My Ford F250 7.3 Diesel got schwacked by a woman who thought her phone was more important than respecting the median on our local highway. Its gonna be a bit before I get it back out on the road. In the meantime I am driving my 71 International Harvester Pickup but its not in the greatest shape and it sat for 5 years before I bought it from my Grandfather. She smokes like a freight train, clutch feels like a bag of gravel and the brake lines make me scream inside because they are so rusty. I would like to not meet my end in that truck before I can fix it up so I want a Ranger. All I need is a bed to haul small things in and make dump runs/firewood deliveries for the farm. I talked to some older guys in their late 60s who used to work for Ford. They told me to stay away from the 2.9L V6 cause its "Junk". They said to stay away from the 2.2 and 2.3L Diesels since parts are hard to get for them. They also told me to stay away from the 4.0L SOHC engine but the 4.0 Pushrod OHV engine is good. They spoke nothing but praise for the 2.3 4 cylinder and 3.0V6. I was kinda looking into getting one with the 2.3L 4 cylinder since the fuel economy would seem to be better. I talked to an older fella who has a 2000 Ranger that is a 2.3L 4cylinder 4x4 with a 5 speed and he says he gets 32mpg. His wife he said has a 1996 Ranger 4cylinder 4x4 Automatic and gets 26mpg. I have also heard the 2.3 cant get out of its own way and that it makes the Ranger useless for any type of truck applications. I drive 40 miles round trip for work every day and I wouldnt mind the mpg. At the same time if the 4 cylinder is that underwhelming that I have to pass on it. Like I said I mainly need the truck to do dump runs and haul things for the farm like firewood, metal T posts and wire fencing rolls, small livestock and tractor parts. Also I am 6'4"..... will I fit in a Regular Cab Ranger ? Just asking since the only way to get a 7' bed is the Regular Cab option. There are plenty of supercabs in my area for sale but they only have 6' beds. If someone like me will have trouble fitting in a reg cab then I will get a super cab. Thanks to all who reply.

 

I had an '83 reg cab 4x4 with the old 2.3L Briggs & Stratton back in the late '90's, I didn't care as much about cramped quarters back then but I couldn't do it now, that cab is just too small for a 6'4" male. The old 2.3 was rated at something like 80hp, but Ford brought in a new DOHC 2.3 in '02 that made 150hp and all reports are it gets around just fine in these small trucks. In more recent years we have owned 1 other 2.3 reg cab but I didn't drive it, and then we had a series or extended cab trucks with the 3.0L or 4.0L.. all with manual transmissions. All of these have been a pleasure to drive, the V6's all have enough grunt to do some real work and they can get decent fuel milage but that means high teens to low 20's. I don't know about getting 32mpg from a 2.3L... the one we had would only get about 25mpg, you're not going anywhere very quickly and things like modern highway driving was outside it's design criteria.

 

I’m going to press “DOUBT” on both of those being 4x4 (US market, for sure) as the last 4x4 4-cylinder Ranger back then was made in 1997…and they were only 5-speed manuals.

That aside, I’d look at say a 2010-12 model. The 2.3 Duratec is pretty zippy and all disc brakes. Ford went away from SuoerCabs with four cylinders for a few years…from 2001.5 to 2006, I believe. Not a smart idea, IMHO. The v6 engines drink too much gas for that size truck.

I had a ‘94 SuperCab 2.3/5-speed until it dropped a cylinder back in 2007. You didn’t use it for serious work. Such is the life of a 98 horsepower truck with a soft transmission.