XLT 3.0L was in the shop last week for the front brakes. So this may help out in you problems. To start with I was getting a high pitch whistle that sounded like a vacuum leak and a slight pulling to the drivers side. Well they replaced both calipers and pads ( the drivers side was really sticking badly and they turned the rotors which were still in good condition. But it was still pulling to the left. They thought then it might be the ABS module because there was a slight pulsation in the pedal, it tested ok. Then they swapped rotors and bingo the truck pulled to the right. So they repaced the rotors. All this was covered under warranty. Now I'm a happy camper. Have your service people check the rotors the brake tech mentioned that he's seeing more of this. Funny that even after turning they created a problem.
FredFred3 asked what people were paying for their Rangers. We shopped a couple of weeks ago and found dealers eager to sell near invoice price. We couldn't find an exact match on a local lot (hubby wanted bucket seat and stickshift) so we ended up special ordering. Current rebates will expire before we take delivery, but our dealer went ahead and committed to take $1,000 off even if there is no rebate in effect at delivery time. If there is more than $1,000 rebate in effect when we take possession, we'll get the additional savings. We payed more than $900 UNDER INVOICE for a factory ordered 3.0 manual supercab XLT 4x4 with the off-road package, bucket seats, sliding window, flareside, CD & Cassette, and convenience group. Taking advantage of manufacture's discounts on equipment packages, we are paying $17805, delivered, for a vehicle with a MSRP of nearly $23,000. I've seen similarly equipped used vehicles (both '98s and '99s) with 20-odd-thousand miles advertised for more than we are paying for this new truck.
What issue are YOU reading. I HAVE the April issue of Consumer Reports in my HAND. It lists the Ranger as average in reliability and gives it a "recommended" check mark, something you will not have next to the Tacoma.
Get your facts straight before you post and make an [non-permissible content removed] out of yourself.
Remember, if you are a Tacoma owner did you MISS the reference to "...unimpressive..." next to Tacoma in the same issue of CR?
fredfred: What part of NJ. I use to live there, just curious(operative word is USE).
I pay about $800 a year in Colo but did go to higher deductable to keep the rate down a bit. Ranger 4X4, 4liter supercab.
What issue are YOU reading. I HAVE the April issue of Consumer Reports in my HAND. It lists the Ranger as average in reliability and gives it a "recommended" check mark, something you will not have next to the Tacoma.
Get your facts straight before you post and make an [non-permissible content removed] out of yourself.
Remember, if you are a Tacoma owner did you MISS the reference to "...unimpressive..." next to Tacoma in the same issue of CR?
fredfred: What part of NJ. I use to live there, just curious(operative word is USE).
I pay about $800 a year in Colo but did go to higher deductable to keep the rate down a bit. Ranger 4X4, 4liter supercab.
I pay $1 less per month on my 99 Ranger 4x4 SC 4.0 than my 98 Taurus SE(loaded) in Indiana. It ends up being about $700 a year for full coverage with $0 det. on Comp. and $100 on Collision, through State Farm.
Thanks for the info on the brake pull. My truck seems to be fine since they resurfaced the rotors. Hope devontie has some similar luck.
Someone awhile ago cited consumer reports articles decrying the Ranger's reliability. I just had a few comments in reply to that because I remember reading not to long ago a comparison of compact trucks in CR. First off, the Ranger was the top rated pickup in the comparo. 2nd, If I recalll correctly they said the Ranger's reliability was quite good. 3rd, /the ranger was rated the most comfortable to drive of all pickups. And lastly, though I don't deny Toyotas are sound mechanically, Their fit, finish, and bodys don't sem to be up to par. They mentioned the bed getting dented, dinged, and scratched way too easily when fairly light objects were thrown in. Theny mentioned poor handling and a bad ride. And I have just one mroe question: Do Toyota truck beds without liners or covers still tend to rust all the way through after only 5-10 years' exposure to the elements? Never seen any domestic do that. Guess Toyota invested so much in its engines it forgot that the rest of the truck needs to hold up well too.
