FORD RANGER VS. CHEVY S-10

wannaranger · November 1999

Listen folks, I posted a question to get
informative answers to the question I had asked
regarding the Ranger and the S-10. When I got back
online to check the responses, what did I find a
couple of days later? Several posts basically
reverting back to those childish days when we
played the "Mine is better than yours" game. Come
on folks these town hall discussions are meant to
be informative and enlightening, not whose vehicle
is better with insults attached. So grow up a
little and help show those like myself that are
wanting to purchase a truck how much you truly know
and how helpful you can be to others.
Thanks,
wannaranger

wannaranger · November 1999

As I had asked on a previous posting I had mentioned that I am considering selling my 95 Firebird with a V6 engine to get either a 99 Ford Ranger with a 2.5 4 cyl. engine Sport package or a 2000 Chevy S-10 with a 2200 Vortec 4 cyl. engine flairside. What I want to know is...which is the better buy or value for the money? I know that a 3.0 V6 would be better, but as I said before I am back in school to get teacher certification and can't afford the 3.0. Why am I selling my bird? To save on insurance and avoid the potential expensive repairs and the replacement of the tires , they aren't cheap ($150-$200 each or more). Also, besides the cost factor I don't feel the need for a sporty car. This is one woman that has never felt the need to impress people with the vehicle I chose to drive. I buy the vehicle because I like the looks of it, the reputation it has and its dependability. As a future art teacher I think that cars and trucks appeal to people like works of art...they like some but can't stand others. Any and all productive advice and opinions will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Wannaranger

p.s. When I get a teaching job, then I'll get the truck or SUV that I like with all the bells and whistles.

aurora85 · November 1999

Wannaranger,
I'm a high school student and have a 1999 Ford Ranger Sport regular cab. I too had the delema over which to buy, the Ranger or S-10. As you can see, I ended up with the ranger. I have the 2.5 with a 5 speed. My suggestion is, that you get the 5 speed!!!! Don't get the automatic. The engine is big for a four banger, but it doesn't have much HP. It is often frustrating when, I really need to jet out on to a road quick, but I don't have the power to do it fast!! Don't get me wrong, the engine is good however. It provides excellent torque down low in the rpm, but it runs out when getting into 4th gear. I also like the 5 th gear which is overdrive. It gives me great fuel mileage. I currently get around 25 driving in the city!! The interior is much more comfortable than the s-10 too. It feels like you are driving an Explorer because of the same insturment and dash layout. It also has a higher seating and ride position than the s-10 which I like. Finally, the styling for the money looks much better than the base s-10. I have had many compliments from people thinking I paid a lot for it

You will be happy with it!! Test drive both however, and then make the decision. visit my web site with picks.
http://www.angelfire.com/fl3/sflynn/RangerPage.html
P.S.the fl3 stands for florida 3 so don't type
F 1 3.

wannaranger · November 1999

I haven't checked out your website yet, but I did drive the 4 cyl. Ranger and LOVED IT!:) I was pleasantly surprised with the ride and the power of the 4 cyl. automatic. I never buy a car with a stick because I participate in sports and have a frequency to sprain ankles and pull muscles (etc.) , which would make driving a stick difficult and painful. Anyway, thanks for the advice and I'll check out the website. I hope I can sell my car in time to buy that Ranger. It has just things I need, so later on I can get something with all the bells and whistles when I become a teacher...or I might just hang on to the Ranger or get a 4x4.
Thanks,
Wannaranger

Brutus · December 1999

Just some general info that may or may not help. JD Power & Associates has an initial quality study each year and releases the top three scorers for each category. For 1999 and 2000, the list has been the same with the Dodge Dakota taking 1st, Mazda B-Series 2nd and the Ranger 3rd.

If you haven't checked out the New Truck section of this site, you may want to take a look at it. I don't put too much stock in the written reviews (I haven't read them for these two trucks) but do look at the facts and data. One thing that might have an impact on your decision is the results of the crash test. These two trucks were rated in four categories: driver, passenger, side-impact front and crash offset. In these categories, the Ranger scored: good, good, very good, acceptable. The S-10 scored: poor, average, average, marginal.

Make sure to spend some time negotiating a good deal. You should pay well below the sticker price. If you check out the New Truck section, Edmunds list the MSRP and Dealer Invoice prices for each truck and each option. You should be able to get a Ranger for closer to dealer invoice than MSRP. In the Superduty topic areas (where I usually participate) most of the people are buying trucks for about $500 over dealer invoice. Those are $30,000+, so that price is close to $4,000 lower than the MSRP window sticker. A dealer still makes money if he sells you the truck for dealer invoice. He gets a holdback equal to 3% of the MSRP of the vehicle.

