User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/25/2014 10:46:02 PM EDT
[#1]
Great little trucks, I have a 2003 step-side extended cab with the flex fuel 3.0. Currently it has a whopping 40k on the clock. I bought it two years ago from a older gentlemen for a song and dance and it had 27k on the clock. They are great trucks and can easily do 200k +. There are a few issues, the manuals like to go through slave cylinders and the 3.0's have some unique issues but for the most part very reliable. As long as mine don't rust out I plan to drive the crap out of it for the next 7 to 10 years. About the only down side is fuel mileage or the lack of. They get about the same mileage as a full size truck and the turning radius on them sucks. For a small truck they don't park well.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2014 6:54:12 AM EDT
[#2]
I have a 97 that I bought 12 years ago with 43k.
Currently has 170k and I only recently replaced the alternator and catalytic converter. Still on the same clutch (knock on wood). |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2014 7:24:21 AM EDT
[#3]
I have an 06 4.0 4x4 no issues in 149K. Basic maintenance so far. Still runs great.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2014 7:30:17 AM EDT
[#4]
Only issue I ever had with my 3.0 V6 Ranger seemed to be a one off deal. The tensioner broke. A random piece of metal sheared off and it would no longer hold tension.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2014 7:34:57 AM EDT
[#5]
my daily driver is a 2008 2.3L Ranger. 120K with no issues. Rangers have had very little changes in the way of design from year to year. I would suggest going for a 4.10 rear (you can quickly find out by looking at the sticker inside of the door) 84 — 3.45 non-limited slip (Ranger) 86 — 3.73 non-limited slip (Ranger) 87 — 4.10 non-limited slip (Ranger) 89 — 4.56 non-limited slip (Ranger) F6 — 3.73 limited slip (Ranger) F7 — 4.10 limited slip (Ranger) 92 — 3.08 non-limited slip (Ranger) R5 — 3.55 limited slip (Ranger) 91 — 3.27 non-limited slip (Ranger) 96 — 3.73 non-limited slip (Ranger) R6 — 3.73 limited slip (Ranger)" |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2014 7:41:05 AM EDT
[#6]
I have an 03 FX4 Level II. You should get one. They're awesome.
ETA: Mine's a 5 speed, I don't know or care about the automatics. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2014 10:27:58 AM EDT
[#7]
Avoid the 3.0.
The 4.0 with the automatic and 4x4 is a nice ride. The 4-banger and a manual is a good work truck. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2014 5:59:30 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Avoid the 3.0. The 4.0 with the automatic and 4x4 is a nice ride. The 4-banger and a manual is a good work truck.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2014 6:01:21 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I have an 03 FX4 Level II. You should get one. They're awesome. http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m29/strikerap/IMG_20130125_073404.jpg http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m29/strikerap/IMG_20121013_145722.jpg ETA: Mine's a 5 speed, I don't know or care about the automatics.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2014 9:29:27 AM EDT
[#10]
Other than 5.7 Hemi like gas mileage, they're great trucks. Mine both averaged 15ish MPG...which is what I get in my current truck (Ram 1500). I'll say that you'd be best off looking for a 4x4 with the 4.0L engine and a 5sp manual trans. They're great trucks. The interiors are a little cheap but mechanically they're great. I beat the piss out of a 94 Mazda B4000 (rebadged Ranger) and then an 06 Ranger, both 4.0's with 4x4 and manual trans. Lots of off road and mud. Never had any issues other than the auto hubs going out on the 94. Replaced them with Warn turn in hubs and I was good to go. The 4.0 is a solid motor. Oil changes and air filters and it will run 200k+ no problems.
I got the 94 (back in 00 or so) with 97k on the clock for $3200 and got $3500 on trade in. It had 213k miles on it when I let that one go. Then bought the 06 as a beater/commuter with 105k miles on it for $6500. Drove it for a year and a half before we bought a quad and wanted a little more hauling capacity for moving it around. Put about 21k on it and sold it for $6800. They're getting harder to find these days so you may have to travel a bit. Keep an eye on CL and be ready to jump on one when you find a good deal. CMS |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2014 9:37:14 AM EDT
[#11]
Mine is 10 years old with just shy of 90K miles- I stay up on the regular maintenance and do my best to take care of her.
