Does anyone have experience with the Ford Ranger, 4cyl 5spd combo. I am now retired and this will probably be my last new vehicle. My faithful old '78 F150 is on its last legs (220,000 miles)and the 11 MPG is killing me. I have a very good Focus for long trips but I need something to do the occasional light hauling and to pull my motorcycle trailer. I have heard the 5spd is a little fragile. Would I be better off with the automatic?
Ford Ranger
- Thread starter Autografe
- Start date
- Status
Had a 06 Ranger 2.3/5spd for 3 years. Did alot of towing and heavy loads and had no problems with the trans. The gearing is a bit steep and can be a pain to drive at times.. literally. If I would of got the auto probably still would have it. Just change the fluid regularly if you do alot of towing. How much does your trailer weight.. light enough get a hitch for the Focus.
Trailer and Bike probably 700 lbs max. The Focus is a 2000 with single cam Escort engine. It has enough zip with only me at the wheel but any added weight and it becomes a slug. I would prefer the auto, I got enough left leg workout with F150 to last a lifetime. I was just wondering what the MPG penalty would be versus the 5 spd.
Yours is a slug? My sister 02 Focus 2.0L SPI runs pretty good.. slow of the line but will run 80+ all day long. Better than my 98 Escort. In the Ranger I regularly got -highway- 29 best was 31.. I've hear the auto's get 23-25mpg highway.
I had a 96 Ranger 4 cylinder manual and it was a tough little truck. It was my first vehicle so you can imagine the hardships a 16 year old would put on that manual trans. I sold the truck with 130k and it still ran just as well as it did when I bought it at 80k. I sold it because it sucked in the snow.
If you want the auto, I say go for it. I don't think you can go wrong either way, its all a matter of preference and you seem to want the auto. My current Ranger 4X4 is an auto and I have had no problems with it at all since buying it with 24k and now having 70k.
Check out www.rangerpowersports.com for lots of good info.
If you want the auto, I say go for it. I don't think you can go wrong either way, its all a matter of preference and you seem to want the auto. My current Ranger 4X4 is an auto and I have had no problems with it at all since buying it with 24k and now having 70k.
Check out www.rangerpowersports.com for lots of good info.
years ago my boss asked what truck to get for our work trux - I recommended a ranger - so he got a 4cyl 5 speed. we drove that thing for over 10 years, generally heavily loaded. also pulled a dbl motorcycle trailer alot on weekends. great truck! 5 speed fragile? not that I know of.
I am curious, if you don't mind me asking, where did you hear their 5 speeds are fragile?
I bought an '09 XL auto. I would suggest taking a nice long test drive. Biggest gripe for me is the std cab is really quite small. Not a lot of room behind the seats. You coming from a full size P/U might be a bit disappointed.
Otherwise I am happy with it. Payload is very decent. But don't think you'll ever get a smooth ride out of it
Oh, and the TPMS thing continues to bug me for some reason.
Otherwise I am happy with it. Payload is very decent. But don't think you'll ever get a smooth ride out of it
Oh, and the TPMS thing continues to bug me for some reason.
The 2.3 isn't the smoothest mill around but it will last a long time. Extended cab would be much roomier
I have an '06 extended cab Ranger, 4cyl, 5spd. I have put 128,000 on it since new with zero problems. My previous F150 with the 4.2V6, had the same transmission , the Mazda M5OD, and I put 200,000 miles on it in 4 yrs, again with no issues. My Ranger gets anywhere from 28-31MPG on highway. You will get better mileage with a manual, but the stick can get a little old in traffic so ....it's really your call, either way, a good solid truck.
As mentioned (i will just reiterate for emphasis)
Good:MPG, tough proven design, reliable
Bad:ride, noisy engine, small cab.
Johnny Z has a B2300 like myself, but with the 5sp AT; he reports "25-27mpg"
Good:MPG, tough proven design, reliable
Bad:ride, noisy engine, small cab.
Johnny Z has a B2300 like myself, but with the 5sp AT; he reports "25-27mpg"
I have the Auto in my 09' and I average around 26-28 on the highway. 24-25mpg if I'm going 80(75mph speed limit).
My combined average since I've owned the truck has been 25.5mpg. I'm very pleased with it and am glad that I didn't get the manual.
