Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options

Ford Ranger

24567…13

Comments

  • weslwesl Member Posts: 53
    cncman:
    I have to agree with ghtrap. Actually, the Ford Ranger is one of the most reliable compact p/u's according to Consumer Reports. The S/10 and Sonoma p/u's are junk.
  • xmusxmus Member Posts: 3
    The Nissan I think of (perhaps incorrectly, mind you) as a cheap import. The Toyota I consider a well-made, but expensive import. These are wholly my preconceived notions, some of which are based on fact but some of it is purely subjective. I didn't like the S-10/GMC version because for some reason the payload is a little more than half of all the other compact trucks (about 850#, I think). My impression was that the Toyotas and the Ford/Mazda compact trucks were more reliable and lasted longer. I don't trade-in vehicles. I'm replacing an 18 year-old Honda with the truck. I just replaced my 12 year-old Honda last year with a '95 Honda. I'm in this truck for the long haul and it damned-well better last for a long, long time!
  • glenroseglenrose Member Posts: 13
    Nissan is neather cheap or an import, they are made in the USA. I have one with 112,00 miles on it, and like it a lot. But would not get another one, In this town there is only one place to buy parts, and they stick it to you. same with Honda that is why I did not get another one.
  • xmusxmus Member Posts: 3
    Thanks for the lesson glenrose. I know that some of my impressions are false, I admitted that in my earlier post. I know there are long-lasting and dependable Nissans and others out there. I'm just saying I don't "want" one.

    Anyway, I didn't get much feedback on the original question that I brought up to all you knowledgeable people. I'm concerned about the mere 150 hp the standard V-6 that comes with the Ranger/B3000 puts out. Is that enough. Compared with other trucks in the compact class, that's pretty weak. Or does 15-25hp matter that much??
    Please let me know!

    Thanks a million, Sandy
  • mikec13mikec13 Member Posts: 26
    The advantage of the larger V6 in the Ranger is not just horsepower but also more torque, both of which happen at lower rpm. It gets off the dime quicker and with less effort. I test drove the 3.0L but didn't care for it. My only real experience is with the 4.0L auto & 3.73 axle which handles hilly terrain and highway passing very easily. My highway mileage has averaged around 18.8.

    You will simply have to test drive both the 3.0L and 4.0L and see if the 3.0L will be too weak for you based on your usage of the truck, your wants and your wallet. The more weight you have to move and/or the more desire for decent throttle response, the easier this decision becomes.

    I'll also mention that in just under 4 months and 5K miles I've had zero problems with my '98. The truck has been comfortable on long trips (XLT split bench), easy to commute with and generally fun to drive. Good luck with whatever you get.
  • lwflwf Member Posts: 223
    xmus,

    I was pretty much where you are now about a year ago. My previous pickup was a Nissan, but I was so disappointed at what I saw in the Frontier I found myself zeroing in on a Ranger this time. But the 3-liter V6 seemed to me like 10-year old technology, because that's what I had with my '87 Nissan. I didn't consider the Ranger's 4 liter to be much better ....only 10HP more. However, the F150's 4.2 liter has 205 HP, and the best deal I could get on each of them (both XLT extended cabs) was only a difference of $1500. That's what caused me to migrate away from a compact to a full-size pickup. You may want to think about it, because the 4.2 F150 not only has much more power than the 4.0 Ranger, the mpg figures are about the same, and the seating, load-carrying and towing capacities are also much superior for the F150. I wouldn't be surprised if at trade in time I might even recoupe that $1500, and them some. Just a suggestion for you to consider.
  • glenroseglenrose Member Posts: 13
    LWF
    Is the 4.2 a v6 or v8 and did you get the auto..
  • lwflwf Member Posts: 223
    The 4.2 is a V6 with 205 HP. The 4.6 is a V8 with 220 HP; that is, only about 7 percent more. Most of the participants in the F150 topic seem to feel the 4.6 is the one to get, but when I test drove both, the difference was imperceptible to me. So I got the 4.2. This has all the power I need. I've towed a couple of tons with it........not very far, I'll admit, only about 50 miles, but it did it with ease. My previous 150 HP Nissan was really straining at about 1 1/2 tons, so I'd imagine the 150 and 160 HP Rangers would behave in a similar fashion. Mine also has the 3.08 rear end, and here again, I think most of the participants in the F150 topic would recommend at least a 3.55, but I didn't see the need for it.

