I'm on my 3rd Ranger. Just bought a new 2003 4X4 SuperCab XLT 4-Door 4L FX4-Level II.

My first was a 1996 4X4 XLT SuperCab 4L 4-speed Auto.

My second was a 1998 4X4 XLT SuperCab 4L 5-Speed Auto.

All have been similarly equipped, with nearly all options. The 2003 has the most, including the FX4-Level II package.

In 2000 I took a break from trucks and drove a 2000 Taurus SEL Sedan. Various reasons I won't bore you with here.

Obviously, the last 3 were leases. The new 2003 is a purchase. I'm actually TIRED of leasing and having to change vehicles every 2-3 years, and I wanted something I could call my own and do with what I wanted without worrying about end-of-lease returns.

I've been reading back through the postings in here for about a week now. Thousands of messages I think. In the process, I've come up with some observations. Mostly good, a few bad.

The Good
--------
Ranger owners are INTENSLY loyal. I've not seen this level of loyalty anywhere, especially on the Chevy boards I've visited.

On the whole, Rangers seem to last basically forever.

The number of folks posting here with Rangers that have 150,000, 200,000 even 300,000 miles on them is quite incredible. Incredible not only because the trucks last that long, but that people still WANT them after they get this kind of mileage on them.

The number of complaints concerning Body integrity, Interior integrity and hardware integrity are nearly non-existant.

The number of people with Rangers that have hundreds of thousands of miles on them asking not IF they should fix their engines, transmissions, etc... but asking HOW to fix their engines, transmissions, etc... is insane. Again, this proves the loyalty Ranger owners seem to have for their trucks, no matter how old or how many miles they have on them. With other trucks, it seems like people ask more how to get rid of them and get the most money, not how to repair them.

Overall, reliability seems to be well above typical that you see in other boards for other manufacturers.

No common or major complaints about paint quality or rust problems.

No common or major complaints about interior quality or wear.

Ford has steadily improved the design of the Ranger without tossing out what was good to begin with. They do take some heat for this, with the so-called 'expert' magazine writers stating that the Ranger's design is getting 'long in the tooth' or 'stale'. I say to them, shut the hell up. I'm grateful that a manufacturer with a solid design isn't changing things for the sake of change every year.

I could go on forever with this.

The Bad
-------
Nothing is perfect, and neither is the Ranger. What I see different here from the other truck boards is that the Ranger seems to have a few quirks that affect a lot of people, instead of a ton of different things that affect any number of people. The most common complaints seem to be:

1. The door-ajar switch issue.
2. The front-axle shift motor (problems shifting into and out of 4WD).
3. Power Window chatter on some years.
4. Gas mileage. Oh, well
5. Hmmm.....

All I can say is, it's good to be home again

Larry

 

Great post !!! - THANKS Larry -

Happy Holidays, and ONLY the best to you in the New Year,

Glenn . . .

 

And the same to you. Thanks

Larry

 

Thanks Larry!

Happy New Year!


Thanks for using FTE!




[font color=red]As a Moderator I do not "Subscribe" to most topics,
please send email/pm if you need a reply -Thanks![/font]
-

 

Happy new year to you too!

Larry

 

I agree with Larry strongly. Instead of scrapping the whole design (which is a very good design) and starting over again each few years, Ford just freshens up the front end and general appearance of the Ranger from time to time and leaves the basic content the same. This is a GREAT idea. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Thank you Ford.

I do however, wish they'd come up with a fix for this God-forsaken door ajar switch :-X12

 

>Ford has steadily improved the design of the Ranger without
>tossing out what was good to begin with. They do take some
>heat for this, with the so-called 'expert' magazine writers
>stating that the Ranger's design is getting 'long in the
>tooth' or 'stale'. I say to them, shut the hell up. I'm
>grateful that a manufacturer with a solid design isn't
>changing things for the sake of change every year.

101 posts in 7 days? Larry, you're on a pace for 5200 posts in a year! The "Barry Bonds" of the forum! Keep it up, your posts are generally a good read and nice reprieve from the one-line responses that usually fill each thread.