Make sure to check for rebates also. Edmunds has a list of rebates for each manufacturer. Rebates are provided by the factory. If the dealer doesn't give them to you, he puts them in his own pocket. Let's say you were willing to pay $500 over dealer invoice and there was a $1,000 rebate. You should now be trying to buy the truck for $500 below dealer invoice. The way to look at a rebate is that it is money the factory is giving to the consumer. Unfortunately, the dealer gets to hold on to it until you claim it. Personally, I think it might be better if the truck just came with a mail-in rebate coupon. Anyway, if there is a rebate, deduct the rebate amount from the dealer invoice and consider that the real dealer invoice price.

In my opinion, you will be at a disadvantage when you first walk into the dealership because you are a female. It's not fair, and it's not always true but, unfortunately, it's the case more often than not. The key to combat this bias is to arm yourself with information. Information is the key to any negotiation. Know your pricing. Know the holdback amount. Know the rebates. If you're financing, try to line up your own financing before you walk into the dealership if possible.

If you can walk in without a trade-in, you will get a better deal. You can count on a dealer to offer you about 2/3 of the trade-in value identified on this site and on the Kelley Blue Book site (www.kbb.com). If they offer you a price on your trade-in that you think is good, you are very likely leaving some money on the other end of the transaction (the purchase of the new truck). Dealers have a net figure in mind that they want to get out of the transaction. If they feel the trade-in price they offer is more important to you than the price they are offering on the new truck, they will likely prop the trade-in price up and compensate by selling you the new truck for a little more than they would have if you didn't have a trade-in. If you don't have a trade-in, you eliminate this. The exception to this rule is if you have a really trashy trade-in that you'll be happy getting anything for.

One thing to remember is that this negotiation process is business, not personal. Don't get suckered in by sympathy for the salesperson. He does this for a living, even if he is new. They are trained to know what buttons to push, what catch-phrases to say, etc. They know how to manipulate the conversation away from areas that may not be going well. They may steer the conversation away from the trade-in price towards the new vehicle price or possibly into the attractive financing. They can get very creative with interest rates and loan lengths. It's not that hard to make a price you don't like, all of sudden, fit really nicely into your budget and my, what a great interest rate you got!

Also, dealers are very good about picking additional money from you after you have a deal you are happy with. There are huge markups on accessories like mud flaps, bug deflectors, visors, window shields, etc. Chances are you will be better off buying these somewhere else. The extended warranty and rust proofing options are things you should research. Edmunds has a Townhall section that discusses these issues.

On the same topic of "business, not personal", don' t let them get you upset (or at least don't let them see you're upset). If they treat you poorly and offer you a lousy deal, even if you feel it's because of your gender or race or anything, keep your professionalism. Thank them for their time and let them know you may call them back after you visit some other dealers. Sometimes, you get the best deals from the jerks who treat you the worst. It doesn't matter. If you get your price, you win.

Just a final comment that you can ignore if you want (of course you can ignore this entire post if you want). I know you mentioned not being able to afford the V-6, but you might take another look at it. The option has a dealer invoice cost of $336 and a MSRP of just under $400. Assuming you split the difference, the cost of the V-6 option on a four year loan at 8% is under $9 per month. That's an extra night or two of Top Ramen each month (I, too, have been to college). I've heard really good feedback on the performance of the V-6 compared to the 4 cylinder. The resale will be higher and the engine should last longer, since it won't have to work as hard as the 4 cylinder to do the same job.

wannaranger · December 1999

Thanks for the info! The dealers that I have checked on; and I think I've hit just about all in the St. Louis area; don't have the V6. And anyway , I've talked to a couple of the courier drivers that deliver to the print shop I work at and they both have high praise for them. One of the drivers has over 106,000 miles on it. The biggest sticking point about this whole thing is that at 36, I stay with my parents to help them and myself (rent is pretty high in St. Louis county). My mother feels that a truck is impractical for me, and my father is of the type that YOU bought the car you have pay it off first. I'll probably go on and sell my car outright at around $11,600 (asking price) and negotiate from there because I have never been offered an acceptable price for my cars. As you said they see a woman and think slam dunk! And selling a car yourself whether you owe a balance on a loan or not, makes your credit look good for future purchases. My last two cars I bought I received a pretty good deal on after doing my homework on edmonds and other sites. I'll probably put my car on the online sites and see how the response goes. And put an ad in the Post Dispatch for a little extra punch. Again, thanks for you advice I will take all that you said and think about it.
Wannaranger