    Mine has the automatic, and I got that because the towing capacity is much higher than that of the standard. Someone else has written in that he has the standard and has never gotten over 15 mpg. I get 16 to 17 doing local driving, 18 to 19 on the high-speed highways in mid-West where the posted limit is 75 but the traffic seems to move at 85, and 20 to 21 on the 55- and 65-mph highways here in the East where I live. I'm sure that there are some that get better than this and some who get less. It's my opinion that the 3-liter Ranger will give you better mpg and the 4-liter Ranger will be about the same as the 4.2 F150. Good luck.
  • glenroseglenrose Member Posts: 13
    lwf
    Thanks I drove the ranger 4.0v6 and the f150 I thought the v6 on the f150 worked better than the ranger.
  • amadeus131amadeus131 Member Posts: 43
    Hi everyone! I'm in the market for a compact pickup, and though I lean toward GM in "loyalty" (a thing I've learned is highly emotional and even sometimes irrational, perhaps especially for us GM people), I really wanted to check out what Ford has to offer. I just test-drove a pretty loaded '99 Ranger XLT Supercab 4x4. Options: 4.0-L V-6, 5-speed automatic, sliding rear window, stereo cassette/CD, power locks/mirrors/windows/remote keyless/alarm, cruise/tilt, A/C, and that really nifty 4-door option. (MSRP $23635). I was especially impressed with the 4-door option, with the recessed door handles and rear-folding jumpseats. The doors didn't rattle at all, as GM's are reputed to; Ford obviously really thought this one through. It drove very smoothly, with plenty of power, and handled well -- though I drive a subcompact sedan, I was immediately comfortable. Only gripe was visibility: tinted glass and TEENY rear-view mirror made things hard. Perhaps you didn't need another review, but just thought I'd put in my 2 cents. I'll tell you one thing Ford has over the GM models, though -- at least their '99 compact pickups are ON THE LOTS now! :) Happy trucking to all! (P.S. -- My father was a staunch Ford man; apparently I inherited the GM thing from my mother.)
  • tkinpatkinpa Member Posts: 19
    Amadeus,

    I bought neaarly the same Ranger you described as a leftover 98 with incredible incentives. Only 800 miles but I love it so far. I tried the 3.0 liter and 4 spd to save money but ended up with the 4.0 and auto due to the extra power and towing capacity.

    XMUS,
    I plan on keeping my truck for at least ten years too. I sprung for the bigger engine and auto figuring I would be mad for a long time if I didn't have enough power - like my 10 year old Nissan suffered from.
  • campoutcampout Member Posts: 22
    Hello to everyone on the list. I currently own a 97' F-150 and the lease will be up soon. I have been considering a Ranger pu extended cab 4X4 because I just don't need a full size truck for what I do, even though the F-150 has been a great performer. My question is, I won't be doing much towing and hauling light loads occasionally, what is the experience with the 5 speed standard trans. versus the 5 speed automatic? I know the 3.0 V6 is standard with the 4x4, but would it be better to jump up to the 4.0 with either trans?. Any comments welcome. Thanking in advance.
  • mikec13mikec13 Member Posts: 26
    Assuming that the higher towing limits of the automatics are not an issue for you…

    The auto that comes with the 3.0L is a 4 speed. Only the 4.0L gets the 5 speed auto. A manual was not an option for me this time around so I only drove the automatics. I found the 3.0L to be underpowered and would therefore suggest that you would be happier using the manual with this engine. With the 4.0L, I’d say just go with your preference of trans. I’ve been using the 4.0L auto and found it to be quite smooth.
  • ammon3ammon3 Member Posts: 2
    I was wondering, I too am in the market for a small truck and have it down to 2. The ranger extended cab 4x4 or the mazda b5000 4x4. I am really leaning to the mazda because of the 60000 drive train warranty. I have a voyager now that would have cost me thousands without it. So does anyone know why ford doesn't cover it's drivetrain to that limit, since the ford and mazda are relatively the same truck? thanks
  • arazaraz Member Posts: 27
    Anyone have experience with the rear brakes locking when cold, on a 93 Ranger? Seem to be very touchy until they've been used for a while. Any comments/ideas accepted-Thanks.
  • polyesterpolyester Member Posts: 2
    I am thinking of buying a 1990 ranger extended cab, 2x4, v6 auto xlt from the original owner.

    The truck has 113k miles, rebuilt tranny, and slew of new parts ranging from the the water pump, throttle body, rear springs etc.

    The asking price is $4200.

