By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Seriously, Recalls are good, and mean that the company actually is concerned about something. You neglect to mention the NUMBER OF VEHICLES AFFECTED.
TSB's? Technical service bullitens are used to communicate things to dealers who will be servicing these vehicles. Here's one example:
Service Bulletin Number: 14529
Bulletin Sequence Number: 168
Date of Bulletin: 0012
NHTSA Item Number: SB616838
Make: FORD TRUCK
Model: RANGER
Year: 2001
Component: EQUIPMENT
Summary: SUBJECT REGARDING ASH CUP NOW AVAILABLE FOR SEPARATE ORDER.
IE. "An ashtray is now available."
Investigations? Like that family in Texas that tried to sue ford for their explorer rolling over? They forgot to mention that they were weaving in and out of traffic at 90 mph, but when they got off the highway, and hit a hilly section, it was Ford's fault. Hence an investigation.
So the recalls could be a small booboo, doesn't mean the truck sucks. Just that a problem was found. My friend's 92 Cutlass had a recall for a bracket in the rear seat belts. We've been using them for years, and no problems, but it was just precautionary... You get the idea ,( i hope)
PS, Any pictures of the truck yet?
What I am posting now is JD powers long term 5 year RELIABILITY study.
Notice that Ford is nowhere near the leaders. Not a surprise.
Again folks, this is a 5 year long reliability test. Ford finishes below the average. Enjoy.
http://www.jdpa.com/studies/pressrelease.asp?StudyID=292&CatID=1
Yeh Spoog should acknowledge that the Ranger did well in the new JD Powers survey.
http://www.jdpa.com/presspass/pr/pressrelease.asp?ID=2071
This one works, and ranks Ford Ranger as best pickup of initail quality, above all over compact trucks(and toyota is only mentioned in the car segement), albeit in Thailand. So what gives? I can play your statistical and propaganda games all day, but it still doesn't beat the value you receive in a Ranger. I like both trucks, just like Ford better. Test drive both, and see what hits your nerve and pocketbook the least.
Spoog quotes from fourwheeler "Ford's 4.0-liter overhead-valve V-6 gave our Regular Cab Ranger plenty of off-the-line motivation with 168 lb.-ft. of rear-wheel torque at 2500 rpm"
It's 238lb/ft at 3000rpm. Must be looking at the previous 4.0l. Hence the outdated model. No wonder, Ford redesigned the Ranger for a reason, because the compact truck segment is very competitive. That was then, this is NOW. The list of standard equipement just keeps on growing. I'll only consent that fourwheeler is right, out of the factory box, Ranger isn't the best offroad truck.
PS, any pictures of the "supercharged" truck yet?
I love this truck it rules!i can go to home depot and also fool around with stangs all in one package.....
2K1trd, yeah right.. They must be older 5.0 stangs. Your rearend could not stay straight on the one wheel that turns in your open axle TRD when you accelerate quickly off the line. Let me explain this.. only one wheel is turning, you also have a light rearend. Your truck is not made to race...
You are right. Since I live in Baltimore I don't really need 4 wheel drive. I agree I am not being practical.
My thinking is that I might find it useful in the future. I kept my last car for 6 years and who knows where I will be in 6 years? I am thinking of moving some place (maybe colorado) and it might come in handy in the future.
Maybe I won't get much use out of the 4 wheel drive system but then again, maybe it will come in handy. I know I can afford it so why not?
Steve Cohen
Before I make any decision as to whether or not I buy a shell I had a few questions. Would a shell raise the center of gravity? Would it make a truck more likely to tip over (how likely)? How heavy are they and by how much would a shell reduce payload capacity?
Steve Cohen
The grim reality, which is obvious to anyone with any common sense (I guess that would not include you), is that Ford is not run by idiots but rather acknowledge that there is a problem and is trying to resolve it. You don't have to believe it vince. It's common knowledge in this forum that you're typically wrong about everything else so we'll just add this to the list.
PS: Brush up on your English comprehension skills too vince because I never said that all of these engines have problems. There appears to be more than most would be comfortable with though. Plus, I guess Ford also employs psychics and only sent notices to people like myself that are having problems. I wonder if they have that Jamaican lady on the Info-commercial? I’m afraid that your 6 friends statement has one of three problems. Either:
1)You don’t have six friends
2)You don’t have six friends that own an Explorer
or
3) All six of you friends are lying to you about receiving their extended warranty notice on the tensioners and intake gasket.
Quit making things up to try to prove an incorrect point vince!!!