tommc · December 1999

I bought a new 97 S10 with the 2.2 l engine. Sold it about 5 months ago. Beware!!! Nothing but trouble with this. I have several friends with both the Ranger and Chevy trucks and the Fords seem to be a much better built truck in the four cylinder versions. Not up to import quality, but pretty close. Go with the Ranger if you are sure you want a truck. Good luck whatever. tom

wldhair · January 2000

My lease is just about up on my 98 silverado- and I'm thinking of down sizing to s-10 V-6 4x4 ( 2 daughters in college is the reason why)
Anybody out there have one?? need to decide within 2 days
For what its worth _ I loved the silverado --no problems at all -- Just need to save a little money

scape2 · February 2000

If you have to go chevy get the ZR2 package on the S-10. I have a co-worker who owns a black one and it actually pretty nice. The ZR package makes the truck stand and look great!

99ranger1 · February 2000

I bought a 99 ranger sport in april 99
2.5 and an automatic I drive it every where no problems and the automatic gives me no problem it won't win any drag races but who cares my last ranger was an 89 xlt with a 2.9 and a 5spd no problems with that either rule of thumb take 1 Ranger every 10 years it keeps the mechanic away

chevy26 · February 2000

I liked the styling of the S10 better than the Ranger, plus I heard that Rangers have all kinds of problems with the transmission, so I bought a new S10. It's been perfect through the first 8,000 miles, except it took 3 or 4 times to start it one night when it was about 5 degrees.

dannyg · February 2000

Just curious: how does the acceleration/handling/mpg of your 2.5L 4cyl compare to your old 2.9L V6 5 sp?

I've got a 1985 2.8L V6 4x4 5sp and am thinking of getting a new truck this summer. I'm not sure I need the 4x4, so I would consider the 2.5L 4cyl. The 2.8L is not exactly a dragster, either, so I'm curious...

Any comments you have would be appreciated.

edharri3 · February 2000

In comparable 4 cylendar versions, I test drove a Ranger and an S10. The 2.2 On the S10 had NO PULL whatsoever, even in 1st gear. The ranger pulls hard all the way up until 4th. The ranger's interior was more comfortable and spacious. And I personally prefer my Ranger's styling. Someone said if you get the 4banger get the stick and they were absolutely right. With an automatic you would loose way too much power. So far my truck is excellent. It's hauled everything I've ever needed it to. I get 18 mpg with a 50/50 mix of highway and city driving, but I've very lead footed. Expect mid 20's as a minimum with the 4 if you know how to lay off the gas. My only regrets? I'd love a 3.0 and an extended cab. If I had to choose between the 2 I personally would look into getting a good deal on the extended cab, as you get some more recline in the seats. With my regular cab, interior stoorage pretty much disappears when I have a passenger. Go for the 4 banger with the manual and power won't be so bad. I'd seriously push to get an extended cab into your price range.

scape2 · February 2000

The 2.5 is adequate for everyday light use. Don't expect to outrace anyone though. If you need that extra torque/HP a 3.0 is not much more, about 300-500 more.
I also agree about the supercab. If you can get the supercab do it, better at resale time.

wannaranger · March 2000

I'm glad to see that this topic is still going since I started it last year. Unfortunately, my hopes of getting a Ranger is out of the question right now. I have as I mentioned before gone back to school to get certified to teach. I am living with my parents to save money for school costs (oh brother!) and to help around the house as they are both on disability. Well, to make a long story short, when I put my Firebird in the paper I had hoped to catch the bill in the mail before my parents did. Guess who got it first. I had to do some high stepping to get out of the twenty questions about my finances. So for now my dream of getting a Ranger will go unrealized. Thanks for all of the advice that you have given me and keep this topic going. As I said it's nice to see it continue, hopefully without the "mine is better than yours squabbling.

Truck On!
wannaranger

gmsjsb · March 2000

I have a 99 LS S10 Extended Cab 4 cylinder, 5 speed. It has adequate power but won't win any races. It is reasonably quiet. It is good for light loads and driving to and from work. MPG is around 26-27 mostly highway. I've driven a Ranger and the S10 feels a little 'tighter', if you will. But I'm sure both trucks are pretty much comparable.

