By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
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.