Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Ford Ranger III

13567…23

Comments

  • shawn106shawn106 Member Posts: 16
    Thanks xenala for the idea on the skid plates. I wont rule that out when its time to purchase. I just fueled up 18.9mpg. I consider that not bad,since im running 30x9.50 15" tires and 3.73 LS with the 4.0L and automatic,im a light foot also. Was wondering what set up you have? And mpg with the 3.0L.I need feed back from people with 4.0,3.0L standard and auto,3.73&4.10 combo's.If you guys are tired of posting this type of info,i understand.Just show me other posts. Thanks Shawn
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    I have a 4.0 5spd and my average MPG is 19. I do however go 65 on the freeway, am running P265x75R16 all terrains also. I know if I kept my foot out of it I could probably crack into the 20-21 average.. :-)).
    A front skidplate is also available now for your Rangers. I am reading around the net it wouldn't take much to mount this under 98 and above Rangers..Just an FYI..
  • xena1axena1a Member Posts: 286
    My '99 B3000 was a 4WD 3.0L 5-speed with a 3.73 axle (no LSD). I had the 30" BFG All-Terrain TA/KO tires on it. It got a solid 20MPG in all-purpose driving and right at 22MPG for strictly hi-way.
  • dannygdannyg Member Posts: 131
    Has anyone out there picked up a 2001 Ranger? If so, any initial comments? Did you get the new "Edge" model? The 4.0L SOHC? Good/bad? MPG?

    Thanks, considering a 2001 Ranger.
  • fredfred3fredfred3 Member Posts: 73
    Does anyone know if they make those little stick on plates that go around your exterior door locks specifically cut to fit the Ranger? I have some key scratches on my 2000 Ranger that I would like to try to cover up.
  • jackkajackka Member Posts: 25
    I delayed getting a 2000 Ranger with the 4L V6 when I learned that the 2001 would have the SOHC 4L V6 (a clearly better engine) available.
    Then I learned that Ford won't sell this engine with a manual transmission in the 2WD model.
    They only sell it with the automatic which has had "thumping and rattling" appear after 30000 mi.
    I question the wisdom of a company that won't put a manual transmission in a pickup. It's like selling a hamburger without ketchup available.
  • madridjoemadridjoe Member Posts: 28
    I'm about to buy a new truck. Considering a Ranger Supercab and I'm wondering if anyone has had trouble with the rear doors rattling and squeaking. I have heard that Chevy has that problem with the third door on the S-10.
  • danny25danny25 Member Posts: 119
    I just got back from the dealership and saw a couple of new Rangers. Both were extended cab Edge models, auto, 3.0L. Blue one was flareside, and a black one was styleside. Unfortunately I didn't have time to look long because I was being dragged away by my ride, but when I go back tonight to pick my truck up (had to get the seat fixed) I'll definately take a longer look. I hadn't planned on buying one of these Rangers, but I'm starting to reconsider.
  • hciaffahciaffa Member Posts: 454
    I've got a 98 XLT 4 door and I've had no rattles or any water leaks. Probably the only thing I ever heard was the rubber seals making a squeeking squishing sound but after apply some vinyl protectant the noise went away. Having the 4 doors is handy to place grocery bags in and out but I wish Ford had a bench seat in the back instead of the fold down seats. Great for kids for short rides but not good for adults.
  • nitro44nitro44 Member Posts: 1
    I have a 99 w/the 4.0 and it has a noise at low engine idle. I have 21k miles on it. After reading about a possible problem, I took it to the dealer to be checked out. The mechanic said that the sohc engine has a lot of valve noise and with the plastic plenum it is loud. He started 3 new ones on the lot, and they all sounded similar. I am leasing this vehicle so it isn't a big deal, but I plan on getting an F 150 next.
  • smo5smo5 Member Posts: 1
    Hi, I rented a Budget Xtra Cab 4dr Ranger and had back pains within a hour. Anyone know anything about this?
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    Frey, I know you said you don't want to change tire sizes... But I have to try anyway. I notice you have a 4x4. The puny 235's make the Ranger look small in comparison to the competition from Toyota and Nissan. At least try a 245 or 255? I know you won't regret it. It will make your Rangers stance much more aggressive along with making it look like a 4x4. As far as tires, get rid of those Firejunkers, I always say! These are junk, I was told they are a 4ply tire!! on a 4x4! Get at least an 8ply if you offroad... BFG's, Goodyears, Michellins are good brands.. Good luck...
  • dannygdannyg Member Posts: 131
    I was over at http://www.carsdirect.com & it appears there's a big price increase for the Ranger regular-cab 4x4s for 2001. For 2000, you can get an XL 4x4 starting at about $16K MSRP and an XLT 4x4 starting at about $18K MSRP. For 2001, they only list two regular-cab 4x4 models, an Edge starting at $19.7 MSRP (regular side) and $20.4 (flareside).