Jeff

edharri3 · March 2000

I've seen rangers out there with a 7 foot long bed and a 5.5 ft shortbed but I'
ve seen some with a super shortbed that looks like maybe 4 feet or so and then there are the flare sides, which to me look even more rediculous. Im thinking the Splash is a pretty good example and I'd just like to hear from owners of these trucks. What are the measurements of your bed? What use do you get out of it?

edharri3 · March 2000

I've seen rangers out there with a 7 foot long bed and a 5.5 ft shortbed but I'
ve seen some with a super shortbed that looks like maybe 4 feet or so and then there are the flare sides, which to me look even more rediculous. Im thinking the Splash is a pretty good example and I'd just like to hear from owners of these trucks. What are the measurements of your bed? What use do you get out of it?

dannyg · March 2000

Maybe you're thinking of the Explorer-based SportTrac (http://www.fordvehicles.com/sporttrac/index.asp)? Regular Rangers either have a 6' short bed or a 7' long bed (maybe the old Splash models are shorter).

Dan

edharri3 · March 2000

sport trac. Mayybe with a regular cab the 6 ft shortbed looks shorter than it is because the truck is not so long overall. But the splash definitely does not look like a 6 ft bed.

amora · March 2000

Just traded in a '95 Ranger XLT Ext cab, 2.3L,
5 sp, top speed 116 mph on a '00 S10 Xtreme, reg
cab, 5 sp, top speed 93 (limiter) Xtreme handles
much better, better launch, better passing, better fule mileage, no stinking timing belt or twin-plugs (8), S10 2.2 is chain driven cam, roller rockers. Liked the Ranger, but love the
S10.

dan710 · March 2000

I HAVE 98 S-10 I LOVE THE POWER AND LOVE TO RACE IT . I HAVE A HOME MAID INTAKE ,COMPUTER,EXHAUST ON A2.2. IT RUN 16.9 AT 80 MPH .IHAVE NOT FOUND TO MANY RANGERS THAT CAN BEAT ME

edharri3 · March 2000

first, i doubt a ranger with a 2.3 will do 116 unless you modified it somehow. my regular cab ranger which weighs signifigantly less will not top 100 with my tonneau cover down.
And dan710, do you race your S10 against other modified rangers on the track or against stock 2.3's on the street? In equally stock form the 2.3 wins out no contest. I've driven both and the wimpy little 2.2 in the S10 pulls in first about as hard as the ranger does in 2nd when starting from rest. The 6 cylender versions of these trucks are a different story and the ranger looses out in acceleration till the 2001 version with the Explorer engine appears. But the ranger's 2.3 will win in a fair fight every time.

edharri3 · March 2000

and im almost positive ive seen reg cab rangers with a supershort bed that looks closer to 4 or 5 feet than 6. I'll try and find pis and post them here

amora · March 2000

'95 Ranger, ext cab, 2.3L, 120 speedo with K & N,
CAT-BACK exhaust, Split fire plugs, P245-60r14 Remington's. odometer: 127,210 miles, speedo
off 2.2 mph. Top speed on level road, 105 mpg,
top speed observed on 6% downgrade in Temecula, Ca
from Border check point was between 115-120 mpg.

This vehicle has no speed limiter. Revs were
at 4400 rpm. Max speed climbing 6% grade was
85 mpg... Have over 30 years driving experience,
if you keep revs up, it is possible to get maximum performance.

edharri3 · March 2000

Im impressed. And that last part definitely holds true

wallyne · March 2000

i also purchased a 00 xtreme reg cab short box, i love the way it handles and rides, very smooth. although the 2.2 is not fast, it still gets around quick and with the styling of the extreme, you can't go wrong. by the way "amore" i have rarely been over a hundred in previous cars, but what exactly will the limiter do?? will it slow it down or cut the engine? just curious.

amora · March 2000

At approx 93 mph the engine will pulsate, sort of
a cutoff of spark causing severe hesitation. This is due to speed rating of tires. If you
pull VSS cable from tranny, you can go as fast as you want, but your ABS light will come on and SPEEDO will be inoperative. Due to the many
2.2L S10's being sold, it is matter of time before
aftermarket companies came out with programmer to
disable and increase engine performance. Have gotten 29 mpg already. Vehicle currently has 5700 miles...Best handling vehicle I have ever owned...

