Ranger info wanted
Thread Starter
|
Senior User
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Ranger info wanted
Well, been thinking for quite awhile of getting rid of the sport for a 4X4 ranger, they're basically same build as an explorer I want to get one between 92-97, there anything really to look out for in one that would be diff. from the explorer? Also how strong is the 3.0 if you plan to load the bed with stuff and or also pull a trailer with stuff I figure poorly but never owned one before to know, I'm thinking I'm better with sticking with the 4.0 but the 3.0 fuel mileage is tempting to go for. Thanks guys.
Laughing Gas
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 984
Likes: 8
I would try to stay at least 93 and newer due to some improvements and a better aftermarket support. The 3.0 isn't the most powerful of engines but it will live pretty much forever if taken care of, the milage isn't too bad either. The 4.0 is the strongest engine offered from the factory. It has some of the issues the older 2.9L had but if you take care of it and don't ever overheat it you will be fine. It too can give decent milage but expect around the mid-teens. If you tow or haul you want the 4.0. Reguardless they are good trucks.
Matt
Matt
Thread Starter
|
Senior User
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
my 92 sport gets around 20mpg without towing and it has the stock 4.0ohv, the motor's are pretty good and known them to last over 250k miles. But there are few things diff. bout the ranger thats why I ask before I pursue on a certain model/engine. I deff. dont want an automatic to 94 since 91-94 had the a4ld. but still want the push button
Post Fiend
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 8,462
Likes: 4
From: Durant, OK (SOSU)
Still want the pushbutton what? 4WD? That ended in '94...so you either get the switch-on 4WD or you get an A4LD.
Well tuned up and still having the 4.0L, my '94 got 18/24, with a personal best of 20/27. It was pretty constant throughout the year.
The 3.0L is practically bulletproof, but expect around the same mileage as the 4.0L. Not a powerhouse by any means, but good low end torque.
I personally would suggest a '96...you're guaranteed OBD-II, the interior switch has been well-refined and completed, but you don't have the spontaneous gasket issues the '97 4.0L had.
Well tuned up and still having the 4.0L, my '94 got 18/24, with a personal best of 20/27. It was pretty constant throughout the year.
The 3.0L is practically bulletproof, but expect around the same mileage as the 4.0L. Not a powerhouse by any means, but good low end torque.
I personally would suggest a '96...you're guaranteed OBD-II, the interior switch has been well-refined and completed, but you don't have the spontaneous gasket issues the '97 4.0L had.
Thread Starter
|
Senior User
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
I meant push button 4X4, I know my 96 has the dial type switch you twist it to put it in but thats what I want the electric t-case. Let me get this straight tho, the ranger's all had the 2hi/4hi/4lo options unlike the explorer which either had 2hi/4auto/4lo 95-96 and auto/4hi/4lo 97+. I didn't know 97 4.0's had head gasket issues, I heard to stay away from 95's. The rear-ends still too light that they spin easy on wet asphalt? My dad had an 88 2wd years ago and it didn't have the best traction on wet roads.
Laughing Gas
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 984
Likes: 8
I agree, 96-97 are the best years of the TTB Ranger; pretty much for the same reasons RangerPilot has listed. I haven't heard of any big issues with the 95s. Where there tends to be some problems was 93-94 had some parts mainly electronics specific to those two years. The head gasket problem isn't just a probem with 97, pretty much all 4.0L. I see a few of them once and a while but it's not like all the 4.0L are spitting head gaskets. As for the light rear end situation, that's a problem with most all trucks.
Matt
Matt
Post Fiend
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 8,462
Likes: 4
From: Durant, OK (SOSU)
And it's not head gaskets usually (unless the engine is overheated), it's intake gaskets, both upper and lower.
The only reasons I would say '95 is bad is it was the year of the interior change (things still being worked out), plus EEC-IV/OBD-II is up in the air.
Electronic 4WD is available on any of the years you mentioned, as is manual, it's totally up to however the original purchaser optioned it out.
The only reasons I would say '95 is bad is it was the year of the interior change (things still being worked out), plus EEC-IV/OBD-II is up in the air.
Electronic 4WD is available on any of the years you mentioned, as is manual, it's totally up to however the original purchaser optioned it out.
Trending Topics
Thread Starter
|
Senior User
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
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
2026 Shelby F-150 Off-Road: Better Than a Raptor R?
Brett Foote
2027 Super Duty Carhartt Package First Look: 12 Things You NEED to Know!
Michael S. Palmer
Post Fiend
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 8,462
Likes: 4
From: Durant, OK (SOSU)
Originally Posted by TeamExploder
hmm....I thought they came standard with the electic 4X4 like the explorer's did.
Be prepared for the wonderful failures of the vacuum-driven hubs. I highly suggest upgrading to manual hubs.