    Is this true? Is the only 2001 regular-cab 4x4 an expensive Edge model? What about an XL or XLT 4x4? What about the long-wheelbase version? Or is carsdirect.com's database not up-to-date?

    Does anyone out there have info on this?

    Ouch! So much for trading in my old Ranger long-bed 4x4 for a 2001.
  • xena1axena1a Member Posts: 286
    If you need decent lumbar support, the seats of the Ranger/B-Series trucks will probably cause you a lot of grief. On long trips especially, my lower back was always aching when driving my B3000. This summer, I started using a lumbar support cushion and felt much better. Drove round trip from AZ to CO with no trouble. Do yourself a favor and get yourself some decent lower back support. This seems to be a fairly common complaint with these trucks...
  • xradxrad Member Posts: 2
    I have a 94, 2wd, Ranger X-Cab, Splash, 4.0L, auto, cruise tilt, air, delay wipers.

    My problem is with the delay wipers. With 95,000 miles on the truck, the wipers have stopped functioning properly. They will move up somewhere between a few inches, and all the way up. The wipers will work when turned full on - low, or high, but screw up on delay. I have taken the stalk apart, and cleaned all contacts, and I have found the little relay box (way up behind the radio) and removed it, cleaned it, and put it back. The delay function is still messed up. Should I just break down and start replacing parts ($102 for the stalk, and $55 for the relay box), or is there a fix?

    Also, my 4.0L engine knocks and pings like made when I use anything other than Super or Supreme gas. The mid-grade and regular result in massive noises from under the hood. I have tried fuel additives, and they don't work. I will be buying a decarbonizing kit, some time in the future, but until then, I put high-test in it.

    The only problems other than these have been, front brakes ($62 for pads and labor), A/C charge (R-134, $24), and a thermostate ($7.50).

    This is my second Ranger, and probably won't be my last.
  • davidb72davidb72 Member Posts: 174
    My 95 had the same problem, in addition to phantom wipers once in a while. Replace the stalk. I did 20,000 miles ago and it has worked fine since with no phantom wipes either. I'd shop around for the part though, I found it for $70.00. The dealer gets the part from a distributor, the distributor will sometimes sell to you, FIND THE DISTRIBUTOR! Good luck!
  • pocahontaspocahontas Member Posts: 802
    For 2 years running, the Ford Ranger has made it on the list as Edmund's "most wanted" small pick-up truck! For those interested, here's the direct link to Edmund's Most Wanted 2001 Trucks. Happy Motoring. ;-)