aolivar · March 2000

Sorry chevy folks! The Ranger looks and handle like a real truck. The sissy look of those S-10 really make me sick. In terms of reliability
the Chevy S-10 has the worst record I ever seen.
If you don't believe me ask yourself the following question: Why Ford Ranger is the best selling compact truck in USA for the last twelve years? No half feelings please!

superjim2000 · March 2000

Ok so you dont like the look of the S10 thats your opinion. Did you even drive a S10? There are 7 suspension choices for the S10. Yes the Ranger has been number one in sales but where do you get your reliability numbers? I take em with a grain of salt anyway, I have real world experience with my 83 S10 that went 300,000 miles, so when it was time for a new truck the choice was easy---the S10.

modvptnl · April 2000

Actually the speed limiter on most vehicles is a fuel cutoff. About the worst thing you can do to a vehicle at high revs. It will come on where it is programmed to ie; no advance warning, it just feels like you're running out of gas(which you are) as soon as you are below the threshold it's business as usual.

amora · April 2000

Ummmm, let see, the S10 makes you sick and you feel the S10 is sissy looking....OK, I ve had several Rangers and S10's, am loyal to none, If i like looks and feel of certain truck, I buy it. I enjoyed my cute '92 Ranger and '95 EXT CAB purple colored truck, I also loved and enjoyed my '88
S10, 91, 94, '00....Had several F150's, loved them despite their ugliness, The new '97-00 F150's are breaking sales records, they make me sick just to
look at them, SO WHAT!!!! I would buy a FORD SVT LIGHTENING, but will wait for Chevy's new FORD SPANKING SILVERADO SS and see which would be more to my liking...Just being opinionated is all, no need to burn up your keyboard or laptop with ferocious touch typing to insure a fast rebuttal,
enjoy your Ranger.....

A paradigm by AMORA

afey · April 2000

I have a 95 chevy S10 4 banger 5spd. According to my reliability reports this truck is #1.
After 101K I still have the original battery and brakes. Just well kept maintance is all I have done.

tacoma_trd · April 2000

i have a 98 mazda B2500 which a twin to the ranger 2.5L 4-cyl, and its much better than any S10 4-cyl, the s10 is a 2.2L with not as much power, my buddy has an s10 2.2L and it just doesnt go when u hit the gas, the s10 also sits a lot lower to the ground than the ranger/B-series, plus the s10 is not as reliable

rangerknowhow · April 2000

well i am a ford fan, but i must say that the 2.2L chevy has 1, i repeat 1 more horespower that the 2.5 ford. But i recently read at a scientific site that Torque is a natural occurance in nature. Horse power is just a ratio made up by some guy in the old days. So who cares about 1 more horespower when the Rager 2.5L has 6 more pounds of torque

tacoma_trd · April 2000

i know the numbers are close but ive drvien both and to me it seems like the s-10 just doesnt have as much pep, i guess in a 4 cyl though, who is looking for a lot of pep.

dannyg · May 2000

I was at the NY Auto Show last week, and I tried to get info. about the new 2.3L OHC 4cyl that supposedly will debut sometime this fall. No one at the Ford booth knew about it--or at least was talking about it. Of course, they knew all about the new 200hp 4.0L OHC V6, but I'm currently more interested in the 4cyl. I'm looking to trade in my old Ranger V6 4x4 which gets about 19 mpg highway. I want to significantly improve that in my next truck.

I liked the new front-end styling. Looks good. But I'll wait until the fall to see about the new 4cyl before trading in my old V6 Ranger.

wilcox · May 2000

Have read all posts hers. Looks like the S-10 4 cyl is a shade behind the Ranger 2.5.
I have a S10 with 2.8 v-6. It's ok. With 117,000 mile on it, it works ok. Pretty reliable, but a lot of little things wrong with it (HVAC, emmissions controls, electrical indicators, etc). It's bench seat is awful from a comfort standpoint.
Am looking at new Rangers. The 2.5 automatic looks pretty good. I wish they had "camper tops" for them at a decent price. Haven't driven one yet..... What's this about a 4.0 motor with an OHC?

superjim2000 · May 2000

Hmmmm wonder if Chevy will offer the 200 HP 4.3 V6 thats in the Silverado in the S10 to keep up in '01.

xena1a · May 2000

I wonder why they de-tune the 4.3L for the S-10.
I believe the 2WD S-10's are rated at 180HP and the 4WD's are 190HP. Just wondering. Same engine, right?

