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

 

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.

 

You're correct on all counts. I can only assume the difference could be attributed to
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.

 

[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.

 

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.

 

Yep- the simple solution is to drive a 2.3 with an Automatic. I haven't seen one in awhile. I'm still scratching my head on the EPA thing. The more I think about it (always a dangerous thing), the more i suspect software glitch.

 

On the links you provided earlier under transmission on the 2.3 it lists L50D and M50D. What do they meanand is one better than the other? The suspension on the 2005 says it is the same for all Ranger models. Is that the same with earlier years like 2000 to 2003?

 

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.

 

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

 

I was thinking the same thing. The new 2.3L has been upgraded recently if I remember correctly, and it should be just fine. I used to drive an el-cheapo 1984 Datsun pickup with a gutless 4cyl. The lack of power was frustrating. But you know what? It got great gas mileage, hauled everything I put in the bed, and never broke down. As long as expectations can be managed, the good gas mileage should seal the deal.

 

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.

 

I'm becoming convinced that the 2.3 4 cylinder will be the best option for my needs. Everyone has been so helpful with providing me information. It is such an advantage to hear from people who have personal experiences with the trucks. Now the task of finding a dependable yet affordable 2000-2004.

 

Do you have a source to find out if the Edge is available in the 2.3? I do like the bodystyle of the Edge.

 

No the Edge comes Standard with the 3.0L V-6. While the Edge has "cooler" styling it's also a tad heavier and the larger tires degrade the fuel mileage considerably.

 

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.