    Pocahontas,
    Edmunds.com/Roving Host
  • kit1404kit1404 Member Posts: 124
    At least it is getting the "old" overhead cam 4.0 engine from the Explorer this year. But, the Explorer will have a nifty new V-8 engine in a few months. Ford trys to sell the Ranger and does well against the foreign competition plus GM small trucks are generally worse anyway. So, they have a marketable product. My point: buy the F-150. It will get similar gas mileage to the Ranger and the comfort level/just general satisfaction factor is so much higher. I had a 1998 Ranger with one of the bad 4.0 engines - now I have a 1999 F-150 with the 5.4 Triton. The difference in gas mileage is minimal at our high altitude and the actual purchase cost difference between the two was also minimal - the overall satisfaction factor is huge. Guess if you want to use a truck like a Jeep, the Ranger is better choice. But, for overall 4X4 utility, the F-150 is hard to beat.
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    kit, what planet have you been on?? The Ranger gets the new SOHC 4.0 V6 this year!!! It has 205HP and 240ft/lbs of torque. It has been in the Explorer now for about 3 years. It is available in a 5spd autmatic transmission and a 5spd manual is due out later this year. The Ranger has been redesigned and looks pretty good... Come on man, get up to date!
  • poorfordpoorford Member Posts: 1
    I have a 2000 Ranger XLT 4WD. Ever since I have had it which is now 11 months I have had a noise in the right front brake. I have taken it back 5 times to two Ford dealers in my area and the claim to fix it. Only it comes back. The last time I had a customer service rep. come to the dealer to see if he could get the it fixed. He claimed to solve the problem. I will say that it lasted longer than the other fixes. Is is now back. I am ready to go back to my old brand. This was the first Ford I purchased and the last.
  • kit1404kit1404 Member Posts: 124
    And, like I said before - the Ranger finally gets the old Explorer engine - the overhead cam version of the old 4.0 engine that has been in the Ranger forever. As my history of Ford vehicles reminds me, the push-rod 4.0 started life as a 2.9 V-6 that originally came from Europe as a car engine. Ford thought it was strong enough to bore out to 4.0 and that was the original Explorer engine in about 1991. Unfortunately, it has taken nearly 10 years for Ford to develop anything better for the Ranger. But, the Explorer - with more capital financing - got an overhead cam version of this same engine with its latest design in about 1997. It also took a few years for this design to be really strong. Now, the overhead cam version of this old 4.0 will be the base engine in the Explorer - it will get a nice V-8 very soon. Ford had to do this to compete with Jeep's small V-8. Anyway, yes I am on the same planet. The Ranger finally got a new 4-year-old design from the Explorer. Where is the V-8 for the Ranger? Isn't that what it needs to be really competitive? The new V-6 just keeps it in the ballpark. My point - the Ranger doesn't get much development money from Ford. Buy the F-150 - it is the center of focus.
  • tacoma_trdtacoma_trd Member Posts: 135
    I happened to stop and take a look at the new rangers. Boy do they look good. The salesman also told me that an SVT Ranger will be made soon with a V8. He did not know what V8 would be in it, but it would have one. I wish the 5spd manual tranny 4x4 would come out soon. That is what I am looking for.
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    The Ranger ranks 7th out of the 10 best selling vehicles in the United States. This is pretty good in my book for a compact pick-up.
    kit, there is a price difference between a Ranger and an F150. You can get pretty well loaded new 4x4 Rangers for about 18K. A comparably optioned F150 will cost you at least 2-3K more. On another note. If you ever go offroading in many cases a full size won't fit into places a compact 4x4 can. I do agree Ford let its gaurd down too long with its engine line-up in the Ranger. Toyota and GM stomped the Ranger when it came to HP figures. I don't think your going to see a V8 Ranger anytime soon. The demand is just not there. A V6 does me just fine for what I need to haul and tow.
  • kit1404kit1404 Member Posts: 124
    The Dodge Dakota has the new overhead cam version of their V-8 this year. And, yes it has had its problems. But, my point: Ford sells so many Rangers based on price, not on best available equipment and lately not really on best quality. So many people shop compact trucks and cars based on the amount of the monthly payment. I guess that is where we get into the 2 or 3 grand more - to me, the F-150 is worth about 50% more in actual cost. It is that much more vehicle. If Ford really wanted to make a statement with the Ranger, it would already have a small V-8. But, then I think they may be thinking about catch-up mode - the pressure is on - and the Ranger will probably be a much better vehicle in the near future.
  • dannygdannyg Member Posts: 131
    Just for the record, let me say that I for one don't want or need a V8 Ranger or full-size pickup. Like a lot of people, I use my old V6 Ranger for general utility and light hauling/towing. I don't want or need a V8.

    My only complaint is I'd like truck that gets better MPG. I tend to buy cars/trucks and keep them 10 years or so. There's no telling where gas prices will be in a few years. That's why I'm looking forward to test driving the 2.3L 4cyl Ranger when it becomes available. I'll buy one of those or maybe an S10.