Comments
www.rangerstation.com is a South Park web site.
THANKS MARK
I have had no real issues so far with my 99 4.0L. I do recommend that a person changes to synthetic after maybe 10K. My engine is running real good at 25K. No vibration or real noise that I would complain about. I have had an intermittent reoccurance of the wipers coming on by themselves and will get that redone in short order. The only other thing was a drivers side door switch, the door ajar and dome light remained on.
I would like to know about the scorpions too. They are not a 3ply sidewall but the tread looks fairly good. For your purposes in AZ, if you do not do any heavy 4 wheeling they should do fine.
BTW, when you come to Westcliffe, do you come thru 4 corners or up I25 from NM? If you come the former, I have a cutoff that should save you maybe 40 miles. It is off LaVeta pass, 2 miles before the summit.
The new Consumer Reports still rates the Ranger well. It is based on their independent tests and also the inputs from owners experiences. The April issue of 2000 lists the soft areas for Ranger in electical and suspension, the swithes I have had go bad and I assume the squeaky springs and perhaps my issues with shocks, stock, that are not the best. I will replace my shocks with Rancho's when I get the time. Also maked down, but in all cases a half red circle, not real bad, is integrity and hardware. Otherwise, the ratings are identical to Tacoma, which is regarded as a very high quality vehicle.
CR rates the 95, as very bad for electrical problems. The engine for that year is rated half red circle and for the 98/99 a full red circle which is the best rating. You had a 95 right?
Again, sorry for you trouble with Ranges, but you are doing what I would do. Fool me twice, shame on me. Now I had issues with the quality of the 81 Toyota truck I bought and that was the LAST Toyota I bought new. They would not stand behind the product, 2 dealers one in Colo and one in Calif. so I just chose not to buy thier product.
So I understand where you are coming from having been there. And perhaps it is fair to say that the crap shoot of buying a vehicle is not in the favor of Ford, however the price and terms may, in many peoples minds, make up the difference.
The new Consumer Reports still rates the Ranger well. It is based on their independent tests and also the inputs from owners experiences. The April issue of 2000 lists the soft areas for Ranger in electrical and suspension, the switches I have had go bad and I assume the squeaky springs and perhaps my issues with shocks, stock, that are not the best. I will replace my shocks with Rancho's when I get the time. Also marked down, but in all cases a half red circle, not real bad, is integrity and hardware. Otherwise, the ratings are identical to Tacoma, which is regarded as a very high quality vehicle.
CR rates the 95, as very bad for electrical problems. The engine for that year is rated half red circle and for the 98/99 a full red circle which is the best rating. You had a 95 right?
Again, sorry for you trouble with Ranges, but you are doing what I would do. Fool me twice, shame on me. Now I had issues with the quality of the 81 Toyota truck I bought and that was the LAST Toyota I bought new. They would not stand behind the product, 2 dealers one in Colo and one in Calif. so I just chose not to buy their product.
So I understand where you are coming from having been there. And perhaps it is fair to say that the crap shoot of buying a vehicle is not in the favor of Ford, however the price and terms may, in many peoples minds, make up the difference.
I too wish they'd put in the OHC 3.0L!
for me to get up there is straight up I-25 to Walsenburg, then hiway 69 over to the Wet Mnt Valley. Is the shortcut you are referring to the Pass Creek Pass route from 160 over to Gardner?
Still investigating tires for replacing the Firestone's. I might go with the Scorpions, not sure yet. It's starting to look like July1-16 for my trip up there. Looking forward to it...
Price difference between the vehicles is $3500 to $4000. Is it worth the extra money for the 3.0L supercab? I will drive this vehicle til it falls apart, so trade in value is meaningless to me.
Both trucks seemed to have about the same acceleration, both handled the same except the supercab had a little bit better ride.
