Ford Ranger III

polsen · June 2002

I am looking at purchasing a small pickup to tow behind a motorhome which has a towing limit of #3500. The Ford and mazda web sites state the weights at close to over this limit, On edmunds too many models list the same weight to be believed. Do pickups list their weights on the door jamb? Or has any one weighed their pickup? I'm looking at 4x4s, would love the extended cab and the largest engine but realize that the biggest combo would weigh around #4000.

mkstf · June 2002

how can i find out what gear ratio my truck has????

bolivar · June 2002

Go to www.rangerstation.com

There is a section there that gives specs.

On your driver's door is a tag with all kinds of info about the vehicle. One of them is AXLE. There should be about a 2 or 3 digit code for the axle. It indicates the ratio and if it is a limited slip or not. Anyway, this is what you look up on the above site....

tallzag · June 2002

I am looking at buying a new Ranger (2001 or 2002 4x2 x-cab) and wanted to know what it can REALLY tow. This will not be it's primary purpose (maybe like 2 or 3 times a year), but what can it tow. I am very into classic cars and would probably be looking at towing close to 6000 pounds. I know this is pushing it, but could it get away with this a couple times a year? Would it kill the truck? Thanks.

polsen · June 2002

A good rule of thumb is to tow less than 70% of the towing rating. #6000 is just too high for a compact pickup. One of the factors that makes towing safer is the wheelbase and overall weight of the towing vehicle. Get a full-sized pickup for about the same gas mileage, cost and much better safety. If you tow with the ranger this heavy of a load you will not enjoy your white-knuckle experience.

polsen · June 2002

Look at the lowest discussion on the pickup list "The best power train for towing". A lot of good points on towing. Compact pickups were not highly thought of. Look at posts around 95-10.

frey44 · June 2002

Towing 6000 lbs with ANY Ranger is just plain RISKY.
Stick to under 3500 with ANY of them. I tow under 2000 pounds with an XLT 4x4 4.0 V6 and have gotten into some scary situations even at that. I am conservative, and drive no more than 55 to 60 with a boat; wet roads and high winds will rock a Ranger around like a Tonka toy. Rangers are NOT that heavy or stable enough to justify towing 3 tons. Get yourself an F-150 or tundra if you want to tow that much weight. Consider your OWN SAFETY as a factor.

quark99 · June 2002

I've towed a 4000#-4250# boat/trailer with a 4.0 (160HP) 1996 Ranger....it was fine, as long as the trailer brakes were in good condition. Regardless of what Edmunds says, a 2002 4.0L Supercab Auto 2wd weighs only 3280 dry, (I saw the shipping weight/bill of lading at my local dealership).
This means that at 4900# trailer weight, you are pulling 1.5 times your vehicle weight, which becomes a little "iffy" to control. The Ranger is a fine tow vehicle (one of the best) if you consider power vs. weight ratio; there is ample torque and HP to pull the load. But as others have stated, that big slug behind you can start to negatively affect your ability to control your vehicle. I am now looking for a Ranger to pull a 2850# load; which is light enough to eliminate most worries (with trailer brakes). You want to use that impressive 5800# tow rating? Take a yard of concrete home a mile or two thru residentials; see how you like the feeling of the trailer steering your vehicle. Now imagine a blowout on a trailer wheel at 50, 55, or 65 mph with that load. It's heading for the shoulder, and so is the rear axle of your truck. The Ranger can pull tree stumps, drag a broken 5800# Suburban a few miles to the mechanic, etc. But getting out on the highway with more than 4500# is asking for grief; like someone else here said "forget about enjoying the ride"....

scape2 · July 2002

I once towed about 4800# with my 1998 Ranger 4.0 160HP engine.. Pulled it just fine but you REALLY had to watch yourself. Lucky I was only going across town. The Ranger has the HP/Torque to to the pulling no doubt.. But to do it on a regular basis.. nope.

midnight_stang · July 2002

boils down to wheelbase and truck weight vs trailered weight.

saleenracer83 · July 2002

Hey everyone I was wondering if someone could answer this question for me... I own a 2000 Ranger Trailhead edition, it came from the factory with a 3 inch lift and bigger tires, made to look like a 4x4 without actually being one. Well the lifted look has grown old to me and I want to take the lift off so I can lower the truck using an airbag suspension system. What my question is is what type of lift is on the truck? Will I have to replace a bunch of suspension parts to return the truck to stock height, or is it only a matter of removing a few blocks? Thanks for you help!

jfowlerjr · July 2002

Ok let me just start off by saying that I just traded in my 2001 Ranger 4.0 Liter SOHC in for a SuperCrew so please don't say get the 4.0 liter.

