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
I bet Ford could sell alot more Rangers if they'd offer a (decent) 4cyl on a 4X4. It would have to be a good 4cyl obviously, but alot of people that want fuel economy and 4X4 only have a couple choices (nissan & toyota?). I know a couple people, including myself at times, that commute though the mountains. They average 20-23mpg, one with an automatic. The V6's top seems to be around 17-19. Doing 50K per year, that 3mpg saves around $50 a month. I bought mine with the 4cyl for the same reason, I was commuting 100 miles through the mountains. A good 4cyl will pull these little trucks around pretty easy and get good mileage. I never came out of 5th gear through the mountains, so power wasn't a big issue, although it wasn't a dragster. I'd venture to say there are many folks that would rather have the rangers on-road manners if they could get 20-23mpg.
The 3L V6 in the Ranger when equipped with a manual will get just shy of 25mpg on the highway and still be able to tow a couple thousand pounds without a hitch.
I know. Crappy pun. BTW, I wouldn't tow a couple of thousand of pounds without a tow hitch.
I wouldn't get the 3L with the automatic. It really hurts performance, both power and mpg.
No Toyota's here, all Land Rover's. . .
No Toyota's here, all Land Rover's\\
Open your eyes Cspounser. It's about half and half. They look very similar.
Every see the "Crocodile Hunters" rig?
Go and read the full size SUV comparison test on edmunds.com and see what the lifelong offroad guide for africa, south america, and the U.S. thinks about Toyota.
The 2.7L will tow 2,000# all day long with ease, get above that and the hills really tax you, but the folks buying the 4cyl probably aren't interested in towing more than that anyway. Physics has a big part in towing vs mpg, so you have to decide up front what you want to do. If I could only have one vehicle, and had to tow more than a few thousand pounds regularly, I wouldn't buy anything in the small truck class.
My pop's old '89 Ranger with the 2.9L V6 4x4 manual used to get around 25mpg mixed city/highway. He'd get in the mid to upper twenties on the highway with the cruise set at 65mph.
A factor you might be overlooking here is terrain. I'm in the great flat state of IL, as opposed to the mountains of Colorado.
Also, gearing has a large part to do with mpg. They have to gear the Taco awfully short because of the low torque characteristics of a 4cyl.
From what I understand, if you take away 4cyl fleet sales, the 3L is the best-selling engine choice in the Ranger.
One more thing. I wouldn't tow a few thousand pounds with a 4cyl more than a couple of blocks. Towing in a low torque vehicle is a nightmare, especially when you get into some hills.
The MOUNTAINS! That's one big reason why I bought a Ford Expedition over the Toyota Sequoia. I had the option of buying a larger V8. No such option on Sequoia.
When spoog finally drives out here, he will be happy he has the supercharger. Not for 4-wheeling (where the charger will never spool up), but just for driving colorado's highways, where the climbs are long and steep.
RE: GM V6
Are you talking about the 2.8? I used to have a carbeurated 2.8L V6 in an '85 S10 Blazer. It was so weak that it couldn't even pull its overdrive gear on the highway without a 20mph tailwind and a landscape as flat as a tabletop. It's just too bad that I totalled it before I could drop in a 4.3 as it was a nice vehicle other than the weak engine.
The 2.7L I4 is sooooo much stronger than those old 2.4's. I can pull every mountain in WV in 5th as long as I don't mind slowing to 65mph. I usually pop into 4th if I want to hold 70-75mph. The 2.7L is rated in HP as high as the old 3.0 V6 was, and pretty close in torque. Gutsy little engine, which is why I see alot of long haulers using the toys. Ran across two 95 4X4 reg. cab Tacomas at an equipment auction this summer. They had been used as flag vehicles (oversize loads), one had 320K miles, the other 360K. I thought I could pick one up for $1500 or so, but they went for $5,000 a piece, take your pick. The one with 320K was actually really nice, the one with 360K musta had a pig driving it. Sometimes the trucks at those auctions go really high because $5,000 is nothing compared to a $100,000 piece of equipment.
Just sent you my info. It would be great to do a little four-wheeling before the snow melts in the mountains. Hate to say it but the 32"s are rubbing a little if I get to much flex while turning (ie. speed bump and turning). May be upgrading to Rancho's w/mild lift sooner than I thought.
I SAID that the latest issue of Four Wheeler did an article on survial in Africa, and the only vehicles the talked about were Range Rovers.
jholc
Got it and replied
Allknowing.. I know a bit of a late response. I did check the Explorer woes room. Many are repeat entries and about the older OHV 4.0. Did you not know both the SOHC 4.0 and OHV 4.0 were available in the Explorer for quiet sometime... I believe the SOHC 4.0 became standard in about 98.
Took a trip over to Three Sisters this weekend and had a blast in my Ranger that is not supposed to be able to offroad. I have to chuckle at those folks that try to make an older Toyota with a 2.2R turn 35" tires!! with a 6" lift at that..
I've never been a big fan of JD powers etc, as their studies do have factors that are somewhat uncontrolled.. (as is any study that involves polling the public and asking their opinion).
I did notice that in 1999, JD rated the dakota, mazda b series, and ranger as the top 3 compact pickups in initial quality.. (although the mazda and ranger are clones, so its reasonable that they'd have the same rating).
In 2000 the top3 were mazda b-series, gmc, and chevy s10. (gmc/s10 are clones, I'm not sure where the Ranger was as it is basically the same as a b-series)
The Tacoma wasn't mentioned..
Again, I'm not sure of how JD does its studies (I know I've filled out JD powers studies, is this the only input?).
The "recall" on head gaskets also affected the 3.4 litre V6 from '95 and possibly '96.
Our '95 T100 with the EXACT same 3.4 V6 (used in the Tacoma) sprung a major antifreeze leak and had to have both head gaskets replaced. This was in late 1997 with only about 35K miles. Really frosted my cajones!
The SOHC has had SOME problems. Snooping around an Edmunds' chat room for disgruntled owners is about the most inaccurate method possible of determining a vehicle's (or engine's) reliability.
The JD powers long term 5 year reliability tests are done by actually driving the vehicles for 5 years.
BWAHHAHAHA!!! YEEEEEHAAAAAWW!!!!
Built Ford Tough! LOL!!!!
Head Gaskets:
As I understand it, at least the 95-96 Tacoma had problems with the gasket. There is some indication that other years also have the problem to a lesser extent.
Anyone knows that when a new product is introduced into the market the Manufacturer hasn't spent the required resources to completely debug a product. They leave that to the Consumers to do. And by doing this they save millions of dollars in free analysis and studies. Our complaints and input help improve and build better products for the future. As for me I've been on both sides of the coin and believe that both "Fords" & "Toyotas" are great trucks but everything depends on your budget for your driving preference. If you have the extra funds and you want to drive something a little nicer than that's what you do. Plain and simple.
Toyota measures from the lowest SPRUNG point on the vehicle (the transfer case).
All US manufacturers measure from the lowest UNSPRUNG point on the vehicle (the bottoms of the rear differentials).
cpousnr has mentioned on MANY occasions that indeed, the Tacoma has more clearance than his Ranger when he measures BOTH vehicles from the bottom of the differentials. HOWEVER, (and this is key) the difference is only about 1/4" in favor of the Tacoma, NOT the 2-3 inch advantage Toyota would like you to believe the Tacoma has.
Apples and oranges again......
What's the altitude in your neighborhood????
Great post, thanks for the input.
The hood latch issue identified by spoof:
Well, went to the recall data base and yes, 137,000 Rangers (and this is important) AND Explorer Sport Tracks are listed for a defective hood latch that could crack. BUT the way the problem is written, there are words something like:
"...SUV's...and some pickups..."
which indicates to me the problem is mainly with the Explorer.
Not to minimize but to put in perspective.
clearance:
Any vehicle that is above 8.5 inches should have minimal problems going over/around rocks and such.
I measured the TRY at 9.5 inches, my Ranger at 9.25.
I got the pictures and have posted them in the past. Did it because I was curious and it was good to week spoof when he claimed 12 inches.
BTW, got a set of Rancho RS5000's installed over the weekend. Truck handles much better without the stock shocks. Also checked the brakes while it was up. PRETTY thin pads... mileage somewhere around 40K...know what I am going to do on friday, violate my covenants in the housing area and change my pads and rotors in the street.
This huge resale advantage that Toyota owners like to paint IS NOT there either. You paid more at initial sale, the Tacoma better be more at resale. This image of because you pay more you get more is a joke!
I also have measured and compared my friends TRD right beside my Ranger. He has maybe 1/4" advantage in ground clearance. Granted I have P265x75r16 tires on my Ranger. At one point JD powers was a source of information for Tacoma owners when the data favored thier points, now that they have rated it low its not.. Hmmm.....
Obviously Issteel is not refering to the new SOHC 4.0 must be a 3.0. And once again he is unaware of what a HP/Torque curve is. These are trucks man not race cars!.. The 2.7 has 177ft/lbs of torque the 3.0 has 192ft/lbs of torque. I have a Ford owners manual that states these numbers.
This weekend I am going back to Three Sisters area for some snow mobiling. And I am going to take my Ranger that isn't supposed to be able to 4x4...:-)) If you don't know where Three sister is look on an Oregon map, its located in the Easter section of Oregon..
Enjoy those stickers, and open axles Toyota lovers!!
Anyway, enjoy your trip to the Three Sisters area. I was there when I stayed in Bend Oregon about ten years ago and it was pretty nice. You need the rest so that you can read my posts a bit more carefully.
Manufacturer: FORD MOTOR COMPANY
Mfg. Campaign #: 00S45
Year: 2001
Make: FORD TRUCK
Model: RANGER
Potential Number of Units Affected: 137700
Manufactured From: MAR 2000 To: OCT 2000
Year of Recall: '00
Type of Report: Vehicle
Summary:
Vehicle Description: Sport utility vehicles with steel hoods and certain pickup trucks equipped with sheet molding compound hoods. A wire formed hood striker could be susceptible to fatigue fractures. If the hood striker fractures, the hood could fly open while the vehicle is being driven.
A hood fly-up while the vehicle is being operated could result in reduced driver visibility.
Dealers will replace the hood striker. Owner notification is expected to begin during December 2000. Owners who take their vehicles to an authorized dealer on an agreed upon service date and do not receive the free remedy within a reasonable time should contact Ford at 1-800-392-3673. Also contact the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Auto Safety Hotline at 1-888-DASH-2-DOT (1-888-327-4236
Sung to the tune of the Eagles " Take it easy"
' Im a running down the road trying to loosen my load
I got a hood blocking my sight
Looking for the shoulder to try and pull over but I can't see no light
Take it iiiiinnnnn
Take it iiiiiiinnnn
Take that Ranger to the dealer once again.......
Some will lose and some will win, and your Ranger's in the shop again
So just try to ease your mind, and
take it innnnnnnn
Take that Ranger to the dealer once again...
You can try but you just wont win, so take your ranger to the dealer once again........
And take it iiiiiiinnnnnn
take it innnnnnnn
Take that ranger to the dealer once again........
Ford raises vehicle prices for second time in three months
Published: March 7, 2001
By: Steve Blake
Ford Motor Co. is raising the base prices of its vehicles for the second time in only a three month span, even though this raise in vehicle pricing may be a welcomed one because it is believed to be directly attributed to the costs involved with Ford's increasing efforts to advance the final quality build of their vehicles rolling off the line, even though a Ford spokesperson would not confirm this.
Ford spokesperson Terry Bresnihan told BlueOvalNews in regards to the pricing increase, "The increase is very small, 0.3 percent, and should be looked at in context. Our pricing has been basically flat over the past three years on comparably equipped vehicles. Competitive actions and market conditions allowed at this time for the very slight increase and we certainly believe our products remain competitively priced."
The increase in consumer retail prices range from $95 for 2001 model year cars, and $50 to $255 on 2001 model year trucks and sport utility vehicles, excluding the Explorer four door model and medium duty trucks.
This announcement comes on the heels of a higher consumer demand for the automotive sector, in February, than was previously forecasted by analysts, and Ford's results that showed a decline of eleven percent for last month, when many analysts had forecasted a decline of thirteen, to as high as, a seventeen percent reduction in U.S. based sales. At the current rate, 2001 could shape up to be the third best year in U.S. automotive sales history.