Will appreciate any comments and advice from ranger owners.
Price difference between the vehicles is $3500 to $4000. Is it worth the extra money for the 3.0L supercab? I will drive this vehicle til it falls apart, so trade in value is meaningless to me.
Both trucks seemed to have about the same acceleration, both handled the same except the supercab had a little bit better ride.
Will appreciate any comments and advice from ranger owners.
I ran into a flock of 10 wild turkey there last weekend. They scattered before I could get the camera out.
I learned more about the Scorpions. They have a great tread pattern and drive well. The main difference in a BFG is the lugs go out more to the side giving almost a side lug performance. Good for gripping rocks. That and the 3 ply sidewall, a bit better protection against rocks and the bead protection ring. Also, the BFG tread pattern seems to be a bit wider, maybe due to the lugs. I think the Scorpion is a better all around tread.
In regard to what I am hearing on engines, all I can say is I work with a guy that has a 96 4.0 with 70K on it and another that has a 99 4.0 with 9K and my 99 has 25.5K. None of us have had problems with the engines. Consumer Reports ratings from users of the products DO NOT indicate any serious problems being reported.
The WORST it gets for engine mechanical is an "average" in 1992.
I do not DOUBT that there may be problems in SOME engines on the Ranger, however, I do not personally KNOW anyone who has a problem and the independent sources I use do not REPORT problems like I have heard are in the engines.
The super cab rides better perhaps because of the wheel base. Resale value is with the supercab.
8^)
I have HEARD that the newer engines do not need a break in period. But I am a bit older than a great deal of the posters and having grown up in the 60-70's prefer to break in an engine first. I did it for my 15,000 mile service time frame.
I do not know what to say regarding posts on engine problems. All I can say is a major source I use, Consumer Reports, does not report any major problems and it is in part based on subscriber inputs (maybe 6 Million subscribers), people that use the products rated and their own testing. They keep a vehicle 6 months and run all vehicles over the same tracks for testing. Did they test every engine in a vehicle line? No. But I still respect their opinion.
I would add to my personal knowledge a Mazda owner down the street with a 97 3.0L engine.
No engine problems either.
About the only thing I have experienced or have 2nd hand knowledge (I talked with other owners in person) is the wiper issue, the door chime issue and squeaky springs. Spray on grease corrected the springs.
I will say this about the 4X4's. As I understand it the new Pulse Vacuum hubs have performed flawless. I speak of the hubs because they are not the old autohubs. Anybody with the old autohubs should change to manual hubs at a cost of maybe $200-250.
It is just neat a heck to be driving, see a muddy or icy patch on a hill, flip a switch and your in 4 wheel drive high.
A 2.5L automatic regular-cab 2WD is rated to tow about 2200 lb; a 3.0L auto supercab 2WD about 3960lb.
Let us know which one you get. I'm trading in my old 1985 Ranger this year, so I'm interested in the experiences of all new owners.
It is, BY FAR, the BEST source for Ranger information. You can get to boards to discuss ANY Ranger topic.
4X4, engines, suspension, driveline, you name it it is there and some of the most informative people you can meet.
Dan
I have a 99 Ranger that has not had any problems at all so I don't have any dealer experience to date. So far it's been a great truck.
It is the 4 banger board off the Ranger Station.
It would almost seem like you have something else in the circuit of the computer that is taking it out around 30-40K.
Did you try a tune? EGR valve giving noise? Replace plug wires(their good for maybe 40-50K)? Replace Cap and rotor if they are equipped with them? Replace fuel filter(good for 30-40K)? Time engine? Could also be intermittent fuel pump.
Try a can of HEET incase you got some bad gas?
I think your best shot may be that board URL, very keen people over there.
it generates around 200h.p. and about 240torque
so it looks pretty good to me. I am going to
buy a new pickup next year and this one appeals
to me. What's the gas mileage like? Reliability?
Does it have the pinging problems? and how about
wieght compared with the current 4.0?