    What do you think? I know the price is okay based on Edmunds, but are the 1990 vehicles good?
  • dshad1dshad1 Member Posts: 1
    we are looking at a 95 ranger xlt w/54k miles and just wanted to check out how everyone feels about theirs. we had a 93 nissan hardbody that we absolutely loved, but it was totaled in a wreck and now we have to get something else, but aren't impressed with nissans frontiers...i have always heard that fords suck, but i really like this truck - i am making a mistake? are parts expensive? do i need the extended warranty or is this a good reliable machine? the dealer is calling us tomorrow...
  • h8gmh8gm Member Posts: 2
    Well ive owned a 94' ranger 4cyl 5spd,
    put a lot of miles on it, 68k and the only
    problems I encountered were broken speedo,
    and a abs rabs modual totaling $1200 bucks for
    3 years of service. I now own a 99 ranger and
    im glad to be back in a reliable, good truck.
  • LohengrinLohengrin Member Posts: 84
    How does the ranger 4x4 stack up against the toyota tacoma 4x4, especially as far as reliablity? How about off road capabilities? Anybody know?
  • rmumfordrmumford Member Posts: 10
    In 1991 I bought a new (91) Ranger ext cab automatic with the 4.0 liter engine. I put 206K miles on it with only 1 breakdown, the trans was rebuilt at 148K. No oil burning that I could see when I traded it in, but it was leaking a bit of oil. Needless to say I was very pleased wit it. It rode well, with no squeaks or rattles, got almost 25 mpg hiway (in the begginning) with the ac going, and averaged 21 mpg. Later in its life, the mileage did go down to about 18 average, and maybe 20 hiway. I finally traded (silverado) because it was getting a bit worn (seats worn out, power steering pump making noise, etc) but it still was a very dependable truck. At 200 K I drove it across the state to see my folks - 1200 mile rounf trip - no problems. Only reason I traded for a chevy silverado was I needed the towing power & room, and I wanted to get the best mileage I could in a big truck. If I didn't have kids to haul, I probably would have bought another ranger 4.0 litre. Just thought I'd add my 2 cents.

    rm
  • paulgschpaulgsch Member Posts: 1
    Buy a Toyota and thank me later!!
  • k2sk2s Member Posts: 2
    Hi Lohengrin,
    This is k2s with your answer! For reliebility go with the Tacoma, but there's more. The Ranger is a better selection for off-roading. You may think that Ranger is unreliable because it's an american made car. Acually the Ranger is very reliable for a Ford. If I were in your position I would go with the reliable & capible Ford Ranger. Please respond if you think I gave good advice
    Your responder,
    K2S


    P.S. congagulations on your purchase if you purchase a truck.
  • LohengrinLohengrin Member Posts: 84
    k2s,

    Thank you for your response. I am planning to buy a truck in the next month or two as soon as I get my finances in line. I've been shopping around and did a few test drives and at this point, I'm leaning towards the Ranger. Thanks again for your opinion.
  • kjtgkjtg Member Posts: 49
    Ranger is kind of forigen, the 5 speed is from Japan, 4.0 from Germany, the 5 speed\auto France. you never know what you are getting.
  • JockoJocko Member Posts: 13
    I purchased a 1999 Ranger XLT standard cab, two wheel drive, 4 wheel abs, sport package, 4.0 V-6 and stick shift for $500 over invoice. BRIGHT red. Have 3000 miles on it so far, and it is excellent. Lots of grunt from the 4.0, but I probably should have gotten the auto trans. 19-20 mpg very consistantly.
  • jimsr2jimsr2 Member Posts: 1
    Just bought a 93 4cyl 5 speed supercab as a "3rd car (others; a 99 Passat & 93 Aerostar)." The Ranger has just 27K miles and looks like new. Only problem I've noted is mentioned previously on this list - when wet, and cold, the brakes tend to lock quickly when stopping at low speed. Is this typical or a problem? Is the 2.3 the same motor Ford used in the Tempo? (no flame - I had an 84 2.3, 5 speed that ran 130K completely trouble free). The Aerostar (3.0) is over 130K with my daughter at college in MN, and has been the most reliable vehicle I've owned - no trouble in the northern MN winter (on Blizzaks).
  • mwatermanmwaterman Member Posts: 2
    Dear Truck Fans!