The 4.0 OHC is NOT part of the modular family. the modular family includes the 4.6, 5.4 and 6.8 V10. The 4.0 OHC still has its roots in the ORIGINAL 4.0. The modular motors have many interchangeable parts. There are no interchangeable parts from the 4.0 to the 4.6-5.4-6.8.
Mercury is UPSCALE from Ford not the economy version. Mercury may be considered the economy level of Lincoln( remember Lincoln/Mercury???)
Sorry I had to bust your ba!!s but you were starting to sound like a Toyota owner spouting false info!!!! LOL!!
The notices were sent to all 1997-2000 Explorer and Mercury Mountaineer owners with the 4.0 SOHC engine in January 2001.
Read the Edmunds Explorer forums which have lots of details on this Ford program. You can also read about it on the "Ford Truck Enthusiast" page at this address: http://www.ford-trucks.com/dcforum/explorer/239.html
There's even a scanned copy of the notice on that page.
No kidding...I get my new truck, lose track of Edmunds for a couple of days and the world tanks on you.
Vince -
Sorry dude but get a life. If you haven't been checking out the Ford Ranger problems post, you should be. Also, please don't blast the Toyota owners for not answering questions related to problems to their Tacomas. Not all truck owners are mechanically inclined. Sheez - if you can give the guy some help, do it but check your ego at the door.
Gringo -
Not sure if you are still checking here for answers on your question but my advice would be localize where the clicking is coming from (i.e., you may need to get on your back and check out the clutch action under the dash). Check the springs that create tension on the pedal. Chances are they are creaking and/or clicking. If investigations are not working out, try posting you message in one of two places: 1. The Toyota Tacoma Problems post on Edmunds or 2. The Manual transmission post in the Maintenance discussions. If these are transmission noises, I would seek dealer help...it could be with a 92, you need to have your clutch pedal adjusted a little.
smc13 -
Excellent questions. I am tossing up the same questions myself. You may want to take a look at the Truck Shell posts (maybe called truck caps) in the Pickup Section of Townhall. Your answers are there but a shell will only slightly increase your center of gravity. Most shells weigh less than 200lbs or 3-5% of the total vehicle weight so I'd doubt you'd notice. Some suggestions would be when you find a product that suits your needs, make sure they install the sealer gasket on the shell and not on the rails and also make sure that the light inside the shell works with or without the parking lights. They cost anywhere from $800 to $1500 but I would definately look at A.R.E shells. As far as payload reduction...well you're sticking a roof on your bed. Your payload will be about 150lbs less which isn't much but you'll have to cram it in. :-)
Also consider the fact that you will want to remove your shell from time to time as well. The Pickup Cap post also lists some good ideas for doing this as well. My favorite was after un-clamping your shell (they use clamps now vs. bolting them on) you slide two 2X6's across the under side of your your shell between the shell and the bed rails (one in front, one in back). The 2X6's should be wider than the shell with eye hooks in each end. You back into your garage, fasten the eyehooks to a simple hoist in the top of your garage using nylon rope and lift it off. This makes the 2 man/half hour job a 10 minute 1 man job. You store the shell in the top of your garage until needed and you just lower it back down when you want it back on.
It would seem obvious to me, that you couldn't bolt a set of v-6 heads on a v-8(or 10) or vice versa(or intake or other parts, etc). What's the point of listing the small internals that could be swapped. So maybe it was my mistake in saying it had a modular design, when I should of said it was designed like the modular designs. Much more clear and perfect. . .
I'll admit to ignorance on the mercury part, maybe they are the luxury line 2nd to lincoln. My perception is just that they are family cars, with junk I'll never want/use/own. The new mountaineer is just plain fugly.
Speaking of V-8's, here is a nice website on a V-8 conversion for older Rangers. Would love to see a 429 or 460 eating up taco's for lunch... }:> But I guess the torquey(sic?) 4.0l will suffice for now.
http://members.aol.com/MREPRODUCT/ranger.htm
smc13--->Not sure how hard it would be to find, but a fiberglass cap might be an option. Very light weight so no worries on becoming top heavy, but probably very expensive.
"allknowing"--->Opinions are like [non-permissible content removed], everybody has one. There isn't much you can do to change that(the [non-permissible content removed] or the opinion). Just state what you know or think, and let it be, because nobody's soapbox is on higher ground here.
GDane--->Ford Ranger Problems forum has been dead recently. Last post 2 weeks ago. Is there a part two I'm missing? How is the Tacoma counterpart forum doing? I went there once, but thought it would be best to keep my mouth shut!
The two trucks that I was looking at were the Tacoma and the Ranger. I could not locate a Ranger with the 5-speed manual/4.0 SOHC. They only offer that combination on the 4WD without the Offroad Package. I was leaning toward the Ranger because of 4 doors rather than 2 (I only wanted an XtraCab not DoubleCab.) The lack of availability and what I considered a good deal on the Tacoma steered my choice to the Tacoma.
With 600 miles on it to date, I love my choice. The Tacoma delivers enough power with a smooth ride for a 4WD. I concur with the statements about the uncomfortable seats though.
The V6 is based on the old 2 bolt 60 degree block that still has provisions for an in block cam. Bore spacing, brackets, EVERYTHING is different. If you want to say they're both OHC designs I can live with that but they are as close to design as a Toy is to a Ford. LOL!!!
Not a big Mercury fan either but keep your eye on the Maurader. Basically a Marquis(Crown Vic) with a Cobra 300+ horsepower motor. Hopefully will pick up were the LT1 Impalas left off!
Actually both the Ranger and Tacoma posts are dead for the most part. I think that if it wasn't for you and me, they would both fade away.
The Rangers seem to have only minor problems with the interior and/or body and some lightweight issues with the engine (rough idle, hard starting, etc.) The Tacomas continue with their one issue with the 4X4 V6 drive shaft on trucks with the Automatic transmission (apparently Toy is aware of this and via the TSB either replaces a tensioner plate on the torque converter or a cuplink between the drive shaft and the rear differential). It appears, however, this is isolated to trucks made late in 2000 and early in 2001 (like January 2001).
corky -
We just got our Toy Taco last Thursday. It's way cool (I agree about the seats but I am getting used to it - it's still a huge step up from my '85).
Ours was 22,375. We didn't get the Nerf bars, hitch or bedliner but we did get the T'u'RD package with 16" Alums with the SR5 Chrome and ABS. The bedliner I am getting aftermarket as well as a hitch.
Modvptnl -
Me thinks that if Mercury doesn't do something drastic as you suggest with the integration of the Cobra motor, their future will be that of the Pontiac Aztec. Very very sad.
barlitz->Gotta love the available 5.9l in the durango. The lightning is the fastest production truck available, but granted payload and offroad handicapped. You can add a roots style supercharger to any v8 for under 3 grand, and that would outdo the lightning's price, but lack of suspension and 18"(?) of rubber. It is only a large 2-valver. Since youre going throught lightnings like water, why not go custom and probably spend a lot less for exactly what you want. Just gotta find a good shop unless you got the tools. Maybe you should consider a supercharged kenny brown explorer? Just planting ideas...
http://www.kennybrown.com/explorer.html
GDane->Yup, this is how I spend my work mornings while everything else is querying or busy. It's at least one 20 minute diversion during the work hours. I guess that's one purpose served, and maybe any non registered viewers gain an insight or two at the same time...
Talk to ya'll later.
Steve Cohen
I don't know why all 6 people would "lie" to me.. I want to believe they honestly didn't know about this recall.
As far as the comment on how many friends I have..
This was not needed. I am active in all the sports programs at the YMCA with my 2 daughters, active in church, on the board for my neighborhood association.. I have plenty of friends along with knowing many Explorer owners.
You however, constantly bash and trash the Ranger or anything to do with Ford. I have burst your "Toyota is god" bubble and you don't like it. You follow me from room to room and constantly make negative comments on my posts. This is typical of you to come out as MR nice guy one minute and the next post trash me or other Ranger owners.. Nice try, I don't buy it..
Later in the weekend I decided to do some adventuring and took the truck off the logging roads and on to some very narrow (and muddy) 4-wheeler trails. It was great. I put it in 4-low and she just crawled along beautifully through the mud, over rocks and over downed branches and small trees. I cannot believe how great she handled.
Finally, I used my Tacoma to get wood for camp. We found a nice logging yard with some really big left over maple tree ends(4 and 5 foot lengths). I filled up the truck with a couple of pretty good size loads and was very impressed with how much the truck could handle. I will say however that the bed (and the wheel wells) of the pick-up did seem to easily dent with heavier loads. Thankfully I have a Rhino-Liner so that really shouldn't hurt the truck.
As far as I'm concerned, my choice of a Tacoma over a Ranger was well worth it. Hopefully she'll keep running this well for the long haul. As always, I'll see you in the back country........Steelman.
The symptoms include no mechanical error or breakdown, just a thud or clunk as the engine engages the torque converter transferring power to the drive shaft to the rear wheels.
Ford Lightning. Even Tacoma owners know that one.
John
If I was you I'd go for the durango. The lightning is definitely cool, but it seems to me if you want that kind of performance, why not just buy a sports car.
Steve Cohen
Proceeded out of Denver to Webster Pass Trail. Blocked by snow 4 ft deep, got to within 1/2 mile of the top, up to maybe 12,000 ft. Went down to do Breakneck Pass and Browns Trail Pass. They are lower, 10,910 and 11,372. They were fairly easy. We were on a time constraint so no pics there. Think I got some up Webster.
On to St. Elmo, think it is about 10-11,000 ft or so. Tin Cup and Hancock Passes were both blocked with snow. There is a VERY interesting trail that goes up the face of the mountain leading into St. Elmo, Mt Harvard I think? Was told there is no turnarounds the entire trip...
Headed to Center Colo and went to the Natural Bridge and headed through the English Valley 4X4 area, ran into some Antelope. Would be real nice in muddy times.
On to Wheeler Geological area. Well, true to what the book said, it was real muddy. Got stopped 10 miles away when the ruts were 15 inches deep and I would have had to go on to the tundra. And I would not do that.
On to Cinimmon Pass, elevation 12,620. Stunning scenic views, will get the pics in a week. Ran into a snow storm at maybe the 12,000 ft level while tuning on the last mile. Had to go thru plowed snow. Almost blinding snow at the top, no pics.
Did not do Ophir as my wife was real pissed by now. . .hope I do not end up in divorce court. But heard that pass too was closed. Went to Teluride and saw what I think is Black Bear pass...no thanks, you Toyota boys can have that puppy. . .
Anyway issisteel, that trump your day?
To quote from your post:
"Based on 32,000 owners of 1994 model-year vehicles, the VDI study is used by automotive manufacturers as a benchmark of how vehicles perform beyond typical warranty periods."
You see spoog, you screwed up again. This data is for the 1994 model, a bit before the Tacoma.
Why did you even post it if it does not apply to the vehicles in this board?
Just because the name Tacoma hasn't been around since 1994 doesn't mean that the Toyota compact equivalent of a Ranger hasn't been around. ;-)
John
BTW- I am still of the opinion that the pre-Tacoma trucks ('89-'94) were MUCH better overall vehicles than the Tacoma. But, I could also be accused of repeating myself.
GDane/Rickc5/cpounsr->As far as looks I'd have to agree, I like the sharper lines in the earlier models (pre tacoma I think).
God forbid SPOOG ever gets pictures of his truck digitized(or probably just one off the dealer lot!) and posted, we'll be seeing them every week for the next year!
No problem, understand what your saying, but rick is correct as to what I ment. The first part of the post, where the Toyota PU was listed was up to 1994, before Tacoma. The second part as was pointed out was ALL Toyota and ALL Ford vehicles.
True to a degree, the Tacoma is a larger old style p/u, the 3.0 was punched to a 3.4. But understand my point, ok?
issisteel...:
Was not whacking you in my comments, just lets put things in perspective. A Ranger that at least one person here thinks is not capable of 4 wheeling was on 10,000-almost13,000 4X4 roads in my trip. I saw NO Toyota's of any kind except on down low, a Tundra TRD, with a trailer for ATV's.
I was running with 5 Jeeps(a Cherokee and 4 regular Jeeps out of a Lake City Jeep club, on of which blew a tire on top of Cinnamon Pass), a Chevy 1500 and a Dodge Durango.
Did see a bunch of Toyota 4Runners and P/U's in Teluride, in town, parked, all nice and shined up and here I was in a VERY muddy Ranger, winch hitched to the back, it too covered in dust and mud.
Just setting the stage here guy...and hoping to dispell any suggestion that Ranger cannot cut the mustard. Picture clear? Ranger was there, Tacoma was a no show. Hmmm hope the pics I took come out well. The ones in Teluride I was shooting at 1/125th and f22, so not too sure on them(gotta remember to check the shutter speed.
Yeah, thats right, I do not have a digital camera, just a Canon AE-1 (not an AE-1 Automatic much older than that) I got in 1983. Gotta check settings and such. . .Got a Pentax Spotmatic II and a couple of Exacta's. Getting hard to find people to work on em for less than 200 bucks!
Blush Blush!
Does not matter, it was closed with snow just like Webster was?
My mistake, sorry
While doing interstate driving the gas mileage was 23.5.
This is with a 4.0L engine, manual 5 speed, 3.73 gears and running the oversized 31X10.5X15 tires.
Well pleased with the performance. Also, the Rancho RS 5000 shocks perform much better than the stock Ranger shocks. If you own a Ranger, you will be well satisfied upgrading to those shocks.
CP - Ex-King Rob Blake may still take the AV's all the way. Too bad you didn't have the King's goalie in Saturdays game though.
NJ played a very good game.