Ranger Comments
Thread Starter
|
New User
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Ranger Comments
I've finally decided to retire my 1979 truck and start looking for something newer, and that gets better gas mileage. I want a manual trans, and a truck so the ranger might be the perfect solution. i want a truck that will last and not be alot of trouble. I'm lookin at 1996 to about 2000 in year. Anything i should look for. Are the manuals junk, or automatics. What motor gets the best gas mileage. what are the common problems with these trucks etc......
Posting Guru
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
From: Maine
I have a '97 supercab 4x2 with a 2.3 liter 4-cyl and a 5 speed.
The 4-cylinder gets the best gas mileage by a long shot. It's barely adequate to move the truck, though, so hauling heavy loads at reasonable speeds is pretty much out. They run forever, though, and mine will get 27-28 highway in the summer if I cruise slow.
The manual transmissions are far from junk, but they aren't exactly stellar, either. The biggest problem is a leak they are prone to, but it is a very cheap and simple fix provided that the truck is not run with the trans dry. The worst part of the manuals is probably the hydraulic clutch- very difficult to bleed, and the slave is concentric, so the tranny must come out to replace it. I'm not familiar with the automatics that were offered during those years.
In 1998, the Ranger was modestly redesigned, with a slightly larger cab, revised front suspension, and the 2.3 was stroked to 2.5 liters.
The 4-cylinder gets the best gas mileage by a long shot. It's barely adequate to move the truck, though, so hauling heavy loads at reasonable speeds is pretty much out. They run forever, though, and mine will get 27-28 highway in the summer if I cruise slow.
The manual transmissions are far from junk, but they aren't exactly stellar, either. The biggest problem is a leak they are prone to, but it is a very cheap and simple fix provided that the truck is not run with the trans dry. The worst part of the manuals is probably the hydraulic clutch- very difficult to bleed, and the slave is concentric, so the tranny must come out to replace it. I'm not familiar with the automatics that were offered during those years.
In 1998, the Ranger was modestly redesigned, with a slightly larger cab, revised front suspension, and the 2.3 was stroked to 2.5 liters.
Freshman User
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
From: Houston TX
I dunno about anybody else, but I've got a 3.0l v6 5 speed auto, and i get 15-17 in the city and 22ish on the highway. I drive pretty hard, though, living in Houston. I'm all stock, so thats just an idea of what you'll get out of a 2002 Ranger. (40k miles) And btw, I love it.
And common problems, seems like everybody has trouble with the door ajar light. Easy fix though, spray the door latch with WD-40. Other than that, I haven't seen a lot of common threads.
And common problems, seems like everybody has trouble with the door ajar light. Easy fix though, spray the door latch with WD-40. Other than that, I haven't seen a lot of common threads.
Posting Guru
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,318
Likes: 0
From: On A Ship, MI
i have a 96 extcab 5speed 3.0L i get 15-18 city and 20-22high way. the two pice drive shaft is the worst thing ford ever stuck in this truck. the 5 speed is strong but i've had to rebuild it and it still anit right but it still gets me form point a to pt b.
Elder User
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 576
Likes: 0
From: crete, illinois
i've got two '00's. one is a reg. cab 2wd with the 3.0 and auto. has 50k on the clock and gets good mpg and has decent power for what it is. has been good so far and my wife loves it. mine is a 4wd ext. cab with the 3.0 and auto. it has 87k. isn't as good on gas and power isn't great but it has alot to do with the 33" tires and 3" lift so actually it isn't bad. when it was stock it did good but the 4x4 and tow package has a decline on mpg, probably gearing. the most common problems in these years, especially '98-'00 is the cruise control, the lights in the steering wheel, and the windshield wipers also the belt tensioner and idler pulley. if you get one and it has a sqweeky belt, change the belt tensioner first. personally i like the 3.0 because its in the middle of the 4.0 and the 2.5 (2.3) which ever and has best of both worlds. its stonger and can pull more than the 4cyl. but is a little more economical than the 4.0. the automatic has worked very well for me in both vehicles. i highly recommend the ranger to everyone, its a great versatile little workhorse!!!
New User
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
I have a 1998 Ranger extra cab with a 3.0 that I bought 6 months ago from a lady that NEVER used the truck bed, the rear jumper seats, or the passenger seat or the 4wd. It was purchased for a song and it has been a great unit. Just a few issues with the EGR and a few light bulbs that decided to retire.
Posting Guru
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,978
Likes: 1
From: Alvin, Texas.
Originally Posted by bjohndev6789
I have a 1998 Ranger extra cab with a 3.0 that I bought 6 months ago from a lady that NEVER used the truck bed, the rear jumper seats, or the passenger seat or the 4wd. It was purchased for a song and it has been a great unit. Just a few issues with the EGR and a few light bulbs that decided to retire.
You give that 4wd any kind of a workout? The saying "Use it or lose it!" applies to the 4wd in these trucks.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Critterhunter
1983 - 2012 Ranger & B-Series
8
May 9, 2014 09:39 PM
TheWhiteBeast
1983 - 2012 Ranger & B-Series
20
Apr 29, 2014 09:18 AM
Extacie
Offroad & 4x4
12
Mar 1, 2009 06:45 PM