    We are a family of three - a wife with a '99 Passat wagon (and very happy about it) and a husband who is interested in a Ford Ranger. The wife traded in her'87 Nissan Pathfinder v6(great car) for the Passat, and the family still wants a car for camping, but not true 4wd off-roading. He wants the car for very light hauling, if at all, a nice cab for travel, and daily around-town driving. After having read some of the other entries, it is obvious that our needs are different from the majority - everyone else seems to need 3 or 4.0 and at least a v6. Does anyone have experience with the 4cyl, 2wd? Any answers would be appreciated!

    mwaterman
  • ladyblueladyblue Member Posts: 326
    mwaterman:

    I had the Mazda B2000 4 cyl., 2WD for 7 years. It is essentially the same as the Ford Ranger. My daughter was only 5 yrs old when I got it, and the small back seat was adequate at the time. We also do a lot of camping and the truck served very well. It really stood up to the loads we piled into it and the gas mileage was good.

    However, kids grow. And I personally was ready for a more powerful engine and bigger truck bed. Two years ago I switched to a '97 F150 with a 4.6 8 cyl, 4WD and an 8 ft. bed. It's worth every penny I pay at the gas pump to step on the pedal and feel this thing move.

    From my experience, the truck you're looking at should do fine for what you describe.
  • mwatermanmwaterman Member Posts: 2
    ladyblue!

    Thanks for the input - I just heard from someone today who said that the v6 lasts longer; I thought that maybe that would be the case if more weight were consistantly hauled, but maybe that's just generally true, hmmm... Thanks again for responding!

    mwaterman
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    This year I purchased a 1998 Ranger XLT supercab stepside 5spd. I shopped Toyota, Nissan and Chevy. The Ranger by far is the best value. The Tacoma is a good truck but very expensive. Nissan Frontier is cheap inside and Chevy S-10 too many bad reports. I am an outdoors person. I live in Oregon and this truck has been run in the backroads and mountains of Oregon. It has done very well in climbing, hauling, and pulling. An associate of mine bought a 1998 Tacoma. We went head to head and the Ranger could do everything the Tacoma could. It was a draw except for price. I paid about 2K less.
  • pwahlpwahl Member Posts: 1
    Jocko, I've been looking at Rangers, curious why you feel you should have bought the automatic transmission? Only thing that bothers me about it is the extra $1k.
  • pinettedpinetted Member Posts: 104
    I currently own a 1996 Ranger XLT 4x4 5 speed with about 38k on it. We just had the clutch sleeve replaced for the second time. Both times it was repaired under warranty but it would have cost about $600 each time. I am woundering if anyone else has had this problem. The dealer said they have seen it before but did not say much else about it.
  • SCHUURSCHUUR Member Posts: 10
    Has anyone out there heard whether Ford is going to give the Ranger the bigger 200 hp engine from the Explorer? I was a 96 Ranger owner for 2 years (4 liter). Good power, but would always like more, especially if I am going to consider an automatic (I had 5 speed). I bought a 99 F150, but really don't need a full size truck. I will just bide my time until they do more with the Ranger (unless I give in to the Dodge Dakota).
  • jim94jim94 Member Posts: 1
    I own a 97 Ranger 4x4 and my front hubs are clicking and grinding when 4WD is engaged only. Do they need to be replaced? The truck is only 2 years old.
  • sheldosheldo Member Posts: 1
    I just purchased my very first truck (traded in a car my parents had given me 1987 Dodge Charger), a 1999 Ford Ranger XLT, 5 speed, 2.5L. Now have 1500 miles and everything is great!! Gas mileage averages 25-26 and the 2.5L engine does surprisingly well. I have one question. The passenger side mirror seems to have been assembled by a drunk!! The writing "Objects in Mirror..." is at an angle across the bottom of the mirror. It isn't level with the bottom of the mirror. Anyone else noticed this small, yet annoying problem.
  • SCHUURSCHUUR Member Posts: 10
    Till waiting to hear if Ford is going to give the Ranger the bigger explorer enging in the near future. Anybody out there know?
  • lwflwf Member Posts: 223
    I don't know. But as long as you're wishing, why don't you wish for the 4.2L they use in the F150?
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    I read in 2000 model year the Ranger will get a 200HP V6 the Explorer has. Its about time Ford! Damn, I wish I would have waited to buy my Ranger now. Maybe I'll try to trade when they come out.
  • ajmaskeajmaske Member Posts: 1
    I'm currently looking for a Ranger, were there any time frames as to when the 2000 model will be out with this?
  • SCHUURSCHUUR Member Posts: 10
    Thank you vince8. If they bring it out, I will buy it. And I am sorry you jumped to buy before it came out, but I have a similar problem. I bought a 99 150, but would have preferred the Ranger with the bigger engine. So we will both be trading in fairly new vehicles. As for you, lwf, sure I would love to have the 4.2 in it, but I thought I would be realistic and figure they would steal from the Explorer and not the 150. We will see, I guess. Thanks for your input.
  • tjoshtjosh Member Posts: 4
    Out of curiosity, where did you read that Ford will be adding the bigger engine to the Ranger? (I've been looking at Rangers, & I'd like to find some info on any other changes that they'll be bringing in 2000.) Any ideas on where to find info like this?
  • KatmanduKatmandu Member Posts: 24
    I'm thinking on buying a used 97-98 Ranger, and have some questions...

