Im going to schools this fall and the campus is close enough to live at home but still a bit far and when i went up there to visit my jeep was getting around 10mpg so im looking for something new.

so bassically would a 2002ish ranger make a good daily drive, what kind of millage would i see and how are they in light off road applications.

Thanks,

 

ZU903 - I have a 2000 Ranger Sport with the 2.5l engine, automatic tranny with overdrive. I averaged around 24 mpg when I used it as a DD; a mix highway, back roads, and some city streets. I never did a pure highway study, but I never really took it on a long trip either. Always reliable but it rides like a truck. Not sure what Jeep you had, but the Grand Cherokee rode more like a car than a truck back in the day. But I recall the Jeep/Chrysler products were the absolute worst on gas!

Limited on seating, but you do get the benefit of being able to haul small loads about.

Kevin

 

I have a wrangler and it drives like a truck also do they have a 4cyl 4whl drive

 

I worked for a company that would fit various vehicles with racks and do some testing. The difference I think that you'll notice between the Wrangler and the Ranger is that the center of gravity on the Wrangler is probably better suited for doing the offroad. The Jeeps I drove back then were the best mannered vehicles for offroading straight off the showroom floor. I suppose that any vehicle can be built up for offroading, so the point may be moot. But what the Jeeps had for offroad ride and comfort, they lacked in economy. Every vehicle I rented in the Jeep/Chrysler family were horrible on fuel. Given the amount of testing we did, I found that I more often would rent an Explorer, which back then (2000ish), was hands down the best performer on fuel, but had a higher center of gravity so it could feel a little unstable. I think that once they moved to the new wider stance, this improved. But I'm not sure if Ford for 2002ish Rangers opted for the wider stance. I can say that on occasion, the 2000 Ranger has a bit of a roll, but folks told me to put some weight in the back and the problem should be less noticable. I never did though.

 

With my 02' 3.0L 2wd Extended Cab Auto, I am seeing roughly 17-18 MPG. Around 60/40 City to Highway. If you add 4wd in the mix expect a drop off. The best combo for mileage that you can get is a 4 banger, Reg cab flare side 5 spd.

 

Unfortunately, from what I've seen, no you can't get a 4-cyl, 4x4 Ranger.

 

how do the 2wd do in the snow and what type of mileage would they get.

and what do the 6cly get with and without 4x4

 

2wd isnt bad in snow if you have the right tires and some weight in the back. ive had 2 differnt supercab rangers, the first was a 2.3 4 cyl 2wd that would get 28 mpg at best, 20 most of the other times, ranger 2 is a '93 4.0 V6, 4wd. its best mpg was 19.5, gets about 17 most of the time. both of my rangers run 3.73 gearing and have the 5 speed manual transmissions.

 

My 2000 Ranger Sport is a 4x2. With a set of snow tires and a couple of hundred pounds of sand in the back, I manage in the snow pretty well. I normally take the Ranger over my Accord on snowy days since it rides higher and able to push through deeper snow. It will fishtail on occasion when starting off and it's a little tougher on inclines, but like I said, I have more confidence in the rear wheel drive in deeper snow than the front wheel drive of the Accord. Then again, you can always wait for the plows and head into class a little later.

 

is that high way or mix becuase most my miles will be high way and 17 almost twice what im getting in the jeep.

 

17 is a combined figure, gets about 18-19 highway only and in town only or winter driving i see about 15. having 4wd is worth it when its really bad out, ive managed with 2wd in the past, but one bad winter with a 4wd and you dont want to be without it.

 

ok thanks, also does the 3.0 get any better than a 4.0

 

ive heard its a little better but not alot, and the 3.0 makes its power at a higher rpm, you have to have it reved up a bit more, makes it seem underpowered, if your just looking for a commuter vehicle and dont plan to tow/haul much, the 4 cyl is probly the way to go. the only thing i didnt like about my 4 cyl was the lack of torque, on long upgrades i would have to downshift, sometimes to 3rd gear even. with the 4.0 ive not had that issue running empty, just set the cruise and go. the 3.0 is extremly reliable though, i had one in a taurus and it did great in that chassis, would get high 20's highway and that car weighed about 3,000 pounds. by contrast my '93 ranger supercab 4x4 weighs 4,300 pounds. all in all, from what ive read about the 3.0 in a ranger chassis, it doesnt get much better milage than the 4.0 and has less power. i think they even dropped the 3.0 from the lineup of availble engines for the current model year rangers. while i wouldnt dismiss a 3.0 ranger just on engine alone, if i had to pick between a 3.0 or 4.0 with everything else being similar, id go with the 4.0, there was a few years you could get a 4cyl with 4wd, its been quite a while though. they usually came with 4.10 gearing. one final thought though, my ranger has the older ohv engine, after '98 the 4.0 is a ohc and for some reason the ohc version of the 4.0 seems to do better on fuel, some of the ealry ones had issues with the timing chain tensioners, and i dont think the ohc 4.0 has quite the low end of the ohv engine, but they do make more power and will get in the low 20's mpg-wise. for some reason a explorer with the same engine/transmission and gearing will do a little better then a ranger chassis with the same setup, doesnt make sence to me why. they both have the aerodynamics of a brick, cant be much of a weight difference but i do know of someone who had a similar year explorer as my truck with the same engine, trans and gearing and he got 21 on a pretty regular basis.

 

thanks im going to be driving around 40+ miles a day so maybe the 4cyl would be the best for that. ill have to go test drive some 4cly and some 3.0 and 4.0 and see what i like best

 

My brother has a 2003 Ranger Edge with the 3.0 w/5 speed tranny. On a visit here, he loaned my truck from me for the week. He was surprised at the better fuel economy and was shocked that his engine didn't significantly out horse mine. He confirms that you have to wind it hard to get the power band, but with the manual tranny, the engine screams but you aren't moving fast. The economy of the larger 4.0 without the power. It could be why Ford dropped it as an offering although the reliability as noted by racsan was confirmed by him. 19.5 around town and 24 on one long road trip where he was careful not to exceed 65 mph. A/C was on and off along the trip. More food for thought...