What I'm looking for is a comuter truck that I can drive to and from work in (70 Miles round trip) so I'm not adding all those miles on the SuperCrew.

Anyone have the Duratec? (They started putting these is the Ranger in 2001) I don't know to much about it, is power ok? gas milage? Any mechanic problems?

And for you Vulcan owners what do you get for highway mileage?

Just want a basic 4x2 truck (Airconditioning & Cupholders)

James

midnight_stang · July 2002

Has over 140,000 miles, never has had the valve cover off, only minor water pump and thermostat replacements. 93 Reg cab, still get 20+ MPG with all city driving, and that's with an automatic.

The new 2.3l is even better.

redtruck1 · July 2002

I have a 2000 ranger 4x4 with the 3 liter automatic. My only complaint is the gas mileage. i check my mpg's regularly the best i can get is 17mpg, and most of my driving is highway. In 4 wheel drive i get 15-16mpg. Pretty pathetic for a little 150hp motor. Don't be fooled, the none 4x4 ranger isn't much better,you'll be lucky to get 19mpg.I love my Ranger's,this is my 4th one,all 4cyl.but this one. Even the 4cyl. only got 23mpg. However, the 2.3 that was installed in 2001 is not a deriative of the previous motor. The new motor is a 16 valve ,double overhead cam that easily gets over 25mpg, closer to 27 highway. My lease is up next month and I will be switching back to the 4cyl..with the 5 speed. I test drove one and was thouroughly impressed with the power compared to the 2000 and previous 2.3 Be carefull, the new 16 valve was not used until Jan. 2001 and many 2001's previos to that had the old 2.3 Hope that i helped.

wallywalla · July 2002

I'm considering purchasing a FX4 manual transmission 2003 but i'm concerned because I hear there are problems with the Torsen rear. I also heard that there was a limited recall on these trucks in March. Later I found out that there was a factory hold production since April 1, 2002. Anyone shed any light on this concern? Apparently it only involves the manual transmission FX4 not the automatics.

midnight_stang · July 2002

Previous to the new 4 valve 2.3l, the Rangers should be equipped with a 2.5l (stroked 2.3l)

bolivar · July 2002

Well, what you wrote is what happened.

FX4's with 5 speed, and I think the 4L, broke the rear end. All were recalled, sales and production was stopped.

I haven't heard any more about the problems, so I expect the problem was fixed. Check the VIN through Ford to see if the recall has been done, or it was made after the rear end was changed.

Ask the people at the dealership. If they can't answer your questions, get phone numbers for regional sales, and ask them if the problem was fixed.

wallywalla · July 2002

Well, you're right about the recall that started in March. I ordred in early April. Order was accepted and I got VIN at the end of week 2. The dealer only gets info in daily logs. First they said that the truck was built in early May but held for a trim piece. At week 6, they said that it was being held for a boot problem (binding). Called Ford customer service on week 8 and they told me there was never a hold on the truck and that it would be built in July and that all trucks take about 10 to 12 weeks to build. Called the dealer to confirm. Next, in week 11 talked to Ford factory rep and was told that the problem was torsion (or something) and that all manual transmission trucks were affected. Told him that my brother ordered and received his manual XLT in just 5 weeks, he said that they put a different manual in the FX4. Believe it? No one will admit the reason for the delay,and the so called problem with the rear was not a factor in the production hold because there are about 1300+ on the road already and they have been fixed by the dealers.So the mystery goes on!!!!!!! The truck was built, not built, has a missing trim piece, has a boot problem or something with the torsion? No one ever mentioned the Torsen rear.We are now in week 13 and no truck yet.

midnight_stang · July 2002

"the problem was torsion (or something)"

"No one ever mentioned the Torsen rear."

Torsion could be a mispronounced Torsen.