    Just my thoughts.
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    The reason why more people buy Rangers is because they are the best value for your dollar on the market today. As far as people only buying Rangers because of the price, this is bull.... The same can be said then about the F150/250 series. These trucks are far less expensive than a comparable Dodge or Silverado. Fact is Ford can mass produce both of these trucks in high volumes and pass the savings onto the consumer. The Ranger is a good compact truck. It can be had in just about any model with any engine, drivetain, axle, bed.. you can get, or not get the options you want. The Ranger hasn't been the best selling compact pickup for 13 years straight just because of price....
  • xena1axena1a Member Posts: 286
    I agree, I think the demand is there for a V8 Ranger. I owned a '99 Mazda B3000 4X4 and was happy with the truck except for one fatal flaw. On road trips, the engine was underpowered and noisy. It also had a pinging problem that necessitated that I run hi-octane fuel in it. I was holding out for the 4.0L SOHC Ranger or B-Series when on a whim, I test drove the 4.7L V8 Dakota. Momma Mia! I was smitten. There is just something very seductive about a V8 and a 5-speed! Well, I've made the switch and have been very satisfied. The Dakota only costs me an average of $2 more a week in fuel and is an absolute blast to drive. I'm not knocking the Ranger/B-Series. I like those trucks. They are a good value and there is a lot that is right about the product. I just was not happy with the 3.0L. I guess what I am saying is that there is a market for compact trucks with V8s and I would like to see the Ranger with that engine choice...
  • kit1404kit1404 Member Posts: 124
    Ford should be looking hard at a compact truck to meet the needs of the folks that just need a good around-town, cheap and cheap to run pick-up. Plus the needs of those who want something other than a full-size, but with most of the amenities in other words - comfort, power, etc. in a smaller package. The Ranger filled both bills for many years - the Dakota sets a new target. Interesting to me, Dodge doesn't even offer a compact pick-up anymore - just the mid-size Dakota and the full-size Ram. And, by the way, Ford is not always the cheapest in the full-size arena. Depends on new-year introductions - currently the Dodge is cheaper, but for several years they were the most expensive. GM is higher right now - probably won't last for long. These things change, so should the Ranger.
  • dannygdannyg Member Posts: 131
    Good point, Dodge doesn't even make a compact truck anymore. Me, I want a true compact truck with the good MPG that comes with a 4cyl or small V6. The Dakota really defines a new type of truck, the midsize. That truck is right for someone else.

    I'd like the Ranger to remain a real compact, but it would be fine if Ford wants to build a V8-powered midsize Dakota competitor. Just don't stop building compacts the way Dodge did!
  • dannygdannyg Member Posts: 131
    Looks like 2001 Ranger info is at last at Ford's site:

    http://www.fordvehicles.com/trucks/ranger/

    At last!
  • bigmaxbigmax Member Posts: 11
    In 2000 you could get a fully loaded or a stripped
    model ranger or any option in between in 6 or 7
    foot bed with 4 cyl .In 2001 you can't get a 7 foot
    bed with 4 cyl, and the only options you can get
    with a 4 cyl are tilt & cruise, automatic and an
    appearance package. No cassette/CD,No sliding rear
    window. To get the cassette/CD from the factory I
    have to get a 3.0 L V6 Styleside Appearance Group
    (336A)Thats fully loaded with 5 speed automatic
    (don't want) chrome wheels, white letter
    tires,cassette/CD (want that)power windows mirrors
    locks and transmitter (don't want any of those and
    a bed rail cover.
    Whats with that,last year you could order options
    seperately, this year it's all or nothin.
    If I buy a 2001 ranger 4 cyl standard shift I will go to a Truck assessory store and have a sliding rear window
    installed and a electronics store to have a
    cassette/CD alarm installed at fords lost.The only
    thing I won't get is a 7 foot bed,oh well.
    The 1 reason I want a 4 cyl is the price of gas,I beleave we will never see $1.00 gas again and gas will be least $1.50 and closer to $2.00 It will be my only vehicle and I need a truck to haul grass,leaves,sticks,small boat and other dirty stuff. Hey I live in the country.
    BIGMAX
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    If you can wait for the new 2.3. This new 4cyl engine is more powerful, more torque and gets better MPG than the present 2.5
  • dannygdannyg Member Posts: 131
    No 4cyl with the long bed? Damn! I've got an old V6 Ranger with the long bed & I'd like to buy a new long-bed Ranger. I'd really really like to improve my MPG so I wanted to test drive the new 2.3L 4cyl!

    But here's something odd. If you look at the bottom of the Ford Media page, it lists towing capacity for both 4cyl short-beds and long-beds!

    http://media.ford.com/products/presskit_display.cfm?vehicle_id=238&press_section_id=398

    Now I'm confused.
  • bigmaxbigmax Member Posts: 11
    Dan, I have the 01 ranger brochure and even on the XL the 7' bed has the 3.0 L V6.
    I hope it's wrong. The 7' weighs only about 60 pounds more than a 6' bed.
    A friend has a 97 4 banger 7' Bed 2.3 shift it yourself 5 speed and I love it, sure you have to shift to make it up a long hill but it will make it up most in 4th and he gets at least 25 mpg. Hey thats great for a pickup. He has a 10' aluminum boat with trollin motor and he loads it in the back with the battery and tackle and you don't even know its there.
    I hope ford realizises that fuel mileage is important to some people and they let you get the 7' bed with the new 4 banger and let us get all the options thats avalable with the V6 and seperate the options I don't want automatic,power locks windows mirrors.But I do want CD/cassette and sliding rear window and cruise/tilt wheel.
    Al
  • bigmaxbigmax Member Posts: 11
    I question the accuracy of media.ford.com.
    They say the 3.0L V6 has 14 to 1 compression ratio.
    I now believe the brochure is correct on the 7' bed.
    Al
  • dannygdannyg Member Posts: 131
    If it really is true that there's going to be no 2.3 with the long bed, Ford may just have lost a sale. One of the main reasons I really like the Ranger is it is a compact truck with a good-sized bed. I was looking forward to buying a new 2001.

    I guess I'll buy used (again), maybe an old 2.3L Ranger or a Frontier. At least the Frontier has a 6.5 foot bed.

    I read somewhere (in blueovalnews.com I think) that they have changed their mind about offering the 4.0L with the regular cab. Believe it or not, they originally weren't going to offer it. Now I understand they will. So maybe they'll change their mind about the 2.3L as well.
  • tacoma_trdtacoma_trd Member Posts: 135
    Even if the 2001 rangers arent availible with the 4 cyl and a 7' bed, the 3.0L V6 is only about $300 more and you get very close to the same gas mileage, but it has more power
  • zigster38zigster38 Member Posts: 117
    I looked all over blueovalnews.com for a mention of a regular cab 4.0 being offered in the US but I didn't see it. Where is it? In the forums they mentioned canada has it...could one go to Ottawa and buy a truck? Just kidding...I think...
  • bigmaxbigmax Member Posts: 11
    The 2.5 manual average mpg is 24 the 3.0 is 19
    The 2.5 auto average is 22 the 3.0 is 18
    The new 2.3 is supposed to beat the 2.5 by 2 mpg average that would be 26 for the manual 7 better.
    Also you can't get the 3.0 with the manual on the XLT 7' box. To get the manual with the 7' box you have to settle for the XL without a lot of features like no box light no armrest storage no map pockets in the doors no map lights no carpet.
    Ford has really screwed up the options for 2001.
    check out www.fueleconomy.gov
    Al
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    Are those numbers for the 3.0 with a 5spd? I have seen numbers for the 3.0 at 19city 21highway for a 3.0 5spd 2wd Rangers.
  • turbocatturbocat Member Posts: 6
    I just sold a 98 Tacoma SR5 supercab 4x4 v-6. My new 2001 Ranger should arrive in about 2 weeks. It is a 4 door supercab 4x4 with the SOHC 4.0 v-6, 5 speed auto, XLT with the off-road package. I sold my Tacoma because it was probably the most uncomfortable vehicle I've ever owned. Besideds that it was a great little truck. Anybody else have the same problem with their Tacomas ? Can't wait for my Ranger to show up, 4 litre SOHC + 5 speed auto + 4.10 limited slip rearend should equal lots of smoke off of the (gulp!) Firestone P 245/74/R16's !
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    turbocat, as soon as you take delivery of your Ranger run down as fast as you can to the nearest Discount tire or Americas Tire store and trade those Firejunkers in!! Get some P265x75xR16's all terrains with at least an 8ply tire. You should get a pretty good trade in for you new Firestones. The 265 will make the stance of your Ranger look even more agressive, along with the increase in ground clearance to match any Toyota TRD on the road. Believe me Tires make a huge difference on how a truck looks and performs..
  • turbocatturbocat Member Posts: 6
    vince8 I plan on actually getting both new wheels and tires. I was going to go with 15X8's and 31X10.50 15's. Old tech. I know, but my I can save a few bucks over the 16 inch setup. Actually, nobody wants to trade for Firejunkers now because nobody will buy them. Maybe Ebay?
  • tacoma_trdtacoma_trd Member Posts: 135
    trade your tires into a dealer towards the purchase of new tires
  • tacoma_trdtacoma_trd Member Posts: 135
    BTW what color did u order??? Im thinking in a few months of maybe getting one, I like the White EDGE 4x4
  • dannygdannyg Member Posts: 131
    My mistake, zigster48! In the blueovalnews.com forums, a guy reports being able to order a 4.0L 5sp manual regular-cab 2001 Ranger...in Ottawa. So much for the U.S. market. Sigh.

    I sure hope they change their mind in the U.S. too:

    --offer the 2.3L (at least give us the 5sp manual) with the 7' bed for guys like me interested in MPG;
    --offer the 4.0L with the regular cab 4X2 for the sport-truck crowd.

    My guess is they've cut down on the number vehicle combinations to save $$. If they "save" enough, I just might not buy another Ford. Congrats, Ford, you sure "saved" a lot!

    Thanks, tacoma_trd, for the fueleconomy.gov link. It's a good site for MPG-obsessed people like me!
  • dannygdannyg Member Posts: 131
    OK, how about talking about what we'd like to see in future Rangers. Say, the next complete redesign which is around 2003/2004.

    At the risk of offending a lot of people in this forum, let me start the ball rolling:

    --Replace the current OHV 3.0L in favor of the 200hp OHC 3.0L found in Taurus etc. This is a better base engine for 4x4 models and an excellent upgrade for cheaper 4X2 models. OR, if Ford really really has to cut down on the number of vehicle combinations to cut $$, drop the 3.0L altogether. The engine lineup would then be similar to Chevy's: a base 2.3L (hey,140hp isn't TOO bad) and a +200hp 4.0L V6 for 4x4s, sport trucks, etc.
    --Offer a light-weight AWD system (like new Escape) as a upgrade to 4x2 models. AWD systems are VERY popular in SUVs and sedans (Subaru etc.) in northern regions where there's snow/bad weather/etc. Why not in a pickup? I'm thinking of an $1K option that adds 100-200lb to the weight of the truck. Offer it with all engine options, including the 2.3L 4cyl. (You can get the 4cyl Escape with AWD.)
    --Crew-cab version with 5' bed.
    --Of course, still offer a true heavy-duty 4x4 model for the offroad crowd. My old Ranger 4x4 is a lot of fun, even with only 115hp out of the old 2.8L V6! But I want MUCH better MPG from my next truck.
    --Develop a brand-new midsize pickup/SUV platform to compete with the Dakota. There's obviously a lot of interest in midsize pickups. This new midsize would have V6s and V8s. Keep the Ranger a real compact, Ford!

    Just my thoughts.
  • turbocatturbocat Member Posts: 6
    The color I ordered is black with tan interior. I thought about ordering an Edge, but they come with vinyl floors instead of carpet. (I ordered an XLT). Also, I like chrome bumpers etc. I'll keep ya all up to date when I receive mine. (about two weeks, whoo hoo !!!) It's going to lease pretty well too.
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    The 3.0 Vulcan is being dropped next year, wish answered. Ford is developing a straight 6, even a 4cyl diesel for the Ranger. I am hearing rumors the new 2003 Ranger will be larger, almost the size of the Dakota. Remember, this is a truck not a sports car. Trucks need torque to haul/pull/tow.
  • turbocatturbocat Member Posts: 6
    Ford is coming out with an all new Explorer this spring as a 2002 model. It will be larger than it is now but smaller than the Expedition. Engines will be SOHC 4.0 base with a 4.6 Trition v-8 optional. It looks alot like a baby Expedtion. Should be pretty good competition for the Durango. Maybey the Ranger will follow suit....
This discussion has been closed.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles