I've got a '98 4.0 5speed Ranger that my Son beat on for five years! It is now my yard truck/beater and I love it! It's torquey and can surprise the unsuspecting Beemer.
Well you beat the fuel economy my 80 year old grandma got in her taurus with the vulcan then.Fuel economy in my 1991 was 19 city and 25 highway. The 5 speed manual made merging on to highways a breeze.
Mine was a fairly low optioned XLT Extra Cab 2WD. It was easy to save gas with the 5 speed manual.Well you beat the fuel economy my 80 year old grandma got in her taurus with the vulcan then.
Her delta 88 3.8L would return near 30mpg.. I dont think she broke 22-24 with the vulcan taurus.
(I would clean her car windows and such when I was visiting)
My 2002 was strictly 16-20mpg but it was the 4x4 with the 4L and I had some aftermarket stuff on like rock sliders, winch, and oversize tires.
Not only the springs but EVERYTHING is cheap on RA.Yup, that sounds the same, it's one of the middle ones that broke. New springs from Rock Auto are cheap, so we are just going to do both sides and the shocks.
He paid $2,500 for it. I'll have to get the odometer reading, but I think it has 147,000km on it?Looks like a good looking truck. Very nice blue color.
Can you share the odometer reading and also the cost of the truck.
Just wanting to get a feel for how much one of those go for as compared to a new Ford Ranger.
If they are really low priced compared with a new one, then used is definately the way to go even if someone has the money for a new one.
Well that certainly couldn't have helped. Torquey engine, I imagine "deep" first gear gearing, bad tires and little weight in the rear. No traction control nannies in the way. In short, every teen's dream.my biggest complaint with these trucks is they’re absolutely horrible in the rain/snow. Perhaps it just that all of ours had cheap tires?
my biggest complaint with these trucks is they’re absolutely horrible in the rain/snow. Perhaps it just that all of ours had cheap tires?
Come on now, friend of mine had a 2WD Ranger with the 2.3L 5 speed and the last thing you wanted to do was climb any hills with a load in the back. I think the 3.0L Vulcan engine is very sufficient for a truck or Taurus. Pulls mine nice and smoothly and gets surprisingly decent MPG for how heavy the wagon is.Yep its the vulcan all the power of the 4 cylinder and the fuel economy of the 4L.
besides that they were generally good engine for their time.
Sounds like a really low price for such a great looking truck. That blue color is really nice.He paid $2,500 for it. I'll have to get the odometer reading, but I think it has 147,000km on it?
the vulcan was 3L 154hp the 4.0sohc was 207hp and the 2.3L was 145hp.Come on now, friend of mine had a 2WD Ranger with the 2.3L 5 speed and the last thing you wanted to do was climb any hills with a load in the back. I think the 3.0L Vulcan engine is very sufficient for a truck or Taurus. Pulls mine nice and smoothly and gets surprisingly decent MPG for how heavy the wagon is.
According to Edmunds:the vulcan was 3L 154hp the 4.0sohc was 207hp and the 2.3L was 145hp.
the mpg difference between the vulcan and the 4.0 was about 1 mpg.
I do think the 3.0 had abit more torque than the 2.3 of course.
but still 9 more hp than the 4banger and 1 more mpg than the 4.0 fits my narrative.
Rand said:
Yep its the vulcan all the power of the 4 cylinder and the fuel economy of the 4L.
besides that they were generally good engine for their time.