I am going to start looking for a new truck. I am flexible on what years I will get. I prob will get a 2wd but have not ruled out 4wd if the price is right. From what I understand the 4.0 is a very solid engine as well as the Duratec 2.3. What about the 3.0?

Any other know issues in those years? How are the auto trannys? I think the standards are the M5OD correct. Those are solid right? Any feedback is appreciated. Thx in advance

 

What kind of hauling/towing do you expect to do?

The last part of this article has some good overall info on the Ranger years you are considering.

 

I've had a lot of them in the last three years, no 4 cyl. The 3.0L's are called gutless but had a couple 4x2 with the auto and with the proper gearing would run alright, don't know about towing. Had a '01' 3.0L with manual and it got worse mileage but ran good. '05'4.0L 4x4 manual I just got rid of got just about the same mileage as the 3.0L's. Unless you are really looking for better mileage, I'd stick with the newer 4.0L and I love having the manual. The one thing that always bothered me with the '05's I had was the black led's on a grey background, both in the instument panel and on the radio. That made it really hard to read sometimes. My '03' has green led's and the old analog readout for odomitor and trip, and a real nice panel display. Just one of them little irritations. Never had a bit of problems with any of them.
Dave

 

A Ranger is what brought me to Ford in the first place and although I don't currently own one, I must say that I wish I did. I have some buddies with them and I do the mechanical stuff for them. One is a 2002 2wd ext cab 5 speed 4.0L and the other is a 2003 2wd single cab 5 speed 3.0L. BOTH of those trucks are just plain bad to the bone.

My lady has the 4.0L in her Explorer and it will fly. That Ranger with the 4.0L is unstoppable. The one with the 3.0L has pulled my F250 numerous times without so much as a hiccup and once we even put my big jacked up Jeep on a full size bumper pull car hauler and other than squatting low there wasn't anything difficult about it. Both of those trucks have been to hell and back and have quite a few miles on them and have never flinched.

I can't vouch for the 4 cyl though. Never had experience with it. To choose, I would say to myself, "Self. Why do you want a small truck?" Do you want a small truck because you want to be able to pull some and work it a little but don't need a full size or do you want a small truck because you want good mileage, want to be able to put the dog in the back, and don't want to drive a car. If your answer involves ANYTHING other than just wanting a truck to feel manlier than by goodness get a 6 cylinder.

I think they both had power steering pumps go out VERY early but were warrantied by Ford. There is also a recall on something electrical but is also another free fix.

The manuals are M5OD's you are correct. And yes they are crazy solid at least for the engines they back. I don't know about the autos but if either power or efficiency are a concern of yours then get the manual. Better power transfer to the ground, cheaper to maintain and work on, smaller, lighter, just plain better. That's the case in ANY truck. It won't wear you out even in traffic. The clutch isn't heavy at all, the shifts aren't very long, and for the highway you can use cruise control.

In my opinion, there is nothing to hate about a 6 cyl 5 speed ranger. It is all truck that makes up 100% for the smaller size. Sorry for the lengthy reply but I really wanted to get across my positive views on them.

 

I have the 4cylinder 2.3 myself. Its a 2007 model and 2 wheel drive. If you want mileage thats what you want. I get 25-30 pretty consistently. i was looking at a 4 wheel drive but you will be lucky top get 17 or 18 at best. Might as well get a 150 if thats the case. That 4 banger has lots off power I love it. And off course these Rangers are known for there durability. A buddy off mine has a 1986 model with 276,000 miles and is still running strong. Good luck hope this helps.

 

I'm getting about 21.4 mpg on both my Rangers, one has a 4.0L and one has a 3.0L one is a manual (4.0L) and one a auto (3.0L). Both are 2WD. So I would say that engine size doesn't matter as far as mileage goes. It's the weight that matters most, 4wd weighs more so it has a lower mpg.

People selling trucks think that they are worth more than they are worth, people buy trucks think that they are worth what they offer. Don't expect to get one that doesn't need anything fixed for a cheap price. Get the records, all the records.

Oh, yeah, I got one for sale, you want it?

 

Thanks for the feedback. I thought I would have heard more negative comments about the 3.0 because that seems to be the engine that has more issue on this forum. I definitely will get one that needs a little work(all used cars need something). I see a couple of trukls a week that come on CL that need baljoints, or brakes etc. The price is usually right. I have had some good luck buying some late model high mileage cars for cheap and driving them another 60 or 70 k without any issue.

please keep the feedback coming

 

I have a 03model 4x2 with the 3.0 & auto. Its got 4.10 gears so its not really gutless. I don't haul much with it. It gets 20mpg highway at its best & only if you drive 55 mph. It gets 18 & less if you drive 75 due to the gears. Its running about 3000 rpm at 75. Its my first Ranger. I call it a Pinto pickup. It reminds my of my wife's old Pinto station wagon except the Pinto got much better mileage.I'll get a F150 when I replace it. I like it around town but it sucks on long trips due to the cramped space & poor ride quality compared to a bigger truck.

 

I have a 2000 single cab 2wd with the 2.5 and 5 speed manual. Bought it last year when the gas prices were sky high and I'm getting about 10-12 mpg better than I did with my '88 F-150 with the 300 and 5 speed.

I use for basic daily transportation to and from work, going to the store and the recycle center. Bought it with 138,000 on it, it now has 146,000. Still going strong.