I have had to replace the brakes, a new set of tires, and had my PCM go out about a month ago (I spent about $1700 getting it repaired). I had an issue with a leaking rear window due to my seat putting pressure on it, I am a tall guy so I keep my seat all the way to the rear. I am ready for a new vehicle, but my Ranger has treated me well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2014 10:03:44 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Other than 5.7 Hemi like gas mileage, they're great trucks. Mine both averaged 15ish MPG...which is what I get in my current truck (Ram 1500). I'll say that you'd be best off looking for a 4x4 with the 4.0L engine and a 5sp manual trans. They're great trucks. The interiors are a little cheap but mechanically they're great. I beat the piss out of a 94 Mazda B4000 (rebadged Ranger) and then an 06 Ranger, both 4.0's with 4x4 and manual trans. Lots of off road and mud. Never had any issues other than the auto hubs going out on the 94. Replaced them with Warn turn in hubs and I was good to go. The 4.0 is a solid motor. Oil changes and air filters and it will run 200k+ no problems. I got the 94 (back in 00 or so) with 97k on the clock for $3200 and got $3500 on trade in. It had 213k miles on it when I let that one go. Then bought the 06 as a beater/commuter with 105k miles on it for $6500. Drove it for a year and a half before we bought a quad and wanted a little more hauling capacity for moving it around. Put about 21k on it and sold it for $6800. They're getting harder to find these days so you may have to travel a bit. Keep an eye on CL and be ready to jump on one when you find a good deal. CMS Mine I posted above just rolled over 100k yesterday. 
I got 18.79mpg on my last tank of gas, which is pretty much normal. That's with the 4.0, 5-speed, and 4.10 gears on 31" tires. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2014 10:18:41 AM EDT
[#13]
i have an 00 explorer (which is the same thing except for the body) with 219k and still going. take care of your shit and it will last.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2014 11:02:45 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Avoid the 3.0. The 4.0 with the automatic and 4x4 is a nice ride. The 4-banger and a manual is a good work truck. What makes you say that? The 3.0 was Ford's bread and butter in the V-6 category for a long time. The engine proved to be so reliable that very little changed on the engine during that time. The 3.0 is a very tough engine. Sure, they're under powered, and have pinging and cam synchro issues, but other than that there is no reason to avoid them. OP, I have a 2000 Mazda B-3000. It's a rebadged Ford Ranger 3.0. I have about 260K on the odometer right now and it's still going strong. The only thing I've ever done to it is tune ups, oil changes, and a water pump (just recently). I'll never get rid of it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2014 11:46:48 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What makes you say that? The 3.0 was Ford's bread and butter in the V-6 category for a long time. The engine proved to be so reliable that very little changed on the engine during that time. The 3.0 is a very tough engine. Sure, they're under powered, and have pinging and cam synchro issues, but other than that there is no reason to avoid them. OP, I have a 2000 Mazda B-3000. It's a rebadged Ford Ranger 3.0. I have about 260K on the odometer right now and it's still going strong. The only thing I've ever done to it is tune ups, oil changes, and a water pump (just recently). I'll never get rid of it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Avoid the 3.0. The 4.0 with the automatic and 4x4 is a nice ride. The 4-banger and a manual is a good work truck. What makes you say that? The 3.0 was Ford's bread and butter in the V-6 category for a long time. The engine proved to be so reliable that very little changed on the engine during that time. The 3.0 is a very tough engine. Sure, they're under powered, and have pinging and cam synchro issues, but other than that there is no reason to avoid them. OP, I have a 2000 Mazda B-3000. It's a rebadged Ford Ranger 3.0. I have about 260K on the odometer right now and it's still going strong. The only thing I've ever done to it is tune ups, oil changes, and a water pump (just recently). I'll never get rid of it. He probably shares the same sentiment I do. Before 2001, even the 4.0L only made 160 HP. After they changed to a SOHC for the same engine and the HP was bumped to 207hp. The 3.0L at it's best (03-04) only made 154hp. The truck is a bit of a dog with anything but an 01+ 4.0L V6. It's not an issue until you haul/tow something. Then you're wishing for way more power. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2014 11:53:10 AM EDT
[#16]
my 01 XLT, 4.0 V6 is still plugging away and I'm an asshole to it...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2014 5:56:22 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nothing wrong with the 3.0, other than its underpowered compared to the 4.0 and gets the same crap mileage.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Avoid the 3.0. The 4.0 with the automatic and 4x4 is a nice ride. The 4-banger and a manual is a good work truck.
My 98 B3000 4x4 5spd got 23mpg highway, which was pretty decent. Ran fine at 181k when I sold it. The 3.0 lasts forever unless the cam sync grenades. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2014 4:22:34 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He probably shares the same sentiment I do. Before 2001, even the 4.0L only made 160 HP. After they changed to a SOHC for the same engine and the HP was bumped to 207hp. The 3.0L at it's best (03-04) only made 154hp. The truck is a bit of a dog with anything but an 01+ 4.0L V6. It's not an issue until you haul/tow something. Then you're wishing for way more power. I don't disagree. The 3.0 is under powered. But I personally wouldn't avoid a Ranger simply because it has the 3.0. I do wish there were easier ways to increase the power in the 3.0...short of swapping in a 4.0
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2014 6:47:53 PM EDT
[#19]
I had a 2001 4.0, Limited slip rear end went out at 230k, Trans at 310k. Crashed it with 346k on it and it still ran great getting 20mpg... Loved it
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2014 7:48:06 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Avoid the 3.0. The 4.0 with the automatic and 4x4 is a nice ride. The 4-banger and a manual is a good work truck. I have owned 4 Rangers. The first was an '85 fuel injected 4 banger with a 5 speed manual transmission. I owned it until it spun a bearing. Traded it in on a '93 Ranger 3.0 5 speed manual. Found out it was just as fast as my '85 and it used almost a third more fuel. Sold that. A few years later I bought a used 94 Ranger 4 banger with a 5 speed manual. Kept that until I traded it in on a 98 Nissan Frontier 4 banger with a 5 speed manual. Traded the Frontier in on an '11 Ford Ranger with the 4.0 and the 5 speed automatic transmission. It's a 4x4 Supercab XLT with 3.73 limited slip rear axle. I didn't like the trim package on the Sport. I still have it. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2014 7:51:50 PM EDT
[#21]
I think there were a few years they were made with a 2.5L, stick with the 2.3 if you're getting a 4 cyl.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2014 3:40:07 AM EDT
[#22]
Had a 89 Ranger, couldn't kill it. Traded it in in 97 and it had 170k on it. Should of bought another one.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2014 4:18:31 PM EDT
[#23]
I had a 98 ranger 3.0 5 speed 4x4 regular cab short bed. It had 32 in AT tires though. I think this killed the mileage and made it very slow overall. I got 16mpg. Sixteen!!! It also was very bouncy with nothing in the bed. I hit a patch in the pavement on an off ramp. The truck started to skid and I rolled it at 25 mph.
I couldn't climb a hill on the interstate in 5th and had to downshift to 3rd. The oil pump drive shaft sheared off one day getting on the freeway and locked up the motor. It had a loose connection somewhere in the dash and the gauges would stop working for a second or two. This is what I thought had happened. Then Engine locked up before I figured it out. I assumed the gauge was lying to me. It was not. Slow, thirsty, and you can't haul much. Buy a full size truck. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2014 5:16:03 PM EDT
[#24]
The only thing I can add at this point is you are looking at 10-11 year old vehicles, which will have 10-11 year old American vehicle issues.
But, it sounds like nothing major as long as the vehicle you find has been maintained properly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2014 6:37:57 PM EDT
[#25]
I had an '02 Mazda B3000 DS (same truck as the Ranger) with the 3.0L 5-speed, and had north of 80k miles on it when I traded to a kid for a Jeep TJ back in 2011. Paid right at $13k for it new in '02, and the only thing I ever did to the truck was change the battery and put in a new driver's side window motor.
Like its been mentioned, avoid the 3.0L motor unless you plan on never pulling a trailer. Mine was absolutely gutless with anything hooked to the hitch, even with 4.10 rearend gears. I'm not kidding, the truck even had a hard time pulling a 5x12' single axle trailer empty. Any hills on the road, and you could plan on downshifting to keep the truck at 65 mph. Don't get me wrong, the truck did OK on level ground with 2-3k pound loads, but hills (not too many steep ones in middle Georgia) gave it hell. I'd ocasionally use it to pull a 16.5' Stratos bass boat, and it struggled to get the boat out of the water. Gas mileage was decent, averaged around 21 mpg. Best I ever got was close to 23, but it was usually around 21 (and I drive like an old woman). If you do get an extended cab truck, get one with the swing out door(s). Otherwise, its a pain to get stuff in and out of the rear cab. I really liked everything about the truck except towing. No joke, my '91 Mazda B2600i with a 2.6L 4-cylinder handled hills and boat ramps just as easily as the 3.0 V6, and it has almost half the rated HP. It just always felt like 1st gear wasn't "low" enough to get things moving, really felt like 2nd gear with any load. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2014 6:59:14 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The only thing I can add at this point is you are looking at 10-11 year old vehicles, which will have 10-11 year old American vehicle issues. But, it sounds like nothing major as long as the vehicle you find has been maintained properly. Ford sold the Ranger in the US until 2012. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2014 8:29:31 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I had an '02 Mazda B3000 DS (same truck as the Ranger) with the 3.0L 5-speed, and had north of 80k miles on it when I traded to a kid for a Jeep TJ back in 2011. Paid right at $13k for it new in '02, and the only thing I ever did to the truck was change the battery and put in a new driver's side window motor. Like its been mentioned, avoid the 3.0L motor unless you plan on never pulling a trailer. Mine was absolutely gutless with anything hooked to the hitch, even with 4.10 rearend gears. I'm not kidding, the truck even had a hard time pulling a 5x12' single axle trailer empty. Any hills on the road, and you could plan on downshifting to keep the truck at 65 mph. Don't get me wrong, the truck did OK on level ground with 2-3k pound loads, but hills (not too many steep ones in middle Georgia) gave it hell. I'd ocasionally use it to pull a 16.5' Stratos bass boat, and it struggled to get the boat out of the water. Gas mileage was decent, averaged around 21 mpg. Best I ever got was close to 23, but it was usually around 21 (and I drive like an old woman). If you do get an extended cab truck, get one with the swing out door(s). Otherwise, its a pain to get stuff in and out of the rear cab. I really liked everything about the truck except towing. No joke, my '91 Mazda B2600i with a 2.6L 4-cylinder handled hills and boat ramps just as easily as the 3.0 V6, and it has almost half the rated HP. It just always felt like 1st gear wasn't "low" enough to get things moving, really felt like 2nd gear with any load. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2014 8:35:23 PM EDT
[#28]
Check your throttle cable... they stretch like hell and the throttle blade won't open fully. A few zip ties around the end of the cable will correct the pedal height and guarantee WOT when you need it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2014 10:15:54 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ford sold the Ranger in the US until 2011. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The only thing I can add at this point is you are looking at 10-11 year old vehicles, which will have 10-11 year old American vehicle issues. But, it sounds like nothing major as long as the vehicle you find has been maintained properly. Ford sold the Ranger in the US until 2011. Fixed. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2014 7:23:34 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Fixed.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The only thing I can add at this point is you are looking at 10-11 year old vehicles, which will have 10-11 year old American vehicle issues. But, it sounds like nothing major as long as the vehicle you find has been maintained properly. Ford sold the Ranger in the US until 2011. Fixed.
Technically yes. They sold 2012 fleet Rangers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2014 12:52:25 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Technically yes. They sold 2012 fleet Rangers. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The only thing I can add at this point is you are looking at 10-11 year old vehicles, which will have 10-11 year old American vehicle issues. But, it sounds like nothing major as long as the vehicle you find has been maintained properly. Ford sold the Ranger in the US until 2011. Fixed. Technically yes. They sold 2012 fleet Rangers. Fine. The last Ranger rolled off the assembly line in December 16th, 2011.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2014 12:58:10 PM EDT
[#32]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2014 1:29:11 PM EDT
[#33]
I got a '10 regular cab, 4 cyl, manual for my son that gets 27 mpg.
I figured he could make a little cash moving stuff for people while he goes to college. No rugs and vinyl seats. But I put in a Sony Bluetooth stereo! |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2014 1:50:55 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
2016 Ford Ranger spied. http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2014/07/spied-2016-global-ford-ranger.html I think the Ranger could make a comeback if they tossed in a small turbo diesel like Dodge is doing with the Ram 1500. Problem with full size trucks is when you price one out, even without all the high end options, you're still looking at $40k+ these days. If a 4 door turbo diesel Ranger hit the market I'd jump on it in a heartbeat for my next truck purchase. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2014 8:24:27 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think the Ranger could make a comeback if they tossed in a small turbo diesel like Dodge is doing with the Ram 1500. Problem with full size trucks is when you price one out, even without all the high end options, you're still looking at $40k+ these days. If a 4 door turbo diesel Ranger hit the market I'd jump on it in a heartbeat for my next truck purchase. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
2016 Ford Ranger spied. http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2014/07/spied-2016-global-ford-ranger.html I think the Ranger could make a comeback if they tossed in a small turbo diesel like Dodge is doing with the Ram 1500. Problem with full size trucks is when you price one out, even without all the high end options, you're still looking at $40k+ these days. If a 4 door turbo diesel Ranger hit the market I'd jump on it in a heartbeat for my next truck purchase. That's why I bought my 2011 Ranger. 4x4, 4.0, auto, limited slip 4.73, air, cruise, tilt, less than $20K out the door, tax and license included.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2014 1:47:40 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Check your throttle cable... they stretch like hell and the throttle blade won't open fully. A few zip ties around the end of the cable will correct the pedal height and guarantee WOT when you need it. This. Did it on my '98 3.0 I had in high school/beginning of college. That was a really fun truck, and I miss it sometimes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2014 1:04:50 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
I'm considering buying a used Ford Ranger, probably a 2003 or 2004. Are these reliable? Can I get +200k out of one? Thanks, Dan I have a 2002 w/4.0L V6. 2WD and automatic. I get around 19-20 mpg 'commuting' with some stop and roll, some go like hell to beat the traffic. I've actually seen ~22mpg on the interstate drive to the beach back when gas wasn't ethanoled to death. 
Currently at 176K. It's now "semi retired" because I bought a new DD. It's been "semi retired" before when I bought the daughter a car and drove it while she was doing the learners permit / new driver bit. Mostly on road back and forth to work with the occasional 'weekend project' bit. No towing. (No toys.  ) No "off roading" either other than the occasional trip through the parents pasture or some dirt back roads.
Not loaded with electronic crap so all I've really done is change fluids / tires and the battery once. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
