I think the 2.3 ranger is getting shafted as of late. I am going to be taking a job requiring about 600 miles a week. this doesnt allow much for my '05 F-150 to be on the road considering my figures show roughly a $400-450 a month gas bill. That's more than the payment. I have never touched anything but ford, however i respect some good trucks. I would love an 06 Ranger single cab shortbed 2.3 5spd 4x4. However. Ford offers no 2.3 liter 4x4. only available in a single cab, not available with 4.10 gears, and you cant even get flippin limited slip with the 4 banger. Given how popular that combo is it seems a big mistake for Ford to offer that set up only with a 3.0. With that said I'm leaning alot more towards a little Taco. I can get a good looking truck, 4 banger, 5spd,4x4, and abit cheaper actually for a similar set up. Any experiences with the newer Toyotas?

 

i like the old taco. the new ones are having massive problems read a toyota forum. the palstic beds are cracking,seatbelts coming off,engine noise,4x4 not engaging and floating steering. i have a 98 tacoma and it has been great.

 

i had a 2002 toyota tacoma double cab v-6 4x4. it was one hell of a truck. never had a problem with it! i wheeled it hard too-but it was maintained meticulously.

 

You might want to search for a Taco forum like the FTE and take a spin thru one first. The Taco has been plagued with new truck issues. The bed is plastic and has broken- not warrantable, engine noise has been traced to the injectors- can't be good, cabs have come loose- bolts won't stay tight, exhaust is routed under the frame and is easily cleaned off of the truck, it seems like an endless list. I know I won't have one. My bro has an older Taco and repairs are crazy. A tie rod-$800.00 on the truck, a steering box- $4,000.00 on the truck. He just had these items fixed on his truck which is why I know the prices. Might want to price a muffler from Toyota and be sitting down when they quote you a price. Cost of maintenance is prohibitive. Fuel mileage isn't any better in his V6 than my 04 SCrew with a 4.6. If you're thinking midsize like the Taco, look at the Frontier. So far, the new Frontier introduction has been nearly perfect, I'd have one if I fit. Downside to Frontier- expect 18-20 mpg hiway from the 265 HP v6 and resale may be questionable.

 

I don't understand why Ford will not put 2.3l 4cyl in the Ranger pickup. Particularly now with fuel prices where there at. Midsize trucks don't get much better fuel economy than the full sizes. Toyota does still offer a 4cyl in the Tacoma, but with that larger size, economy can't be to good.

 

My Ranger with the 2.3 and 5 speed doesn't make any better mileage than two full size Chevys that we have at work. I know several people with the 2.3 that have the same experience as mine. My 2.3 averages about 20 on the highway. On a long trip I can get up to 25 if I keep under 70. Anything over 70 and I get about 16-17. I have NEVER seen the 28 that was advertised. The 4.3 Chevy (with more than twice the h.p. of the 2.3) does around 22-23, and the 5.3 Chevy is at about 20 (about 3 times the h.p. of the 2.3) travelling at 70-75 on long trips.

I wish I would have spent the extra money up front for the 4.0 when I bought my Ranger. The 2.3 is gutless and it makes crappy mileage for a 4 cylinder. I would rather have the 4.0 making the same mileage and have some power.

The Tacoma is basically the same size as a Ranger. The Tundra is the larger Toyota. I know several people with the Tacoma 4x4 ext. cab 4 cyl. that make better mileage than by Ranger 2x4 ext. cab with 2.3. More power too.


Just my opinion...

 

One thing to consider. Toyota has been running down some of the same assembly lines as Gm and sharing some of their R&d for awhile now. It is starting to show in toyota's quality. I bought myself a new toyota back in 94, it died with only 147,000 miles on it. While it was running I was constantly changing failing parts that said GM or Delco. I will admit it was heavily abused. I will also admit it was very fast and got 27 miles to the gallon. It just was not what a toyota used to be. Yes this was the legendary 22-RE I killed at 147,000 miles. Then I could be all wrong and when they came out with the tacoma a model year later, they may have gotten their act back together. I sorta doubt it though. My opinion if you want a toyota pickup find yourself a pre 92 with a 22-RE. Order yourself a performance timing set (comes with metal guides instead of nylon) swap it in and call it good.

 

I still think the 2.3l 4 cyl has to be more efficient than the 3.0l v6. My son had a 99 Ranger 4x4 with the 3.0l, automatic and in the winter time only got 14mpg. The worst I ever got with my 4.6 v8 2004 F150 was 15.5 mpg and that was using 4 wheel drive. The new design Tacoma is now larger than the previous model. I used to have a 98 Tacoma with 2.7l 4cyl, 5sp manual and I got around 23-25 mpg.

 

The 2.3 may be more efficient than the 3.0. I've not heard good things about the 3.0 and mileage. Your son's auto may have decreased the mileage too. I think the main problem with the 2.3 in the Ranger is that it is too weak, horsepower wise. I think the engine has to work too hard on the highway and as such you don't get good economy. I think around town it would be great.

 

He had the 5 spd automatic. At the time he had his 99 Ranger, I had a 2000 Ranger with the same transmission, but the 4.0 v6 and I did better in mpg's than his Ranger. You are probably right about the 2.3 being a little weak, definately would have to have a manual transmission.

 

It's got plenty of zip around town, it just lacks "highway" power.

 

I had a 97 ranger 2wd 5-speed with the 2.3 There is no way in the world that engine would be able to power an extended cab 4wd truck. It was a nightmare. Gutless can't describe it. But the fuel mileage wasn't too bad.

 

Isn't there a newer version? Roughly 143 horsepower? That doesn't sound to bad or is that what you fellows have/had......

 

I think my '95 is rated at 90 h.p. Not sure, I will have to check.

 

My '97 is rated at 112 h.p. In 1998, they stroked the 2.3 to make it a 2.5 L. Then, a few years ago (can't recall exactly when, might have been mid '01) they went to an all-new Mazda 2.3 L design. It makes considerably more power than the old one did.