Ford Motor Company's stock is also fairing well as the automaker is near breaking the thirty dollar threshold, something it has not seen since May of 2000. Ford has also announced publicly that it is comfortable with current Wall Street estimates.
"do not operate vehicle with Auto Muff installed."
Let me see, I have a windshield totally covered, will I attempt to drive it?
Job was easy myself. Tools needed:
15 and 30 mm socket. Breaker bar. Torque wrench.
Special lube from Ford. Screw driver to remove rotor nuts. Locktite for putting bolts back.
Cost was high for parts, about 185 bucks for the best NAPA pads and 2 rotors. I like to have rotors available to slap on rather than take them to machine while vehicle is jacked.
Gotta pull the battery cable to disable ABS. Could loose a finger/hand if you do not do that.
Just some info maybe someone can use. . .
Jaguar had some cool cars, and I actually liked the new Toyota MR2. One of the ugliest things I saw was the Chevy Avalance. From a functional standpoint it was kinda cool, but I couldn't live with a truck that ugly!
It use to be that you could get 2-3 truns on rotors. Now, with the need to take so much weight off the vehicle to get mpg up, one rotor turn is about it.
Also, many vehicles use non metalic pistons in the caliper. My Intrepid was like that. The pistons warp, causing them to go out of round. That causes them to stick and drag a pad on the rotor, effecting mpg and brake life. It LOOKED like the ones in the Ranger were metal, but cannot be sure. Was in a bit of a hurry to get the job done and get the vehicle off the street before neighbors came home so did not look too close. Avoiding a potential covenant complaint.
Thanks for the tip, and could agree with you. However, Pep Boys turns rotors for $5 each, not too much to pay.
I had to have my Intrepid rotors turned at just over 15K when the vehicle was basically new. I was on vacation Denver-LA area and coming back down the passes, the pulsing was very bad.
But you would agree that one should buy a top of the line rotor. Getting a cheap one at say Checker or Pep Boys could lead to warp problems. As I recall, the higher the nickle content, the better the rotor.
My gramps was a regional service rep for Chycro (10 years) and I've heard some pretty interesting stories. As soon as he retired he bought an Avalon.
I bought a Jeep Cherokee back in December for a company vehicle. I'm at 9K miles now and can just barely feel some pulsating. I'd say by 18K I'll be shopping for some better rotors.
From what I've seen the Taco and Ranger both have pretty good brake components so rotors shouldn't be a problem. I've got 70K on my taco with factory pads/rotors. About ready for pads on the front, but the rotors feel perfect.
As well as Ford.
For some reason , these companies can't get brakes right.
Everyone I know who has an f150 or Ram is always in the shop for brake rotor work. Even trucks with like 6,000 miles.
Just crappy quality.
Interesting that Ford has raised theirprices by .3 percent so they can meet higher quality standards.
Of every Ford product I've personally owned and that my family has owned, we've never had to replace a rotor. Thats on a wide variety of Ford products starting since the early eighties. Escorts(6), Rangers(3), Probe, Windstars(2), F150s(2) and the newest vehicle of the lot is my 00' F250 Superduty with 21k miles.
Most of the other vehicles I mentioned had at least 100k miles on them before being replaced. (my brothers driving did a few in before that, doh).
Seems like Ford has gotten brakes right, at least for the ones we've owned..
I can relate this experience. My son on his 94 Toy P/U tried to save money and just replace the pads. Now in fairness, the rotors were below spec at 115K at the time, so it did not suprise me that he wore out the brakes within 5K. Toyota replaced the rotors, pads, and some front end parts(he departed a dirt road and hit a ditch and a barbwire fence) to the tune of:
$1,200+
So at least in that case I know, from personal experience, the life on a 94 Toyota p/u rotors is less than 120,000 miles. If I get 2 turns on my Ranger rotors, that would be right at 120K. so that is fairly equal.
Again, just personal preference for me. I would rather have all the parts for the job, pads rotors, h/w, than to leave the truck jacked, go out to get parts and or machine service.
I'm not picking on Chrysler vehicles, but Chrysler seems content to "under-design" their vehicles so they can sell them for less. That's the market niche they prefer to play in.