Keep calling man, and make sure you talk to the same person. Ordering is hard to wait for, especially on a rare truck which has just gone through a recall to replace the rear differential.

wallywalla · July 2002

I should have added that when I asked if he meant the Torsen rear or torsion bars , he thought that it was torsion bars. Said he would get back to me but hasn't yet. Placed another call and am waiting for the return. Also the Torsen rear developed cracks but the fix supposedly by Ford was to beef up the axles that caused the problem.Got that info from another web site.I really don't know if the wait of over 17 weeks is worth it for a 2002 when the 2003 is being built starting week 18. I am only holding out for the rebate on the 2002.

bolivar · July 2002

Well, here is my opinion about two possibilities:

1) Your ordering dealer never reads the info sent out by Ford, and has never heard about the problems with the rear ends on FX4 with manuals breaking and production being stopped.

2) Your dealer knows exactly what is happening. He is making up various lies about what is holding up the truck. Trim piece. Binding boot. Ha! A truck that has rolled off the end of a production line does not sit around for weeks while problems like this are fixed. Fixes like this are done in hours, not weeks. He is afraid you will cancel the order and take your business somewhere else!

And I think number 2 is has a much higher probability of being the truth! Some people, and I think your dealer, would rather lie about something rather than tell the truth, try to get additional, truthful info about when the problems will be resolved, and be upfront with you. And weekly logs - BS. I would bet money they can make an inquiry and receive a response on an individual build order at any time. They have these things called 'computers'.

Based on what you are experiencing, I would guess Ford is not building any new FX4's with manuals at this time.......

Isn't an FX4 just a 4x4 Edge with some additional offroad options? Cancel the order, tell the dealer you know he jerked you around, go to a another large Ford dealer that still has a lot of stock - find an Edge 4x4 with manual and add aftermarket offroad things to the truck later!!!!

P.S. I didn't think rebates applied to ordered vehicles? Only ones bought out of stock. Has the dealer lied to you about this also? Getting the Edge out of another dealers stock will definitely get you the $2,500 rebate.... And you will have the truck now.

You're dealing with snakes. You've been bitten several times already. Get out of the swamp.

wallywalla · July 2002

I am thinking your right about #2.But I don't see what purpose all the lies have. If I cancel the truck now , I won't have a FX4 and the chances of finding a XLT off-road package which is the closest to the FX4 is slim. I have checked on Ford's site with dealers in about 200 miles for FX4 manual trans or XLT off-road with manuals and there are just none to be had.I had considered cancelling the 2002 and going elsewhere to order a 2003 FX4 but I didn't know if there would be a delay on the 2003 and I'd be waiting again. I'm going to the dealer on Saturday to try another face to face and see what happens. BTW the rebate will apply to the vehicle that I ordered , I made sure about that. I just wanted this unique truck.

capitolason2 · July 2002

I am wondering if there are any 2002 Ranger owners who have the 3.0 v-6 and have problems with engine ping. I had heard that Ford had made efforts to correct the problem but I am wondering how successful they have been. I would also be interested in knowing the comparison in mpg with the 3.0 liter versus. 4.0 liter 2002's with automatic transmission and 3.73 rear end.

mkstf · July 2002

help Im the owner of a 94, 4wd 3.0L 6cyl. auto ranger,i need to find out what size spare tire cam with the truck. the original owner passed away and know one knows what he did with the spare. the owners manual said if the vehicle had 235x15 or 265x15 tires it has a smaller spare, it also says not to put these tires in the spare mount. i tried putting a 235 in the mount but it didnt fit right, i was worried about damaging the tire. if anyone out there can check their spare tire size i'd greatly appreciate it thanks..

mkstf · July 2002

i have a 3.0 auto 4wd. 94ranger wtih 40k on it. just got back from a long trip and got 23.5 mpg, just about all highway milage.in town my milage sucks only 15mpg. have noticed pinging while trying to pass on a hill. well i gave up trying to pass on hills due to lack of power so that cured all of my pinging problems

fedforester · July 2002

I don't know if the newer 3.0s ping or not---I have a 91 3.0 2-wheel drive ranger with 261,000 miles which I have owned since new and have always had some ping problems with it, particularly at high temps or low elevations. Notice that the truck seems to be able to adapt to different conditions over a few days and quit the ping. Never have understood it. Other than that its been the best truck I ever owned. Never have had to open up the engine or do any major repairs on it.