superjim2000 · May 2000

Right, I dont think theres any difference except for how its rated, I checked once before and the compression ratio was the same for all 3. Maybe on the S10 they use a restrictive exhaust.

wilcox · May 2000

Thanks for the pointer. Sounds exciting. And a new 4 cylinder in November...hmmmm...

jayfrogdog · May 2000

Chevy will be offering a inline 6 for the new S-10
250 hp 250lbs. Fords 4.0L won't have a chance in engine performance. The new S-10 is also suppossed to be "worry-free" meaning less worries, less mantainance, better quaility.
The 4.3 offered for the S-10 now is comparable to the new ford 4.0L coming out. Ya the ford may have more hp, but torque is what matters when using it for work or play. Hp comes in to play at the highest rpm points, when the torque curves drop off, and who races while pulling a trailer.

davis23 · May 2000

About the "worry-free", less mantainance and better quality for the so called new S10. I'll believe it when I see it. Chevy's track record for the S-series trucks hasn't look to good.

superjim2000 · May 2000

I guess you had a bad experience with the S10, doesnt mean theyre all bad. I've have only good things to say about em because my '83 was a dream and my 99 is excellent.

My 83 wasnt the fastest thing with the 2.8 and a carb but it got the job done. In fact I wish I couldve kept it to drive in the winter but my cousin wanted it and after getting my new truck.......well it was much easier to part with my 83 even after 300,000 trouble free miles.

Now the S10 isnt the best truck in the world, if it was everyone would have one, but theyve been very good to me.

davis23 · May 2000

Sorry about the Chevy bashing. Its just that Im losing money on this truck. Its very said, My father works for GM. Other than my truck, Chevy has been pretty good to us.

mjbwrtr · May 2000

i have a 1993 chevy s-10 2wd tahoe package pickup with a five speed and a 2.8 v6. i am installing a tach as an aftermarket add-on. does anyone know what the redline is for this particular engine? also, i have owned a 1988 ranger xlt and the s-10, and i must say, the ranger had better power by far with the 2.9 than my chevy, but even so i like the chevy better. my next toy will likely be another ranger.

eharri3 · May 2000

I own a 95 regular cab 4x2 5spd ranger with longbed and the lower non towing axle ratio. So far my last tank gave me the best mileage I've seen, at 19.2 miles per gallon from top off until several miles after the check engine light went on. That comes to almost exactly a 318 mile range. I'm happy with the mileage, and feel it does not make too much of a demand on my disposable income, but I get the feeling it could be better. I readily admit I do the jackrabbit starts around town and cruise on the highway at 75-85mph. But on this last tank I cleaned up my act a bit and started coasting to lights in neutral, spending less time at 1st gear, and keeping it under 80. And I get 19.27 mpg, with my soft cover down the whole time. Do other people with similar driving styles get about the same thing? Have people tested their mpg with and without certain accessories? Does anyone think a bug deflector can affect mileage?

mark10641 · May 2000

I just picked up a brand new Ranger Supercab XLT 4cyl 5sp because it was a price leader and I received a great price on it. This truck has no get up and go at all. It's replacing my 93 Nissan PU 4cyl base model which blows the socks off this Ranger. Granted, it weights more than my Nissan because it's a supercab and I checked the horsepower when I got it home and it's less than the Nissan it replaces. But darn, this truck can't get out of its own way. I never figured power would be a problem since my previous truck wasn't the greatest and this Ranger has a bigger motor and I figured more technologically advanced than the 7yr old truck it's replacing. Is this normal? Does anybody else have the same complaint? I'm ready to go back to the dealer and drive another one just to make sure there is nothing wrong with it.

eharri3 · May 2000

Is kind of quick in a lighter regular cab with scant options like mine if you know how to work a manual transmission. Nothin to shout home about but in that sweet spot between 2500 and 3500 or so rpm it does pull well enough that I've kept a few econoboxes and compacts that thought a truck was easy pickins at bay. With a heavier super cab like yours, which im sure probably has a few extra things like air, it does get harder to get any power from the engine. Fraid you've got yourself normal example that probably runs just about the same as anything comparable. Did you even test drive one in that configuration before you signed the papers? It's a good idea to go with a 3.0 if you're getting the Ranger in a supercab, though i know that's pointless to hear now.

eharri3 · May 2000

One other thing to remember... That 2.3 is not the new technology you think it is. Remember when they had a 4 cylender mustang?

FORD RANGER VS. CHEVY S-10

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles