Howdy, Stranger!

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

Ford Ranger



  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,124
    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 Posts: 590
    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 Posts: 1,611
    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:

    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 Posts: 1,611
    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 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 Posts: 99
    That is about all the 4x4 off-roading I will ever do, and the price is right!
  • cpousnrcpousnr Posts: 1,611

    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 Posts: 99
    Does anyone know where I could getr Canadian Invoice prices for the Ford, Mazda and Tacoma?
  • trenttrent 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 Posts: 99
    What kind of after-makret things would void my factory warranty?
  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,124
    cpousner, sounds like you had fun. I have also proven the ability to many that Ranger can offroad. Ignore spoog he is a kid with a dream of owning a Tacoma Supercharged TRD. He also hates to hear it when Rangers do go offroad and make it just fine for thousands less.
    Hindsite, I don't know what to believe?? First your agreeing with spoog, putting the Ranger down. Next entry your not, you own a 150 and so on...
    My points all along have been:
    1. The Ranger is more equal to the Tacoma than some wish to believe.
    2. I have NEVER said the Ranger/Mazda is superior to the Tacoma.
    3. The Ranger/Mazda is less option for option, this is no secret.
    4. The Ranger/Mazda is reliable.
  • senselesssenseless Posts: 46
    I was at a PA Ford dealer today and noticed that the invoice on a 4WD XLT Supercab listed a free cd player and a free flareside box. It also listed "California Emissions" as a nc line item.

    Is this something new?
  • bruce9781bruce9781 Posts: 3
    i'm thinking of buy a 99 ranger 2.5 liter, 5 sp, i''m a student going to college and want a truck with descent gas mileage, from what i can tell, this will be a good truck for me. the only question i have is this...of course i don't expect my ranger to win any drag races, but will the 4 cyl. give alright spunk for that size engine, i would appreciate any feedback from other 2.5 cyl. owners, thank you.
  • senselesssenseless Posts: 46
    With a manual trans, the 4 cylinder should be adequate except for highway passing. Just don't jump in between cars in the passing lane.

    The better value is in the XLT package, if you're planning on air conditioning. It's not as depressing looking as the XL and doesn't cost much more. Compare dealer invoice prices and see.

    If you're not concerned with style, get the Escort. $2000 cash back. Good luck.
  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,124
    If you look at the real numbers the 2.5 is no slouch. The torque on the 2.5 is only 8ft/lbs less than the Nissan 2.4 that puts out 143HP. So, if your going to use the truck to haul stuff, it will do just as well as any 4cyl truck out on the market today. Good choice in the 5spd, it will give you more power when YOU want it, and better mileage.
  • mikeg6mikeg6 Posts: 1
  • ladyblueladyblue Posts: 326
    That happened with my 97 F150. The plastic got very hazy. It made things hard to read in the daytime or when the sun hit the dash just right. I recently got rid of the truck, so I never got around to having it fixed.
  • jeffkieljeffkiel Posts: 48
    Anybody have any problems with rough idle in the '98 ranger 4.0l?
  • sushisushi Posts: 99
    no problems with the idle.

    for the fog on the dash, I used Windex and armor all and it went away.
  • cpousnrcpousnr Posts: 1,611
    Yes I baby my Ranger more than most would. It does have the 3.73 but do to the mileage I was beginning to think it was a 3.55!
    You wont get the same with a 4.10.
    Checked the underneath, no damage other than the one hit on the left rear torsion bar cover and some on the ends of the xfer case skid.

    Yes vince it was fun. Pukered twice, first swithcback and then the sand.

    "If I can do it, I ain't bragging. It's just stating facts."
    I think the quote is from Yogi Berra, and I did it.

    Vince, I do know some of those packages on the Tacoma are good. I priced just a 4.10 locker and it was 2,100 installed. Not worth it to me. Mine performed fine enough.
    For those interested, I will try to get the pics up first of next week unless they are back sooner.
    Now that pass is not the worst in the state. it is however rated "Difficult/More Difficult" by a 4 wheeler mag on 4whl drive roads in Colo.

    No fogging on mine. But with average humidity around 20-30%. . .
    AH Tis a PLEASURE to live in COLORADO!
  • senselesssenseless Posts: 46
    What exactly is the limited slip axle on a 2WD truck designed for? Is it effective for snow? What other kind of options are required in order to ge the limited slip? It was hard to tell, but it may require a 4.10 rear.
  • bruce9781bruce9781 Posts: 3
    thanks for the info guys, and although i didn't state it in my first post, i will be buying a ranger with the xlt package
  • cpousnrcpousnr Posts: 1,611
    Well as I understand it, a limited slip has a clutch system inside that, when one wheel starts to spin more than the other, applies more power to the slipping wheel. It is offered in the 3.73 and 4.10 rears. Patch ice would be a good place for its effectiveness as the rear of the trucks are so light. Works ok on the trails but I was told that after a while the clutch wears out and you are basically like the open rear end.

    Good choice. Either vehicle is fine. I have owned my XLT since Jan 2 and am just about ready to go over 13,000 miles. The wiper/high beam assembly was the only problem so far. If your not into 4 wheeling too much but do sometimes, you can get the skid plates from Ford parts for about $130 and install yourself. The are easy to do. You can get the mounting hardware, high tensile strength bolts, 2 washers, from a hardware store cheaper than the h/w from Ford and it works just as well. The mounting holes are there whether or not you get the off-road option.
  • hmerglerhmergler Posts: 85

    If that's what limited slip is then what is the following called?

    When you start slipping on something, like when you get stuck, the wheel that spins continues to spin and the wheel that is on okay ground doesn't move. Am I correct in assuming that cars nowadays do not do this?

    - The Merg
  • lwflwf Posts: 223
  • senselesssenseless Posts: 46
    "The main reason for wanting a limited-slip is to improve traction in a turn."

    Yes, but is it good for snow?
  • cpousnrcpousnr Posts: 1,611
    You are describing an open axel.

    Well my AOL 3.0 created homepage will not let me edit it in ALO 4.0. So I cannot put my pics up. They came out well. I took one of the signs goin up, one on top a couple on the way down and one looking back to the cut I just came thru. The truck does not look as dirty as it got. Hmmm must have been that last stream crossing when the bumper went down. . .

    Not bad for a stock grocery getting, gravel road stumbling stock Ranger!

    Hmmmm what to do. Any AOL3.0 diehards or 4.0 converters got an ideas?
  • cpousnrcpousnr Posts: 1,611
    The August issue of Four Wheeler Magazine rated the "Top 10 Best Buys in 4 Wheel Drive". Under the heading of Best Buy Compact Extended Cab Pickup the winner was:

    Ford Ranger XL 3.0

    It did state that if you get the 4.0l option for $660 it includes 4 wheel disk brakes free.
  • spoogspoog Posts: 1,224
    Now you find 4 wheeler a relevant source?

    I thought you found them to be frequently
    erroneous in the 98 truck of the year test?

    The Ranger is a good buy. Its cheap.

    what else was on the list? im curious.
  • cpousnrcpousnr Posts: 1,611
    Actually spoog in re-reading the data you provided
    the Four Wheeler tested a Tacoma extra cab against
    a Ford short bed. Hence the differences. I
    looked at the data and was thinking SuperCab for
    the Ford. Also, I did not know much about the TRD option and what it brings to the party when I first commented on this forum. It is an impressively equiped machine, just a bit of overkill for what I need.

    My mistake.

    The article was real short and had Range XL, not XLT, Nissan, Mazda and Tacoma low end 4X4's and they were basically listed in that order. Just specs were listed. The Tacoma as I recall had the 3.45 rear and 2.8 or 9 16 valve 4.
This discussion has been closed.