Sorry, but I strongly DISagree with your redesign statement. First, no company changes their line "every year" or even "every few years". The most aggressive in this regard is probably Honda, with a 4-year cycle on the Accord. Second, my '94 Ranger was the basis for your 2003. We're talkin' NINE YEARS, Larry! And since when does a redesign mean the result will be worse than the predecessor? The '94 was a tremendous improvement in practically all areas over the '93!

I would argue that what the carmaker realizes in all of these little "evolutionary" changes during the cycle are just as much cost-cutting related as they are improvements. Look at the door switch issue -- my '94 doesn't have that problem! They added it in, probably for cost-reduction.

The worst thing a car company can do is to rest on its laurels with a design. I would personally love more room in my standard cab, better steering feel, a tamer rear suspension that doesn't pogo-stick over every bumpy corner that I take too fast, etc. I too could go on and on.

Now stop posting so much and go feed the dog -- he probably hasn't eaten in a week!

 

Your '94 Ranger is the basis for Larry's '03? I don't think so. Does your Ranger have torsion bar independent front suspension? Does it have skid plates from bumper to bumper to protect those vital things? Does it have Rancho shocks? How about 16" wheels like I have? 245/75 or 31" tires (like a truck SHOULD have). Or vacuum-actuated hubs? Or a SOHC engine like Larry has? How about a 5-speed automatic transmission? Or a 4-door supercab? Heck, Larry's truck even has a much larger rear window for increased view.

Trucks NEVER go more than a few years without major changes. The only exception I can think of is that the Chevy 1500 series trucks were basically the same from 88-98 (as far as chassis and suspension and overall body style). But all companies now days are constantly tweaking and playing with all aspects of their vehicles.

Larry was just saying that he's glad Ford doesn't make changes that could result in a less reliable design like some companies do, and I would agree with him. Wouldn't you? Ford tends to hang on to the things they perfect a lot longer than some companies.




:-X12 Happy Holidays

 

Yeah, what he said

Larry

 

>Your '94 Ranger is the basis for Larry's '03? I don't think
>so.

Think again. The statement I made in the context in which I wrote it is 100% true and not debatable. If you need to see what I was talking about, take a look at any '94 in the area of the door frame, A-pillar and windshield. Now look at any Ranger made since then. Just like your Chevy analogy below, the overall body style is the same. This is what I meant my "basis for" statement and the what the magazine editors are referring to.

The improvements you mention are therefore irrelevant as far as your "I don't think so" statement goes, since it can still be (and surely is) based on an existing design and still have everything you list. Agreed? Now, let's go over it anyway, just for yuks.

>Does your Ranger have torsion bar independent front
>suspension?

This was probably the most substantial change made in the design's life, other than the dashboard re-design. However, it's hardly what I would call "major". Done by Ford to "freshen-up" the core design and keep on-par with the competitions' offerings.

>Does it have skid plates from bumper to bumper
>to protect those vital things? Does it have Rancho shocks?
>How about 16" wheels like I have? 245/75 or 31" tires (like
>a truck SHOULD have).

Wheels, tires and shocks?? You're kidding me on this, right? The two of you think BOLT-ON stuff represents significant change?? Heck, these are nothing more than OPTIONS!

>Or vacuum-actuated hubs? Or a SOHC
>engine like Larry has? How about a 5-speed automatic
>transmission? Or a 4-door supercab? Heck, Larry's truck
>even has a much larger rear window for increased view.

I view the engine and transmission changes as evolutionary and again, not major. ALL manufacturers tweak this area, some do it every year. If fact, if "reliable design" is important to you, one could counter-argue that slapping in a whole new drivetrain could lead to less-reliability, since the engine/drivetrain combo is arguably the most complex portion of the truck. Same with adding in a 4-door design. That original cab wasn't designed for such, and could be the cause of the alignment problems I've read about elsewhere in the forum. Again, done to keep up with the Dodges and Chevys.

>Trucks NEVER go more than a few years without major changes.
> The only exception I can think of is that the Chevy 1500
>series trucks were basically the same from 88-98 (as far as
>chassis and suspension and overall body style). But all
>companies now days are constantly tweaking and playing with
>all aspects of their vehicles.

We seem to clearly disagree on the definition of "major" in this discussion. Regardless, why do you think changes occur -- major, minor or option-wise? That's easy. Sales. It's the exact reason Ford has delayed introducing the next-generation Ranger -- the baseline '94 was a very good design and could keep on pulling in sales with the simple and moderate changes like you list above. And I do agree with you that all of the things mentioned make the design better. However, should I consider selling my perfectly good '94 for less than it's worth (to me, anyway), then spend another $10-20k on top of that for a SOMEWHAT improved version of what I have now? Heck, I can EASILY do the bolt-on stuff myself, right? Do the cosmetic changes, added power via an (unproven) SOHC engine and an added gear in a tranny warrant my making this investment?

Some people may have lots of cash and say "yes". For me, the answer is no -- I'll wait. In other words, it's not "better enough" to lay down thousands of dollars. And as a bonus, I won't have to worry about the door switch going bad on me in the meantime!

>Larry was just saying that he's glad Ford doesn't make
>changes that could result in a less reliable design like
>some companies do, and I would agree with him. Wouldn't
>you? Ford tends to hang on to the things they perfect a lot
>longer than some companies.

No company makes changes with the intent of making the product worse: GM really IS trying to make their stuff better, as is Dodge. It's a risk they all take because they HAVE to; competition doesn't sit still. As for what Ford does in this regard, I think it's based more on $ales and keeping them on top than anything else. Of course, it doesn't hurt that they make a pretty good product, which is why it's as popular as it is. However, I'm not loyal to Ford (or any other car company). I buy what's best based on my research and needs.

In summary, I understand exactly where you guys are coming from, and fully respect your opinion(s) on the subject. I just wanted to get the facts straight and give you my perspective on the matter.

Happy New Year,
Mike

 

After reading my previous post again, it seemed a little "arrogant". It wasn't intended that way... I was in no way saying my truck is better than yours. My apology. Just saying that a '94 Ranger 4x4 and a '03 Ranger FX4 Level 2 have almost nothing in common. Heck, even the FRAME of the Ranger changed in '98 to a boxed design for more strength. There are so many differences there is no way I could list them all. Sure, the doors might be the same, but that's just about it.


:-X12

 

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 30-Dec-02 AT 01:48 PM (EST)]>After reading my previous post again, it seemed a little
>"arrogant". It wasn't intended that way... I was in no way
>saying my truck is better than yours. My apology.

You're a good man, Shawn. No need to apologize, that's what discussion forums are all about. Trust me, I had to do the "24 hour" rule (weekend in this case) before I responded to make sure I didn't react too harshly. A good habit I picked-up awhile back, saves my butt often these days.

>Just
>saying that a '94 Ranger 4x4 and a '03 Ranger FX4 Level 2
>have almost nothing in common. Heck, even the FRAME of the
>Ranger changed in '98 to a boxed design for more strength.
>There are so many differences there is no way I could list
>them all. Sure, the doors might be the same, but that's
>just about it.

I'm still not sure I fully agree as to the extent of the changes, but we've beat this to death already and both made our points. To be fair, I wasn't aware of the frame changes and I'll have to take your word on the rest. Maybe I should go drive one first and THEN speak, eh?

Good luck with the truck and keep up the posts -- I generally enjoy yours because they're well-written as well as informative.

 

 

Thank you gentlemen for keeping it all clean. Nice posts, debating the message. The 24 hour or at the very least a 1 hour wait after reading b4 posting is good.

Thank You all.

Thanks for using FTE!




[font color=red]As a Moderator I do not "Subscribe" to most topics,
please send email/pm if you need a reply -Thanks![/font]
-

 

On the subject of ford keeping the same design...I understand that in 2006 (ford keeps pushing the date back)? The Ranger is scheduled to be totaly redesigned from the ground up...in fact I've heard it won't even be called a Ranger anymore and it will be slightly larger (comparable to Dakota in size).