Ford Rangers.. questions

[aquariuscsm]

Originally Posted By: DrDusty86
The 4 cylinders are WAY underpowered. I took my buddy's 05' 4cyl/5speed to pick up a radiator and my foot never got up off the floor except to make a shift, and I never got to use 5th gear.


Are those the ones that always sound like ragged-out bumble bees?

 

[Rand]

I had a 2002 ranger 4.0 it was the first year for the sohc engine in the ranger (was available in explorer earlier)

If I remember right they revised the guide system from a 4 to 8 point system.

This was due to rattling at the 3k rpm range.

I would avoid 2002's unless this repair was done
(I had mine done at 18000miles)

My dad has a 2005 4.0 xlt with stick and it has 90000miles now with 0 repairs besides a wheel bearing the tire shop broke taking off the rusted back drums.

but thats a very rare truck.

It was hard to find a 4.0 with stick. unless you got the fx4 package. or the model with no power anything.

The 5r55e transmission (auto) is reliable I had 0 issues with mine in 80000miles before I traded it in.

The 4.0 got within 1mpg of the 3.0's gas mileage (epa rating) and was much peppier and produced over 50hp more.

the 2.3 around 2005 or 2006 got a much upgraded version that produced nearly the HP of the 3.0 but of course being a 4cyl it doesnt have any low power like a v6 or v8 (if you tow)

The 4.0's also got the 8.8 28spline rear end.

another quirk to lookout for.

starting in 2002.. there was a base offroad package with clutch based limited slip and there was a FX4 OFFROAD package wth much upgraded shocks and torsen limited slip, slid plates etc.

in 2003 these were renamed. the base offroad package was now the FX4 Package.. and the 2002 fx4 package was now
the FX4 LEVEL 2

 

[dwcopple]

My first vehicle was a '91 Ranger with the twin plug four banger in it. Had to keep it to the wood in 5th on the highway on windy days to maintain 70ish...not good. My buddy has an '03 with the 3.0 and an auto trans. I towed a motorcycle on a steel two-place snowmobile trailer with it once and it too needed to be floored on uphills and windy sections of highway travel.

If you are gonna tow get a 4.0, if not get a 3.0 for the fuel savings. And I'd recommend a stick too!

 

[DrDusty86]

Yes, get the stick..
No, to the earlier post. My buddy's truck is not a [censored] can twerp truck like some like.. We both think the [censored] cans are annyonying cars and trucks...

 

[exranger06]

Originally Posted By: Rand
I had a 2002 ranger 4.0 it was the first year for the sohc engine in the ranger (was available in explorer earlier)

The first year for the SOHC in the Ranger was 2001.
Originally Posted By: Rand
This was due to rattling at the 3k rpm range.
I would avoid 2002's unless this repair was done
(I had mine done at 18000miles)

2004+ had the revised timing chain guides.
Originally Posted By: Rand
the 2.3 around 2005 or 2006 got a much upgraded version that produced nearly the HP of the 3.0 but of course being a 4cyl it doesnt have any low power like a v6 or v8 (if you tow)

The Duratec 2.3 4 cylinder was introduced mid-year 2001 and has remained unchanged since then.

 

[JDD]

The Ranger is getting really long in the tooth. I think Ford really dropped the ball in not doing more with this model. It is virtually the same vehicle since '93 when there were a few changes. There is a potential huge market for a small pickup with gas prices where they are, but there are just not any good domestic choices. I have had a few Explorers and a '93 ranger. All had 4.0 motors, and one had the SOHC. The SOHC is the only motor worth a darn IMO, and they just don't get very good mileage except for the 4 cyl. The 4.0 SOHC with a manual trans was the best set up in my opinion. Not that you asked, but the GM small pickups are not that good either. Sort of chintzy looking in and out and [censored] mileage on the Atlas famliy of motors. Toyota/Nissan own the small truck category and you pay dearly for the privilege. If someone would come out with a small light pickup that got really good MPG, they would sell a ton.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: JDD
Toyota/Nissan own the small truck category and you pay dearly for the privilege. If someone would come out with a small light pickup that got really good MPG, they would sell a ton.


I agree but the Toyota and Nissan aren't so small anymore.
The 4 doors are about a foot longer than the Colorado/Canyon. Wider too.
I had a Frontier in my shop next to an '80s C10 SWB and I swear the Nissan was longer.
Mahindra made a stab at the US....guess they got swallowed up in EPA red tape

 

[simple_gifts]

Back from a trip to Western VA; 1040 miles; 32 gallons consumed = 32mpg