    - Any problems with the 5 speed automatic?

    - Is the 5 speed automatic the only auto available with the 4.0 L in 1998 models?

    -Anybody have any horror stories about the 4.0L or tranny (either 4 sp or 5sp auto)?

    Thanks for any advice you can muster up...
  • haynes1haynes1 Member Posts: 1
    I have been experiencing starter problems. When the temperature in below -10c & it is humid, there condensation & the starter freezes. Has there been any such complaints from Ford Ranger owners
  • azninvazionazninvazion Member Posts: 15
    Hey all,
    I am looking at a 3.0 V6 Ranger/ B-Series truck. I al going to get the 3.0 v6 on either, but the only question is which is cheaper. I like styling of both. My question is, has there been ANY problems with the truck that ANYONE has seen? I have 2 friends with the B-Series, and they say that their trucks run great. The only catch is that they are fairly new. One is a 95 I think and the other is brand new. The 95 has about 60K miles, and still runs fine. I would consider that pretty good. Has anyone had problems with the truck(s)? Thanks for the input.
  • dcmooredcmoore Member Posts: 14
    azninvazion:

    I have a '93 Ranger with the 3.0 V^, and it's been a great truck. No problems with it at all from a mechanical standpoint. A couple of the plastic pieces in the interior (e.g., ashtray cover, etc.) have fallen off, though. Overall, I definitely recommend it, though the Dakota is bigger and has a bigger engine.

    Look for the B-Series. Word is that you can get a better deal on them as opposed to the Ranger simply because the B-Series doesn't sell as well even though it's essentially the same truck.
  • econardeconard Member Posts: 2
    Hi! My Dad is looking to buy a pickup, and he is having a tough time choosing between the Ranger and the Dakota. Why did you guys choose the Ranger?
  • ghtrapghtrap Member Posts: 26
    Even though the Dakota is a good looking truck, some feel the Ranger is a better truck:

    1) It has a much better reliabilty history than Dakota.
    2) The Dakota has the worst fuel mileage in the class.
    3) Ranger has the four door option on the extended cab. You gotta have it! Dakota will not catch up with a four door until the 2000 model.
    4) Ranger has better ride comfort.
    5) Ranger has more refined interior (plastic) parts then Dakota.

    Still, it's an individual choice. Good Luck!
  • workingmanworkingman Member Posts: 14
    My Ford Ranger has been a lemon. Here's the
    details: 1990 2wd XLT longbed. 4 cyl auto. Used
    almost always as a commuter vehicle. Bought from
    the original owner with 49K. Tranny went at 53K.
    Rear end(!)went at 57K Tranny went again before
    60K (rebuilt free). Fuel pump went about 70K
    leaving me stranded and requiring a tow. Engine
    went at 88K leaving me stranded and requiring a
    tow. Paint begin flaking off the roof, hood, etc
    at 65K. Tranny went AGAIN at 108K. Oil has been
    changed faithfully at 3-4K (4K max). In addition
    battery, brakes, tires, exhaust, ABS ($$$) module
    all went. It is (I still own it) by far the single
    most expensive vehicle I have ever tried to keep
    running reliably. As a contrast - I bought a 1984
    Mazda SE5 pickup new for about $6K and drove it
    159K without even changing the clutch. Ford Ranger
    again? No thanks! I'll get a Nissan or Toyota.
  • saspoweredsaspowered Member Posts: 4
    How is the gas mileage on 5-spd rangers.
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    We all have stories of reliablity. My first Ranger went to 94K with minor service, clutch, brakes and a water pump.
    Are you asking for 5spd 2.5? or 5spd 3.0/4.0? I know there isn't much difference in MPG between the 3.0 and 4.0. It will also depend on your rear end gearing. Get the 4.0 5spd.

    If it is MPG you are worried about don't buy a truck, get a car.
This discussion has been closed.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles