Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Ford Ranger III
This discussion has been closed.
Most popular vehicles
Popular New Cars
- New Acura MDX
- New Acura RDX
- New Audi Q5
- New BMW 3 Series
- New BMW X3
- New Buick Enclave
- New Cadillac Escalade
- New Chevrolet Equinox
- New Chrysler 300
- New Dodge Challenger
- New Ford Edge
- New Ford Escape
- New Ford Expedition
- New Ford Explorer
- New Ford F-150
- New Ford Focus
- New Ford Mustang
- New Honda Accord
- New Honda Civic
- New Honda CR-V
- New Honda Fit
- New Honda Odyssey
- New Honda Pilot
- New Hyundai Elantra
- New Hyundai Santa Fe
- New Hyundai Sonata
- New Hyundai Tucson
- New Jeep Compass
- New Jeep Grand Cherokee
- New Jeep Wrangler
- New Mazda 3
- New Mazda 6
- New Mazda CX-5
- New Nissan Altima
- New Nissan Maxima
- New Nissan Rogue
- New Porsche Cayenne
- New Ram 1500
- New Subaru Crosstrek
- New Subaru Forester
- New Subaru Impreza
- New Subaru Outback
- New Tesla Model S
- New Tesla Model X
- New Toyota 4Runner
- New Toyota Camry
- New Toyota Corolla
- New Toyota Highlander
- New Toyota Prius
- New Toyota RAV4
- New Toyota Sienna
- New Toyota Tacoma
- New Volkswagen Jetta
- New Volvo XC60
- New Volvo XC90
Popular Used Sedans
- Used BMW 5 Series
- Used Chevrolet Impala
- Used Chevrolet Malibu
- Used Chrysler 200
- Used Dodge Charger
- Used Ford Fusion
- Used Ford Taurus
- Used Honda Accord
- Used Honda Civic
- Used Hyundai Elantra
- Used Hyundai Sonata
- Used Tesla Model S
- Used Toyota Camry
- Used Toyota Corolla
- Used Volkswagen Jetta
Popular Used SUVs
- Used Acura MDX
- Used Acura RDX
- Used Ford Edge
- Used Ford Explorer
- Used Honda CR-V
- Used Honda Pilot
- Used Hyundai Santa Fe
- Used Jeep Compass
- Used Lincoln Navigator
- Used Mazda CX-5
- Used Nissan Rogue
- Used Subaru Crosstrek
- Used Subaru Forester
- Used Tesla Model X
- Used Volvo XC90
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Insofar as the tires are concerned, it has the optional larger Firestone Wilderness A/T P245X75RX16. I will be doing almost exclusively city/suburban/highway driving (I was debating if I needed a 4x4 in the first place). So, I think I'll be staying put for a while on the tires. According to the Firestone person I spoke with, I should get at least 50,000 miles out of them. They look pretty nice w/ the white writing on them (If I could only keep them looking that way!). With any larger size, I feel (and the tire man confirmed) I would be getting less smooth ride, though sturdier and more dependable for off-road driving.
With reference to the running boards, I was torn between the nerf bars (sportier) and aluminum running boards (more practical). I let the practical part win and placed an order for the black anodized aluminum running boards, with a gray non-slip hard strip across. They provide longer/wider coverage, are longer in the back (to the rear wheel well), which would help trying to reach something in the bed of the truck, and provide better protection to the body from flying gravel, because they are capped at both ends. In addition, they come with a 5 or 6 yr warranty and cost $100 less than the nerf bars. The only thing I did not like about them, is they will have to drill to install them, versus the use of just braces for the installation of nerf bars.
--easier to get in/out (see #209 who mentions his wife has trouble getting into his truck, a common problem);
--better MPG (lower wind resistance);
--easier to load/unload the bed.
In the old days, 4x2s rode lower than 4x4s. I think we should go back to that.
Just my thoughts.
Today I saw a new 2001 Ranger sport in black. Wow! an eye catcher no doubt. Ford doesn't badge their trucks as either having a 3.0 or 4.0, kind of wish they would though. From what I can tell by the exterior I would bet it had the new SOHC 4.0 in it. It had power mirrors and a toneau cover and looked like it had the 245 tires. This person spent some money so I had to assume the opted for the SOHC 4.0..... Just a thought.
The dealers around me have alot of these on their lots. I just ordered a ranger but did not want the OffRoad pkg, as it adds about $800 to the price and the only thing it includes is the skidplates, side step bars and offroad shocks.
thanks!
Vehicle - 2000 Ranger 2WD Trailhead with 3.0 V6 and 5sp manual. 7K miles so far....
Cons
1) Fuel Economy. Sometimes drops to 16 mpg for no reason. (Faulty fuel alcohol sensor enriching the mixture?). Anyhow, I drive pretty conservatively. Sometimes it is 19 mpg, with no discernable change in driving habits.
2) Had to go to 89 octane to stop the pinging.
3) Engine power delivery and transmission shift quality have never been smooth.
4) The d*** turn signal lever. It won't stay switched if the steering wheel is in a slightly off center position. Have to turn wheel slightly to engage. VERY annoying!
5) The d*** turn signal lever! I can easily cancel it with my knee because the steering wheel column placement of the lever drops down, and lifting the left knee slightly when set for a left turn will cancel the turn signal.
6) General lack of power. Don't expect a sports car here, but 2 lane highway passing can sometimes be nerve-racking.
7) Flex Fuel? Where is the E-85? (Not in the southeast US).
8) Firestone Wilderness AT tires. Need I say more? (Firestone/Ford didn't recall the 16 inchers) Try to sell a vehicle right now with 'em on your truck! Hope you don't take 'em off road, you will be stuck in the 'Wilderness'.
9) The trailhead suspension can cause a little rough ride at times.
Pros
1) Brakes are excellent.
2) A/C is excellent.
From my experience so far, it's a much better investment to get the F-150 (or any fullsize, for that matter). The only plus to the Ranger is the price of admission, the rest is negative on the Ranger side. And any 2WD Ford F-150 with a V-8 will get better overall mileage than I am getting, with an automatic trans! For instance, my Mom's '98 2WD Expedition with 5.4 Triton averages 16 mpg, and she's no slow driver. (Expeditions are *heavy*)
The main reason for my downsizing from a F-150 was the lower cost of operation. But the fuel economy is the same (or worse), the insurance cost is the same, and the depreciation is much worse.
Anyhow, I'm off the the friendly FORD dealer (or Toyota Dealer for a Tundra) to trade it in. You will also notice the biggest negative of all with the Rangers. A dramatic loss of resale value.
Just my experiences.....
Even though Consumer Reports gives a vehicle (the Ranger in this case) a 'Recommended' rating, this , in my experience, is meaningless. This was one of my major considerations in choosing the Ranger, but my owner experience tells me otherwise. I can't believe now in retrospect that CR would recommend this vehicle.
BTW, I am a lifetime Ford Truck owner. Have been generally happy with all my Ford products up until this one.
Also BTW, when Ford sent my my owner's survey on the truck I made no doubt I was *very* dissatified. What I got from FoMoCo in response was an automatically generated, corporate 'sympathy' postcard saying to the effect, "Sorry about your dissatisfaction, too bad". I really don't think Ford really cares about the customer anymore, even if you are a multiple repeat customer. I'm not gonna whine to the Ford sales or customer reps anymore. I'll let my next purchase decision ($$$) speak for me.
My friends who have Toyotas have all been treated quite well after the sale. Hmmmmm......
Don't know if FoMoCo wants to keep me as a customer. Drove a loaded F-150 2WD Lariat SC last night. We'll wait and see what the dealer comes back with for price with trade-in.
Just venting....
(At least I've still got my '75 Bronco. Now THAT'S a real truck!)
Yeah, I don't know who came up with those 'So Sorry, too bad' postcards at Ford, but they need to get a reality check. It definately had a negative impact on me.
I just feel, and this is my opinion, that if you are a repeat buyer of Ford products and you are unhappy with your current vehicle, Ford should treat you better if you want to trade for another Ford vehicle to keep you in the Ford camp. This means above average trade-in value or a better price break on the new vehicle. They have done it before. They used to send out rebate coupons for previous F-150 owners to get a $1000 rebate on a new F-150 just to trade up. (Wish I had taken advantage when I had my '93 F-150.)
A company's greatest asset is repeat customers. Brand loyalty is the hardest thing for competitors to overcome. And repeat customers are normally the best cheerleaders for the product since the best advertisement is always word-of-mouth.
So it seems that we're really down to two engine choices for the Ranger: the upcoming new 140hp OHC 2.3L 4cyl and the new 200hp 4.0L V6. I for one am interested in MPG, so I'm waiting to test the new 2.3L 4cyl. After years of driving my old 2.8L V6 4x4 Ranger (16mpg around town, 19mpg highway), I really want better MPG in my next truck.
Personally, I prefer the Ranger for a few other reasons:
--the compact size, easier to park etc.;
--I don't want/need the large bed in the full-size;
--the lower ride-height of the Ranger 4x2 (easier entry/exit for my girlfriend);
--appearance (the new 2001s look good);
--price!
Supercab?? I dont plan on doing it all the time
but just in case I NEED to...
I have stories too.
My first Ranger went 96,000 miles WITH NO PROBLEMS at all. I used it as a real 4x4 in my fishing and hunting serches. In no way did I baby this truck in its las 25K miles. The F150 is a good truck no doubt. But has its limits as a 4x4 vehicle. You couln't fit an F150 onto some of the trails I take my Ranger, you could not turn your F150 around in places I can turn my Ranger. I am no on my second Ranger, a 1998 SC 4x4 XLT 4.0 5spd, 3.73 rearend, offroad pkg, tow pkg, the works. This truck now has about 30K on it WITH NO PROBLEMS.
I agree that the Rangers are still good vehicles. When equipped properly, they are capable of long, reliable service. Know many people with high mileage Rangers (and Bronco II's) that are satisfied. But none that I know of are overly *enthusiastic* about the Ranger, just satisfied.
But, with such a long development history, you would think the trucks would be a little more refined, especially in the drivetrain area. The overall quality of these vehicles depends on who you talk to. Some people are more satisfied, some less, me being the latter.
I knew the truck was not that refined when I bought it. Turned out that, in the long run, I wasn't gonna be satisfied with that, along with some disappointing vehicle performance.
The definition of quality is the degree to which the customer is satisfied. Or, to put it another way, does the customer think they got there money's worth? It's all a matter of the customer's opinion. If I paid $15K for a vehicle, I want what I consider $15K worth of value. If I get that or more than $15K worth, I'm happy.
In my case, the MPG is the biggest dissapointment. Given my driving habits, the average should fall between 17 and 21. This has never been the case, even after allowing for a break-in period. (It has seem to get worse, as of late).
So, anyhow, I would be much more satisfied to be back in a F-150. Others may not. Just expressing my opinions, pro and con, since there may be others like me who might be considering the switch to a smaller truck, of *any* manufacturer.
One other CON of the Ranger: Does anybody know why the corregations of the pickup bed floor are so wide and *deep*? I assume this is to give the bed stiffness, but the sizing of the channels makes small things like gas cans easy to tip over since they will tilt if an edge falls into one of the channel valleys. It also makes walking in the pickup bed uncomfortable and awkward.
No other manufacturer makes 'em so deep, so it can't be neccesary. May have an advantage, but I find it strange.
Later,
My FoMoCo hall of fame:
'75 Bronco - Best 4WD vehicle *ever* (still own)
'79 Ranchero - Don't laugh, it was a great car/truck. Went cross country twice. Nary problem.
'87 Bronco II XLT 4WD - Great off road, that's it. (And you thought *today's* SUVs are easy to roll-over)
'93 Ford F-150 XLT 2WD SC - Good, straight forward truck
'00 Ranger XL Trailhead - Decent, for the money
I have not driven 2001 versions of either, but from other posts, it doesn't sound like there will be much difference is gas mileage. Is that true? I expect there to be a noticeable difference in performance, but if the gas mileage is the same, I might as well go with the more powerful engine.
What do the experts think? What are the pro's/con's of the 3.0 versus the 4.0 engine, other than initial cost?
Thanks!
Pros of the 3.0L:
1. Respectable MPG. My Mazda B3000 got a solid 20 MPG in all-purpose driving. It got close to 22 MPG for hiway trips. Not bad for a 4X4 with 30" BFG All-Terrain tires.
2. Decent as commuter, or for around town, or for off-road. For these applications, I really did not have any complaints about the 3.0L engine.
Cons of the 3.0L:
1. Pinging. These engines seem to be notorious for their eventually pinging problems. Mine started at the 4500mi mark. Had to run 92 octane from that point on.
2. Underpowered for road trips. This engine has trouble keeping up with fast traffic. Passing other vehicles on 2-lane roads can be a hair raising experience. Merging onto the interstate also did not inspire confidence.
3. Noisy. Perhaps it was just me, but the engine noise eventually forced me to wear ear-plugs during my road trips with the 3.0L. Others may feel differently about this.
Conclusion:
The cons listed above ultimately forced me to trade in the Mazda. I am now driving a '00 Dakota with a 4.7L V8. No knock against the Ranger or B-Series trucks. I think they are decent trucks. But get the 4.0L engine. There really is some truth in the idea that it is nice to have a bit more power because you might at some point actually need it. Good luck. Let us know what you decide...
The Ranger is good enough, but only that much. I am disappointed in Ford's effort with this truck when there were so many better options right on the shelf. Seems like the sales numbers have driven the lack of product development. The sales numbers seem to me to have been good due to the product being basically cheap to buy - cheap to own may be another matter. (This little vehicle can be optioned out to cost as much as a good V-8 F-150.)
Frankly, if you ever owned an F-150 for very long, I don't think you would be happy with your Ranger or the price you paid for it especially on an every day basis. When you get into true off-roading, that is another matter due to the compact design of the Ranger. I hope Ford addresses this "value" issue soon and from what I read they are working on it. Catch-up may be harder than keeping-up would have been. Wonder where all those profits from Ranger sales have gone? Not into the Ranger development programs.
I'll toss in my 2 cents worth because I've owned both. I currently have a '00 Dakota and had a '99 Mazda B3000 (basically the same truck as the Ranger).
You're right in that the Dakota will be more expensive when compared to a similarly equipped Ranger. This is one of the secrets of the Ranger's popularity. No one pays MSRP for them. However, because sales at DC are down a bit this year, some nice deals can be found on the Dakota. For example, my Dakota MSRP'd for just under 24K. But with a customer preferred discount and a 2,000 dollar rebate, plus some haggling, I managed to get the truck for just under 21K. Considering the fact that the Dakota is a slightly bigger truck than other compacts (some would argue that it is actually a mid-size) plus it's more powerful engine (4.7L V8), I think that is a pretty competitive price. The truck is nicely optioned out and is a 4X4 Regular Cab. A similar Ranger or B-Series would probably be 2K less. Just keep in mind the main advantages of the Dakota - a bit bigger and more powerful...
As far as your quality concerns about Dodge, well, any major purchase requires a "leap of faith" to some degree. Shoot, I know a guy at work who bought a '00 Tacoma and has had some big trouble with it including a faulty electrical system and a recently replaced rear axle and one-half of the rear suspension. I can say that although I've had my Dakota for only 6 months, I've been very pleased with it. No problems. My brother has a '95 Ram 3/4 ton and tows his water skiing boat constantly during the summer months. Not a lick of trouble with his truck. I'm not aware of a pinging problem with the 4.7L engine. I have heard about some occasional warped rotors and a rear-end whine problem caused by bad gears in the differential. In years past, Dodge was notorious for bad automatic trannys. It appears that at least some of this problem was caused by owners towing while in overdrive.
So, there it is. All I can say is test drive them both. The Dakota and Ranger/B-Series trucks are both decent choices as far as I'm concerned. Keep in mind that they are slightly different and that the Ranger will always be lower in price. I'd be happy to answer any additional questions you might have about the Dakota, or the Mazda, for that matter...
Strangely enough, even the big 5.4L Tritons that I have direct experience with are all happy on 87 octane gas. Don't know why.
The tendancy to ping may come from a compromise for the flex-fuel requirement of having a higher compression ratio than normal to accomadate ethanol's higher octane rating. This may put the base compression ratio at the edge for 87 octane fuel. But the fact that all these engines are starting the pinging so *early* in their life points to poor combustion chamber design, not combustion chamber deposits which normally raise an engine's octane requirement as it ages.
The ethanol fuel approved for sale is E-85, meaning an 85% mixture of ethanol and gasoline. The gasoline is added as a denaturing additive (so you can't drink it), and to improve cold start performance (gasoline vaporizes better when it's cold). Ethanol has some great benifits as a fuel: High octane (110!), clean burning, and it's renewable. Cons are it's more expensive than gasoline, it's a strong organic solvent so you need compatible materials in your fuel system (i.e. NO aluminum), and you need *lots* of land to grow corn.
Ethanol is also a better substitute for an oxygenate additive to fuel over MTBE. MTBE is added to gasoline now to improve emissions, but as many know, it has contaminated groundwater supplys nationwide. Ethanol degrades very quickly in the environment, so it's enviromnental inpact is negligible compared to gasoline. (Gasoline spills do eventually break down naturally in the environment, but very slowly and still leave small amounts of carcinogens like benzene. MTBE doesn't seem to break down at all). Oil companies don't like ethanol since they can't make it from crude oil, like they can with MTBE.
This may be ethanols trump card to start gaining acceptance and market share. California is already banning MTBE and going to require that ethanol be substituted. Of course, the oil companies are arguing that the MTBE groundwater contamination problems is a reason to remove the oxygenate requirement completely...
Of course, *they* came up with the stuff!
BTW, all modern fuel injection system materials are now compatible with ethanol fuel mixtures.
Here in Georgia, the story is the same => E-85 no where to be found. It's only in the mid-West apparently where there are millions of acres of corn and several ethanol plants. But then again there is a great tradition of moonshine making here
More ethanol fuel and E-85 info can be found at http://www.ethanol.org
JDR944turbo - Thankyou for the information on the Flex fuel. I believe I read somewhere that the "dual fuel" feature is no longer offered on the 3.0 motor in 2001.