Ranger vs. Competition
Posting Guru
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1,211
Likes: 0
From: York, NE
I agree that a long box is a nice option, but it also adds $1165 to the cost of the truck, add $425 for the price of a 3.0 and your at $1500 more for a 3.0 and a 7' box. I'm sorry but I don't believe that the 2.3 is rated at the same economy with the 7' box as the 3.0. The weight difference between a 7' box and a 6' box is 63 lbs, so the EPA economy rating would be almost the same. The aerodynamic difference between the two isn't enough to make that much of a difference either.
https://www.ford-trucks.com/specs/fu...html#2wdtrucks
https://www.ford-trucks.com/specs/20..._ranger_1.html
https://www.ford-trucks.com/specs/fu...html#2wdtrucks
https://www.ford-trucks.com/specs/20..._ranger_1.html
Senior User
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 279
Likes: 1
GM doesn't offer the I6 in the Canyon/Colorado trucks. Just the I4 and I5. As far as mpg goes a buddy of mine has a Canyon with I5. I think he averages 20-22mpg. I can vouche that there is a significant diffrence in accerlation between the V6 with AT and inline 4 with manual. Used to drive the V-6 and had good punch. Test drove a 2003 4 cylinder with manual and it definately wasn't as good but was still decent.
Post Fiend
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 10,728
Likes: 1
From: Damascus-Boring, Ore
Originally Posted by AG4.0
I agree that a long box is a nice option, but it also adds $1165 to the cost of the truck, add $425 for the price of a 3.0 and your at $1500 more for a 3.0 and a 7' box. I'm sorry but I don't believe that the 2.3 is rated at the same economy with the 7' box as the 3.0. The weight difference between a 7' box and a 6' box is 63 lbs, so the EPA economy rating would be almost the same. The aerodynamic difference between the two isn't enough to make that much of a difference either.https://www.ford-trucks.com/specs/fu...html#2wdtrucks
https://www.ford-trucks.com/specs/20..._ranger_1.html
https://www.ford-trucks.com/specs/20..._ranger_1.html
a) different GVW of the long bed
b) EPA requirement that optional equipment specified on over 50% of the given model be present and operating at the time of testing. That's why options are limited in base models- there's no accident on that.
c) Our (Ford supplied) software is wrong. I don't have a long-bed 4 cyl AT on the lot, or I'd stumble on out there and peek in the window.
The price difference, BTW, has to do with the fact that the long-bed is only available in XLT trim. The markup also increases, so the actual out-the-door price difference is smaller than the MSRP difference would have you believe.
Thread Starter
|
New User
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
[QUOTE=AG4.0]I agree that a long box is a nice option, but it also adds $1165 to the cost of the truck, add $425 for the price of a 3.0 and your at $1500 more for a 3.0 and a 7' box. I'm sorry but I don't believe that the 2.3 is rated at the same economy with the 7' box as the 3.0. The weight difference between a 7' box and a 6' box is 63 lbs, so the EPA economy rating would be almost the same. The aerodynamic difference between the two isn't enough to make that much of a difference either.
So based on what you are saying....do you believe the 2.3 in an automatic transmission would be sufficient for my needs in a pest control business? I test drove a 3.0 stepside yesterday and noticed a lot of engine noise from inside the cab. Is that normal? Also, it almost seemed a little sluggish starting and stopping compared to a 2.3 that I drove a week earlier.
So based on what you are saying....do you believe the 2.3 in an automatic transmission would be sufficient for my needs in a pest control business? I test drove a 3.0 stepside yesterday and noticed a lot of engine noise from inside the cab. Is that normal? Also, it almost seemed a little sluggish starting and stopping compared to a 2.3 that I drove a week earlier.
Posting Guru
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1,211
Likes: 0
From: York, NE
I would say the 2.3 is the right choice. Cheaper to buy, cheaper to drive, and feels as strong or stronger than the larger 3.0. I can't comment on a 2.3 with an auto as I have never driven one, but every 3.0 I've been in (auto or manual) has felt doggy. My first truck was a 90 Ranger L.B. 100 HP 2.3, manual. After I wrecked it I went out test driving lots of different trucks. I remember the first time I test drove a Ranger with the 3.0 and 5-spd, I thought there was something wrong with it it felt so weak. After driving several others of different years since then, I have decided to just stay away from the 3.0. My opinion of it is 4 cylinder performance with V-6 gas mileage. Might was well get the 4 cylinder.
Post Fiend
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 10,728
Likes: 1
From: Damascus-Boring, Ore
Originally Posted by AG4.0
I would say the 2.3 is the right choice. Cheaper to buy, cheaper to drive, and feels as strong or stronger than the larger 3.0. I can't comment on a 2.3 with an auto as I have never driven one, but every 3.0 I've been in (auto or manual) has felt doggy. My first truck was a 90 Ranger L.B. 100 HP 2.3, manual. After I wrecked it I went out test driving lots of different trucks. I remember the first time I test drove a Ranger with the 3.0 and 5-spd, I thought there was something wrong with it it felt so weak. After driving several others of different years since then, I have decided to just stay away from the 3.0. My opinion of it is 4 cylinder performance with V-6 gas mileage. Might was well get the 4 cylinder.
