I was wondering what is up with the Consumer Reports ratings being so bad on the Ranger. I have a 1995 Ranger and it has 200k on it and it is still running strong. If the truck died today it would not owe me a thing. You never can find much in the way of detail as to what the problems were.

Perry

 

Which ratings, the "new" truck rating, or the frequency of repair ratings?

If it's frequency of repair, it's your fellow Ranger owners filling out their surveys and listing the problems with the vehicle.

I had an '86 Ranger. Wimpy u-joints and wear-prone steering components, leaky valve covers.

I just looked at Rangers last year, and other than the update to the front suspension, it seemed pretty much the same. Couldn't find a manual trans, and the 4 cylinder HP figures were the lowest of anything I looked at, and that with an AT was not what I wanted.

I still think they are a decent truck, and I'd consider one if buying again, although with the V6, even though it's kind of a pos as well compared to other V6s out there....

 

You really need to take Consumer Reports opinions with a grain of salt. They are sometimes critical of things that are really just their flawed opinion. For instance they'll be critical of a truck that "rides like a truck"! The Ranger has it's flaws but it's still a damn fine truck. Having been made for so long also makes parts inexpensive and easy to find, too.

 

my first truck was a f150 then i had 2 rangers, if this truck was wrecked today i would buy another ranger. i love these little trucks they are so easy to fix and hold up extreamly well. i've abused my 06 so much its not funny racing down the roads using those low speed humps as jumps. the only issues i've have are regular maintence and the tire weights keep falling off but that not the trucks fault. CR rating are bs from people who find the littlest issue and blow it out of proportion. the truck rides like a truck i wonder why if you wanted something that rides like a car then buy a car.

 

I did not change the plugs or the timing belt till 190 miles and the truck still ran good. It is alot lower maintenance than most cars because there are no CV joint boots to deal with. The biggest pain in the A on the truck was that heater control valve that is only used when you use MAX AC. It would last about 6 months then start leaking coolant everywhere. Best thing to do is take it off and throw that thing away it is not necessary. Mine is a 2.3L Manual trans. Only major problem was a sticking slave cylinder for the clutch. I replaced that at about 75k when I bought the truck and left the stock clutch in there and it is still hanging in there.

Perry

 

[quote=35l911;9326874........... CR rating are bs from people who find the littlest issue and blow it out of proportion..............[/quote]

Have you ever filled out a CR survey?

And so if your 5 speed automatic took a dump and you were told there really isn't any fix, it will fail again at the same miles, you wouldn't report that? How about u-joints that fail early? Steering components that get all sloppy under 50k miles? Valve covers that leak?

The frequency of repair ratings aren't BS. They are based on a pretty good sized sample.

Their opinions in road tests--you can argue those. OP still hasn't said which he's complaining about.

 

Ok, first off, Consumer reports does have to be taken with a grain of salt, and here is why. First off, they portray themselves as an unbiased magazine, which isn't true. If it were true, the magazine would be paid for entirely with subscriptions and there would be no adds in the magazine at all. The fact that there are adds means they have sponsors, and where there are sponsors, there is bias. Next off, Consumer reports does not often directly test the vehicles, that is usually handles by other outfits that test vehicles, often the same outfits that test vehicles for safety for insurance companies. Those results are not exactly unbiased either.

Often their reliability ratings are not based on the specific model, but rather by brand. And at what point do you consider flaws in earlier designs no longer relevant to the current models?

Consumer reports is great for revealing a critical flaw in a model, of for just choosing a vehicle based upon features. But there is a lot of opinion blended in there. Like an earlier poster stated, that they view (rides like a truck) as a flaw. I'm sorry, but if the truck rides like a Chevy, then it means the suspension is probably mush and will be poor at handling weight. The Ranger has proven to be a favorite among fleets, largely because of the low cost, low maintenance, reliability, and fuel efficiency. Sure it has less power than some other models, but when you consider that they haven't oversized it to the size of an F-100, its lightness often overcomes its lower power rating. Some "compact pickups" are almost as large as half tons.

Consumer Reports is a magazine written by people ,who like all people, have opinions. The opinions are blended in with facts, making it hard to sort what is what. I would use their publication to compare a few options, but I would never buy a vehicle without test driving them and seeing how I like the features, and the placement of things. And to me, past expereince with a brand holds a lot of weight. I personally own 2 Fords, and they have treated me well. My dad owns three, and for the most part his are doing well. He owns a 1996 Ranger, which has only ever had a battery, a power steering pump, and a water pump replaced. It will need an AC compressor next year. But its a 14 year old vehicle with over 320,000 miles. And it still gets better than 24 MPG most of the time.

 

and figure into this, more people will talk about whats been bad with a particular vehicle vs a vehicle thats given them little trouble. they should call the magazine "consumer b!tch-where consumers b!tch about consumer products" even with a given make and model, some vechiles are trouble free while others are nothing but trouble. for the most part if you maintain things, they last. occasionally youre going to get something that just wont stay together. than you also have something that defies the "normal" odds and goes 200K miles with the original water pump, starter, alternator, ect and had only routine maintence done.

 

Consumer reports is biased..........I believe they gave the Mazda B series higher marks than the Ranger ...........Its the same truck!

Asian mfg = golden
US mfg = 'Not recommended'

 

LOL!
Remember the Toyota Matrix and Pontiac Vibe?
Same vehicle different nameplates.

Wanna guess which one was recommended?

 

There's bias alright--right here. You don't read the mag, right?

The Ranger/B series are EXACTLY the same review and repair history.

The subjective road test info where they complain about the seat, ride, handling, noise, fit & finish and driving position--well, ymmv. Some people wouldn't care so much about some of that. I though my '86 was ok for what it was, after I fixed the squeaks and rattles in the interior. However, I have the 4.0 SOHC in my '98 Exploder and it is thirsty and noisy, two of the items that DQ'd it when I was looking last year. (that and I still don't trust the cobbed up cam drive)

As for the frequency of repair, I suppose some here are such Ford zealots that they wouldn't report the failed 5 speed automatic or brake issues or even squeaks and rattles.

Ads in the CR mag? Name an advertiser.

I do agree that basing your pick only on their info would be, in most cases, a mistake.

Anyway, I think the OP got his answer. If he's happy with his Ranger, he can drive with pride regardless of what CR says.

Note CR recommends a lot of Fords these days, and has placed the '09 Tacoma on the "Used vehicles to avoid" list because the RADIOS cut out--even though they are replaced under warranty.

 

For a long time I have wondered who was included in the 'surveys' to get their ratings. If limited to subscribers only[which I think is the case] their ratings would have a sub-standard confidence level. {IMO} I do not remember their numbers ever being disclosed, nor their sample source. I do know I have never been surveyed, and I was a subscriber for a while in the past.
The above makes me think that their colored circles can be easily biased by one owners experience. So I quit looking at their results for cars and trucks. As one post noted, ymmv.

tom

 

AFAIK, it is subscribers. I get the survey every year.

Their web says the same, the annual survey is sent to subscribers.

They claim 8.5 million subscribers, and 1 million survey returns, if I read their propaganda correctly. I thought I saw a minimum sample size for the car reviews, but I can't find it. I have seen "not enough data" for certain models, so the theory that one sourpuss can queer the results for a model doesn't seem to be the case.

I will agree that the pool of subscribers may tend towards the handwringer type. I can't see folks not reporting issues just because they've always had a Toyota/Honda/Nissan or other fine brand.

It's one source of info, and as per the above, ymmv.

 

CR is one of those things that sound like a good idea until you start to think about it a bit. I was scouting out new trucks a year or so ago and found that several models were downgraded because the seats "rode a little low". I suppose that kind of depends on how tall the driver is. I think it depends on what you are looking for in a review. I don't think I would base my decision to buy on piddling little differences from their testers, but if they made the observation that every third model of a product they tested exploded upon human contact I'd probably shy away from it. Its not just on trucks that I've had my differences with them. I'm with you, perryg114. My 95 3.0L manual Ranger has 230,000 miles and still runs great. I'll just keep driving it and replacing small peripheral parts until the engine finally craps out.