My combined average since I've owned the truck has been 25.5mpg. I'm very pleased with it and am glad that I didn't get the manual.
I currently own a 5sp. Ranger, 2.3L. It's my second 4 cylinder Ranger. I have owned base model Toyota pickups previously, and was nervouse about switching to Ford. Not any more......best little trucks ever made. Not fancy, not powerful, but yet not expensive to purchase or operate either. AND? They do everything you ask of them without complaint. I've always over loaded them with landscape materials, towed at it's limits (over western mountain passes), and used them as a daily commuter. Never a problem. I have no clue to why you mentioned a fragile 5 speed?!
If you do a huge amount of towing, an auto is a better choice. But I currently tow my 800lb. ATV with a 400 pound trailer, girlfriend seated next to me, and various other supplies. It does just fine. As long as one grasps the need to downshift and doesn't expect it to be a V-8, it's capable of light towing. Others on here mentioned a 'noisey' engine. I think for a 4 cylinder in a truck....it's average for noise. Small cab? Of course. Kind of whimpy looking? Sort of (not for the ego challenged). It get's great mpg's, and is super reliable. I'd change out the rear end fluid after break-in and replace with a high quality gear oil from Red Line or Amsoil if you plan on towing frequently.
If you do a huge amount of towing, an auto is a better choice. But I currently tow my 800lb. ATV with a 400 pound trailer, girlfriend seated next to me, and various other supplies. It does just fine. As long as one grasps the need to downshift and doesn't expect it to be a V-8, it's capable of light towing. Others on here mentioned a 'noisey' engine. I think for a 4 cylinder in a truck....it's average for noise. Small cab? Of course. Kind of whimpy looking? Sort of (not for the ego challenged). It get's great mpg's, and is super reliable. I'd change out the rear end fluid after break-in and replace with a high quality gear oil from Red Line or Amsoil if you plan on towing frequently.
I bought a new Ford Ranger p/u in 1985 with a 4 cyl motor and 5 speed transmission. I didn't like that truck much at all. I put 90,000 miles on it and when I traded it in it was not acting like it had a lot of miles left to go on it like Honda, Toyota, and Nissan vehicles I've owned.
They may have improved a lot since then, I don't know, but I doubt I'd buy another one.
They may have improved a lot since then, I don't know, but I doubt I'd buy another one.
Have owned 4 Rangers: One regular cab and three supercabs. I had one regular and one supercab with 4 cylinder engines ( a 93 regular cab 2.3 5sp and a 95 supercab 2.5 5sp.) Without a doubt, the regular cab is miserable if you have any size or drive any distance in it. The 95 was without a doubt my favorite of the 4. It got decent gas mileage (25-27 hwy), was fun to drive and was a tough little truck (I overloaded it many times w/firewood--no issues.) I regret selling it at 165K, it ran like a top and I still wish I had it. IMO if you buy a 4, get a stick. I found the 4 with an auto to be a dog. I would advise if you want an auto, buy one with a 4.0. If you can swing it, get a supercab as well.
I would seriously consider the 4.0L V6. Especially since you have a small economy car to drive when fuel $$ is tight. At least test drive one with both engines. I found the 2.3L engine pretty sluggish and that was with nothing at all in the truck. The 4.0 I bought has plenty of power. It will drink gas though, something like 18 MPG is the average so I've heard. Haven't had mine long enough to establish a trend with it.
"Drinking" gas is all relative. For me, with an '83 fullsize, going to a 4.0L Ranger would be like going to an econo-box mpg wise (I'm lucky if I get 10mpg). The OP has a 1978 fullsize ford, 18mpg will in all likelyhood be better than what he gets now as well. Add in improved cold weather driveability, its a win-win.
Alex.
Also eyeing the Rangers.
Alex.
Also eyeing the Rangers.
Gentlemen, i've owned numerous Ranger's, 2 with the 4.0 and several more with the 2.3. Haven't had a bad one yet. I just traded my '97 for a 2004 with a 2.3/automatic. I have found them them to be a very reliable little truck (emphasis on little) The 2.3 is rated to tow 2000 lbs. i'd like to have another with the 4.0, very fun to drive. With my round trip commute to work and home of 41 miles, and gas price's trending up, i opted for the 2.3. I really like them.
- Status