Thread Starter
|
New User
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by AG4.0
I would say the 2.3 is the right choice. Cheaper to buy, cheaper to drive, and feels as strong or stronger than the larger 3.0. I can't comment on a 2.3 with an auto as I have never driven one, but every 3.0 I've been in (auto or manual) has felt doggy. My first truck was a 90 Ranger L.B. 100 HP 2.3, manual. After I wrecked it I went out test driving lots of different trucks. I remember the first time I test drove a Ranger with the 3.0 and 5-spd, I thought there was something wrong with it it felt so weak. After driving several others of different years since then, I have decided to just stay away from the 3.0. My opinion of it is 4 cylinder performance with V-6 gas mileage. Might was well get the 4 cylinder.
Elder User
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
From: Northwest Indiana
I have an 04 2.3L auto and I think it would be the perfect match for your needs. Your not going to be 'punching it' with 500 lbs of equipment and supplies in the back. And if you spend most of your time driving around town the manual trans would be a pain. The auto is rated for greater towing capacity anyway. The newer 2.3L 4cyl is a pretty slick little engine.
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
10 Things Every Truck Owner NEEDS (2026 Edition)
Michael S. Palmer
Rezvani's Latest Post-Apocalyptic Monster Is a Ford F-150 Raptor Underneath
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Most Expensive Ford Trucks Ever Sold on Bring a Trailer
Joe Kucinski
2027 Ford Super Duty Buyer's Guide (Every Model, Engine, & Package)
Brett Foote
Top 10 Ford Truck Tragedies
Joe Kucinski
AEV FXL Super Duty - the Super Duty Raptor Ford Doesn't Make
Brett Foote
Lobo Vs Lobo: Proof the F-150 Lobo Should Be Even Lower!
Michael S. Palmer
Ford's 2001 Explorer Sportsman Concept Looks For a New Home
Verdad Gallardo
10 Best Ford Truck Engines We Miss the Most!
Joe Kucinski
Fleet Mechanic
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,979
Likes: 2
From: central ohio
i had a '88 2.3 4 cyl with stick, loved it, was a little doggy in hill country, but other than that was impressed with it for being a 4 cyl. never drivin a 3.0 except in the taurus chassis. according to the figures ive seen in the broucure, it makes its power fairly high in the rpm range, better suited for the auto. my current truck is a 4.0 great power, reasonble fuel economy. both my '88 and '93 are supercabs with the 5-speed and 3.73 gearing, the '88 was a 2wd and got 23-29 the '93 is a 4x4 and gets a consistant 17 to work and back, have only had it on one road trip and it got 20. never driven a ranger with a auto, not a big fan of a auto in a truck but i can see situation where you would want one, such as snowplow usage or alot of in-town driving.the 4.0 is worth looking into, really good power wise and not much more of a fuel milage issue than the 3.0
Senior User
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 253
Likes: 0
From: California
Originally Posted by xlt4me
The auto is rated for greater towing capacity anyway. The newer 2.3L 4cyl is a pretty slick little engine.
Posting Guru
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1,211
Likes: 0
From: York, NE
I believe that the M5OD is the Mazda built 5-spd manual, so I'm assuming that L5OD refers to the 5-sp Auto, although I don't think that L5OD is the actual designation for that tranny, I thought it was the 5R55E. Not sure about what you mean by the suspensions the same on all models. 4x4's have a front torsion bar Independant Suspension while the 2wds have Short and Long Arm independant suspensoins. I think that it has been that way since 98, with the exception of the Edge package offering 2wd models with the 4x4's suspension as kind of a pre-reunner style since 2001 to give 2wd a tougher look, but I don't think the Edge can even be had with the 2.3.
Thread Starter
|
New User
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by xlt4me
I have an 04 2.3L auto and I think it would be the perfect match for your needs. Your not going to be 'punching it' with 500 lbs of equipment and supplies in the back. And if you spend most of your time driving around town the manual trans would be a pain. The auto is rated for greater towing capacity anyway. The newer 2.3L 4cyl is a pretty slick little engine.
Thread Starter
|
New User
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by AG4.0
I believe that the M5OD is the Mazda built 5-spd manual, so I'm assuming that L5OD refers to the 5-sp Auto, although I don't think that L5OD is the actual designation for that tranny, I thought it was the 5R55E. Not sure about what you mean by the suspensions the same on all models. 4x4's have a front torsion bar Independant Suspension while the 2wds have Short and Long Arm independant suspensoins. I think that it has been that way since 98, with the exception of the Edge package offering 2wd models with the 4x4's suspension as kind of a pre-reunner style since 2001 to give 2wd a tougher look, but I don't think the Edge can even be had with the 2.3.
Posting Guru
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1,211
Likes: 0
From: York, NE
On the Ford website, www.fordvehicles.com, you can't build a Ranger Edge with the 2.3. I'm sure it's to keep costs down. You can't get a 4x4 with the 2.3 and since the Edge uses the 4x4's supension components, it's probably cheaper and easier overall to just omit the 2.3 from the Edge's options. The Edge does look nice, but with bigger tires and a taller stance, it takes more power to get going and more power to keep it moving becuase a taller stance hurts aerodynamics and increases drag underneath.