My local dealer was willing to sell at "invoice" with an additional $89 documentation fee and $250 lot fee (the salesperson had a difficult time explaining that one!). I've saved lots by driving a couple of miles down the road. I've bought 1 Honda and 2 Mazda's using the same procedure over the last 10 years.
My 2000 Ranger 3.0 automatic gets 21 mpg highway (at about 75-80 mph); It gets about 19 city. I've spent about $350 total on repairs (other than tires, wipers, brakes) to 3 Rangers since 1990. The Ranger has been very good for me!
good. The latest 2000 Consumer Reports Reliability
Ranking ranks the Ranger (and I quote) "Worse Than
Average". In fact, only two trucks ranked in the
"Above Average" category for reliability. Tacoma
and Frontier!! And before you go spouting off
about how it's a biased ranking you'd better think
again. The results are taken from surveys by
actual owners. That's right - Ranger owners ranked
their own trucks "WORSE THAN AVERAGE"
As for the Tacoma, you may have had good experience with it but I have a co-worker who has seen just the opposite. His Tacoma ate a timing belt @ 60,000 or so miles, and getting that fixed just brought on more related problems.
I'm not going to tell you one truck is better than the other. Lets face it they are both built by people who on any given day don't want to be at there job and don't put the quality into the vehicles they are working on.
On the gas mileage subject, I am getting about 17mpg now. Was about 15mpg until about 10,500 and then just went up to 17. Anybody seen any better out of a 4.0 5spd Auto with the OffRoad pkg?
Ranger:
"The Ranger and similar Mazda B series are the best overall among compact pickups. But neither lets you forget you are driving a truck. Handling is good and the ride is stiff...Reliability has improved to average for all versions."
Tacoma:
"This unimpressive small truck sticks out conspicuously in Toyota's otherwise excellent product line. Handling is unimpressive and the ride is choppy and uncomfortable...Three good points: The optional 3.4 liter v6 is responsive, the controls and displays are excellent and the Tacoma is a very reliable workhorse."
Good luck with yours.
insurance rates for a Ford
Ranger are very expensive,
sometimes even double that of a
passenger car. Is this true or
not in anyone else's experience.
Please let me know. I live in
New Jersey where insurance is
already outrageous so this is an
important issue for me
What issue are YOU reading. I HAVE the April issue of Consumer Reports in my HAND. It lists the Ranger as average in reliability and gives it a "recommended" check mark, something you will not have next to the Tacoma.
Get your facts straight before you post and make an [non-permissible content removed] out of yourself.
Remember, if you are a Tacoma owner did you MISS the reference to "...unimpressive..." next to Tacoma in the same issue of CR?
fredfred:
What part of NJ. I use to live there, just curious(operative word is USE).
I pay about $800 a year in Colo but did go to higher deductable to keep the rate down a bit. Ranger 4X4, 4liter supercab.
What issue are YOU reading. I HAVE the April issue of Consumer Reports in my HAND. It lists the Ranger as average in reliability and gives it a "recommended" check mark, something you will not have next to the Tacoma.
Get your facts straight before you post and make an [non-permissible content removed] out of yourself.
Remember, if you are a Tacoma owner did you MISS the reference to "...unimpressive..." next to Tacoma in the same issue of CR?
fredfred:
What part of NJ. I use to live there, just curious(operative word is USE).
I pay about $800 a year in Colo but did go to higher deductable to keep the rate down a bit. Ranger 4X4, 4liter supercab.
The deals are out there but many are regional.
I also got 2.9% financing.
Thanks for the info on the brake pull. My truck seems to be fine since they resurfaced the rotors. Hope devontie has some similar luck.
And I have just one mroe question: Do Toyota truck beds without liners or covers still tend to rust all the way through after only 5-10 years' exposure to the elements? Never seen any domestic do that. Guess Toyota invested so much in its engines it forgot that the rest of the truck needs to hold up well too.