I am looking at getting a commuter and am looking at a Ranger XL no options reg cab, 4cyl, 5 speed or a Ranger XL extended cab, 2door, 3.0L V-6, auto, ac, slider. Both are two wheel drives. I have a F150 but need better fuel MPG. Any input as to the two choices or recommendations would be much appreciated Thank you.

 

I have a 03 Ranger XLT S/C 3.0 L and like mine alot.Even use it to tow a 2800 lb camper.

 

Since mileage seems to be the priority, I'd look at the 4 banger. BTW, get the A/C and slider if you want them. No reason to drive something that doesn't make a guy happy.

 

About a year ago I got rid of my 4.6 auto F-150 when I found a used '03 Ranger Duratech 4 banger, 5 speed manual with 6,700 miles on it. It's a reg cab, 6' bed. Soooo glad I did! 80% of my driving is around town (Tulsa, OK) and now that its good and broken in (18,000 miles), I consistantly get 26 mpg and its much easier to manuver in tight parking lots. Going to keep this Ranger for a long time.

 

Id go with the 4-banger over the 3.0L V6. The 3.0L is a gas guzzler compared to the 4-banger.
Octane

 

I had a 99 Ext Cab with 4 banger and 5 speed that I loved. I was 100% travel with my job when I bought it and it was the best thing ever. I traded it in on my 2004 4x4 Edge with 4.0l. My 99 had almost 100k miles on it and it was still getting between 29 & 31 mpg on the highway with no problems at all! I would also consider a new one with all the deals out there...you can probably buy a new one as cheap as a used one.

 

I'd recommend the 4 banger too. If my Edge came with a 4 banger, I probably would have got that instead of the 3.0. It's just as slow as a 2.3, and uses almost as much gas as the 4.0.

 

4 cyl all the way. Unless you load it down, it will feel just as strong as the 3.0. The Ranger 4cyl just got some award for being the most fuel efficient pickup available.

 

Thanks for all the feed back. In this neck of the woods all the dealers want to sell 4x4, 4.0L with 4:10, when you do find a 4cyl model it is base all the way. They refer to them as paint delete model. I did find one 3.0 in the XL with options but the fuel mileage is only 2 mpg better than the 4.0 4x4. So it looks like XL 4cyl. Thanks all have a good one.

 

i recently bought a 2001 xlt 4x4...we just got back from a 4,000 + mile road trip. im impressed with it in all aspects.21m.p.g.+smooth and plenty of power.

 

Look in eBay Motors, 2000 Ranger 4cyl manual well optioned for Buy-it-now price of $7900. Looks like a good buy if you're thinking used.

 

The Duratec 2.3 is a nice motor; designed by Cosworth, produces about 150hp, 150tq, and will run rings around most other 4-bangers if you use the power band (3000-6000RPM) :-) Only available in 2001+ trucks. The earlier 4-cylinders are SLOW.

I'm getting 25-26 in my Duratec, with a cat back exhaust and a heavy right foot. Regular cab, short bed, tool box, OEM tires.

FYI- the base "SE" model Mazda B2300 is the same as a Ranger XLT. My 2003 "SE" came with a cloth interior, A/C, CD player, ABS, tilt, cruise, tinted sliding rear window, clearcoat paint, and a split pseudo-bucket bench seat. So go to a Mazda dealer and pay "base model prices" for a very nice used base model. I got my used 2003 for the same price as that eBay truck.

 

We have about 30 Rangers in our fleet. Recently 8 were replaced with new ones 3.0 a/c etc. Regular cab base models. All of the others are 4 cyl automatic trans, no a/c. There is 6 - 7 mpg + - difference in the 2.3 and 3.0 depending on the driver.

I have a 4.0 myself and expected it to use more fuel. The 3.0 uses almost as much fuel and is not as peppy as the 4.0. I have already submitted my suggestion to management to go back to the 2.3 Rangers no matter what kind of deal they can get on the 3.0 from wherever they get them.

Russ

 

I wish I could get that kind of mileage out of my 4.0...I have gotten as good as 19mpg and as bad as 13 mpg. It is a 2004 FX4 Level II with a 4.0L and a 5 spd. manual with 4.10 gears.

 

06 Rangers will come as 2.3L SuperCabs once again.

Rejoice all!

3.slow = no option for fuel effciency as noted...