Seems to run best on Arco, worst on Chevron locally in Oregon.

frey44 · August 2002

Fill up with 92 octane and you're fine.

midnight_stang · August 2002

Where did you hear that frey? I've heard the opposite.

frey44 · August 2002

Go to your local Ford dealer (as I did) and drive a 3.0 Liter. I drove a red 3.0, 2002 automatic, 4x4 with 3.73. Go up a long gradual grade and get the truck going a steady speed, say 55. Then gradually apply throttle: PING PING PING (more like a crackle, snap, pop...). It is there. I never viewed it as a big deal. It is simply, I think, Ford dialing in all the leanness of fuel mixture they can to squeek out as much MPG as possible. I am not sure why everybody gets so freaked out about pinging. So what ?? That engine will ping reliably for 200K miles. A very reliable motor. The popping noises aren't going to hurt it one bit.

midnight_stang · August 2002

I will probably be purchasing a 3.0l soon, but it will be a manual in Regular cab configuration. That is unless I decide I can afford payments for a fullsize. Not sure which I want, and I am not strictly looking at Fords either. My 93 has served me well, so I am probably gonna start there. Anyways thanks for the info, just something to be aware of I guess.

allknowing · August 2002

Really!! ALL trucks should ping and knock like Fords and Chevys....That's just good design. It's pretty stupid that all those other truck manufacturers waste their time designing engines that don't do that.

midnight_stang · August 2002

Is that ability to throw a cooler into the truck bed, and not have it leave a dent.

fedforester · August 2002

Yup but other vehicles ping too under the same conditions---sure true for Dodge and Jeep products I have driven. Seems less true for more modern 4 bangers despite their higher compression.

allknowing · August 2002

fedforester - I hear ya.

Stang - Ha Ha!!!

frey44 · August 2002

Do you understand what pinging actually is ? I suspect you don't. Go do a little DD on detonation. All gasoline IC engines will do it under certain conditions. It is a complex phenomenon based upon compression ratio, squish band surface area, piston crown shape, fuel octane,the stoichiometry of the fuel/air mixture, ratio of alcohol in the fuel, amount of carbon in the engine, number of valves, temperature of the water jacket around the pistons, evenness of temperature around the pistons, and driver habits. You will not find any modern automobile gasoline engine in production that does not ping. I have a Nissan (it pings), a Honda (it pings), had a Toyota 4 cyl. (it pinged), and also a Ranger (it pings).
The Toyota (a 1978 model) is still running [I sold it to a former student of mine] with about 260K on the clock, and it still pings, with all original engine except for the alternator, starter, and head gasket. Not bad.

allknowing · August 2002

Yes I understand the various conditions that will cause an engine to "ping" or "knock" Mr. Frey.
All engines do not ping, however, even under extreme loads. I've yet to get my Tacoma, or even the Ford Explorer SOHC 4.0 that I often drive, to ping under any conditions. Even my former Nissan 300ZX, with over 11:1 compression, didn't ping and I drove it hard. You seem like a smart guy so I'm sure you know that most engines today have adequate sensors that cause the computer to retard the timing and/or alter the fuel mixture if pinging is present. GM, for example, has a horrible track record for poor design in this area but that doesn't mean all vehicles are just as poorly designed. Minor pinging may not damage an engine but it isn't normal and can potentially damage a piston or worse over time. More than that, it's annoying. Now I will concede that an older engine, with considerable deposit buildup in the cylinders, may be more prone to have a problem. To reach a stage that the engine computer can't compensate though, should be well over 100,000 miles when decent fuel has been used in the vehicle. If all of your vehicles really do regularly ping, I would suggest that you replace your knock sensors and/or use something other than Kmart gasoline.

pro02 · August 2002

For What It's Worth: My 2002 3.0V-6, XLT, auto, supercab at 4000 miles has not pinged once on 87 octane gas, and I've driven in 95 degree weather on the interstate, up hills, &tc. 17 mpg. in town, 20 highway, and I'm no featherfoot.

frey44 · August 2002

Rest assured, the 3.0 still pings. You just need to listen more carefully. And, it doesn't matter one bit whether it does or doesn't. It will still go 200K miles easily. So, what is the fuss about Pinging in the first place ? I sure didn't brign it up. Who cares ??? Just drive it and have fun.

allknowing · August 2002

Cool

peaches5 · August 2002

I live on a very steep hill. I've had no problems getting 2WD CARS (inclucing a 4cyl) up the hill, so I thought if I bought a 2WD Ranger with the 3.0 V6, it would be a breeze. Not until it rained and the truck slipped all over the place did I realize the cars having front wheel drive made a HUGE difference in their ability to make it up.

Are there tires out there than can add serious traction, yet still be OK for the interstate? My son will be driving approx. 100 miles a day to school on the interstate. Cost is really not a problem (well, it IS a problem, lol!), but if the tires don't work, I'm looking at losing serious $$ by having to trade it in for a 4X4.

BTW, the driveway is semi-rough-poured cement.

Thanks for any and all advice (and if you want to purchase a brand new 4X2 Ranger, LMK

)

frey44 · August 2002

I'd put on Michelin passenger tires, the MX4 "rain tire" all season tread, since it sounds like you are using the truck mostly as a commuter on the highway anyways. Good all around in the wet, wears well and will not thump you to death like the Michelin LTX or Goodrich TA series (too stiff and heavy if you don't need them...). Too many guys pick a tire for looks, and not performance. If you're not going offroad, and use the truck like a car, put passenger tires on it...much more liveable and quieter ride. IMHO, FWIW.

midnight_stang · August 2002

Never underestimate the value of a few large sacks of kitty litter or sand in the back of the bed. The problem isn't rear wheel drive, it's the nature of the truck which has a large cab and engine, and a light metal box for a rear end.

kevin112 · August 2002

opinions needed on 97 ranger, 2wd, auto with the 4.0. are there any major recalls i should be aware of? i live in snow country & am wondering how it performs in the snow. i guess my main question is, after owning this model, would u reccomend it?

peaches5 · August 2002

..for the kitty litter suggestion and tire info

I'm going to try the KL first - a LOT cheaper than new tires, lol! Though by looking at the massive skid marks on the driveway, a few more slippage problems and the current tires may lose all their tread anyway! Thanks again!

krasch · August 2002

My 2001 XLT w/4.0L pings like crazy and has done so since about 12,000 miles.

Fedforest, I live in Oregon and use Chevron gas almost exclusively. I'm going to try Arco now and see if that helps. Thanks for the suggestion.

kevin112 · August 2002

i'm going to test drive a 97 ranger tommorrow. it is a v-6 with auto, 2 wheel drive, ext. cab. the truck has approx. 70,000 mi. on it. what should i look/ listen for when i drive this vehicle? any advice appreciated.

gk3 · August 2002

regarding suggestions on tires, I had the Michelin Cross Terrain tires mounted on my 2001 Ford Ranger XLT 4X4 with 4.0 V6, 5-sp auto transmission. I would highly recommend them. They are very good highway tires, quiet with very good traction and highly rated. I live in Oregon, where we get a lot of rain, so I guess here is a good place to put them to the test. They are not the cheapest tires around, but I have been very pleased with their performance. Probably not the right tires if you use them for off-the- road driving, however. Their durability should be quite high, if one drives the vehicle around town or does a lot of highway driving. Also, they appear to be the tires of choice for many newer SUV's.

The KL idea might be somewhat helpful, but, in my opinion, it is not a permanent solution and hardly a substitute for good quality tires with good braking and traction control.

toddney · August 2002

I am looking for a Ranger Ext. Cab and right now I see a good deal on a 2000 V6 with 54k for $7995. Sounds great but high mileage. I also see a 94 3 L V6 with only 89k and its at $7000. Am I better going for the 2000 because its newer and wil have less wrong with mechanical parts? Or do these old Fords last forever and I should chew them down on the 94?

goldranger · August 2002

Toddney,

I'd stay with a 98 or newer. I believe that's when they changed the way the front of the frame was constructed. Seem to remember it's 300% stiffer than before the change. If you take care of the routine maintenance Rangers seem to go a long time. I put 175K on a 90 and have a 01 4.0 supercab now. Remember and see previous posts, 3.0s ping on regular gas, 4.0s are thirsty. They also depreciate very fast to 50% of new, it might be a good idea to check for the aluminum drive shaft on late 00,01s as they are a fix for driveline vibration. So shop around and don't wag you tail when you see one you like.... good luck

Goldranger

1busman · August 2002

I had the same problem with traction in the wet with a toyota 4x4 I used to have. Over the years I tried different types of tires but that didnot cure the problem. I would do two things: put tires on it designed for the rain and put about 300 lbs over the rear wheels (both sides of the axle) and that will make a big difference. By the way make sure you secure the sand, kitty litter etc. so the load doesn't shift on you. I bolted steel plates to the bed, just be careful where you drill the holes.
The back of a pickup truck is just to light. Until I did that my truck (4 cyl) sometimes would scare the hell out of me.

Ford Ranger III

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles