What does Veeky Forums think about the Ford Ranger? I'm looking for a fun daily that can also be very reliable in the winter and won't break down on me.
Gas mileage is horrible when I can just get a F-150 but people don't seem to like Ford here. also, what does Veeky Forums think of the newer four door Rangers I'm looking at on the internet? I can't seem to find any here. I'm still new to cars and skimmed the pinned thread for something I like.
no bully pls
What's the difference between the trim levels like "Sport, Edge, FX" and everything else? Is there anything else in the Vancouver / Victoria area?
There ok, the SOHC 4.0 is kinda shit though.
I can vouch for Mazda b3000s which are just 3.0l rangers with Mazda badges. Mine is an extremely reliable winter shitbox with very little power (150hp)
It's a good little truck. Don't get a 4.0 for reliability get a 3.0 or the 2.whatever 4cyl. The 4cyls suck tho
Everytime i come into a ranger thread
>2.3 a shit
>2.3 a.good
>3.0 a shit
>3.0 a good
>4.0 a shit
>4.0 a good
Well what the fuck is it?!?!?!
Ive driven A LOT of rangers and hey have ALL been super shitty.
So im gonna go with they all suck.
Same question here. I always see shit like
>2.3 slow as balls
>3.0 power of the 2.3 MPG of the 4.0
>4.0 still slow, but now with terrible gas mileage
And anecdotal horror stories of catastrophic failures of any of these engines.
But somehow the Rangers keep on ticking. Can someone lay out the pros and cons of each engine?
the 2.3 duratec is the best ranger. low-mid 20s mpg. high 20s if all highway. the 2.3/2.5 lima is less powerful and my dad's averages 20.
Thats because its a mazda engine. Too bad they detuned it.
Had one in high school. Gud trucks. The gas mileage isnt bad, if I drove with a light foot I could get 20 mpg pretty easy in my 09 4.0 reg cab 2wd auto. I didnt do that though, I hooned the fuck out of it all the time. Still got around 16 mpg. Truck did have a shell on the back, so that may have given me a little better mileage overall.
Bought it with ~275k miles on the odo, sold it with ~287k. It was a fleet vehicle before I bought it and the company did a fairly shitty job of maintaining it. Despite this, the truck did make it to to 287k with minimal problems. It drained the battery if you left it sitting for a couple days and the trans was kind of wonky, but other than those, no real issues.
It was a pretty fun truck. Ass end was real light so skidz could be ripped quite easily. No stock ranger is a power monster though. But in the rain or on gravel or dirt it was loads of fun. If it were a manual, it would have been way better. Cant comment too much on the Rangers offroad chops, since mine was a 2wd, but I never got stuck in mine. I believe 98 onwards 4x4s had torsion bar front suspension though, so lifts would not be easy. Pre-98, they had TTBs, which are great if you want a go fast 4x4, decent if you want a crawler.
Just as reliable in the winter, but the ass end is real light with nothing in the bed so you gotta be real careful in the snow and shit. 4x4s might be more well behaved. Again, I dont really know.
Im guessing by four door ranger, you mean the international market ones. I am murrican, I know little about them.
Reliability is sort of hit and miss I guess, but they do have +50hp and +25 ft lb over the more reliable OHVs.
Quit shit talking the four bangers, the 3.0 is a turd too and you know it. The OHV Cologne 4.0s are plenty reliable.
also, 225k and it doesn't burn any oil but it has needed a suspension rebuild and a couple pinion seals. maybe 2-3k worth of work since 2004/5
My 94 2.3 Lima 5spd gets 27mpg with non-corn gas and 25mpg with E10. The only way I could get 20 is with a trailer or the parking brake on.
you must drive all highway.
OH IT'S ANOTHER RANGER THREABB!!
Just posted this in the Veeky Forumsffroad general threab:
Manual is sicc. If you ever want to relive your childhood, come over and dribe my manual Ranger offroad up north (or south) in Ontario. 4.0s and keeps up very well with the other trailers. 4x4 is a pretty well behaved vehicle and I also get 16mpg (normally 19-20 because I do a lot of hwy dribing).
Is that 275 miles or kilometers? 2009 with 287 000 miles would be quite intense but not unheard of for fleeters.
Torsion bar suspensions would just need new keys. Back suspension can be done with leafs but stock is already 2inches high in the back than the front (or is it 1 - i can't remember) so lifting it just for a bit more clearance shan't ever be an issue.
I don't know a single person who has a 3.0 engine other than various fleeters. 4.0 has a towing capacity of 6000lbs. That's prebby damn good for a dinky mid-sized trucc.
2.3s are good if you don't need to tow and rarely go offroad.
Besides. Muh trucc has a cute little nose to it!
Can't wait for the new one.
North American Ranger won't be getting a reboot any time soon. Sauce: Have two friends' dads that works at upper levels at the Windsor and Oakville Ferd plants in Ontario.
Whilst I'm here, are the duratecs all still made at the Windsor engine plant in Windsor?
...
I see them everywhere here in kansas. Rarely if not, never in mechanic shops. Cheap and reliable if you want a dd by yourself. Never owned one,but i have driven a few. Why Veeky Forums hates on Ford, no one knows, not even Veeky Forums.
The four bangers are glacially slow but they're reliable.
Veeky Forums memes, 4.0l ones have a little power, small tires can achieve skidz
3.0l is more reliable than 4.0l
4 cylinder is also reliable if you don't try to pull things with it
I drive my truck like I'm 80, so my gas mileage is just fine. Besides, I'm not broke so the extra $40 a month compared to my golf doesn't bother me.
The bottom half of the last bit was meant for the first person i replied to
Jesus Christ it's a time to stop posting tonight
Maybe the ecoboost is. The ohc 2.3 was introduced into the pinto in 1974
BS they've been talking about it
Duratech moron. Its mazda
This was a year ago when I started looking. Need sauce, pls. I would LOVE to be wrong about this, desu.
Ecoboost wasn't widely available until 2012 - a year after the Ranger was already discontinued.
Duratecs - were they made in Windsor? I know a while back, they had an engine actually called the "Windsor" but now?
3.0 might be more reliable but with the gas mileage, why wouldn't you just get the 2.3?
Plus the 4.0 is reliable enough to carry you to 400 000 - 500 000 klicks without needing major repairs.
Was looking at getting a ranger but decided on a full size f150 myself.
It is a lot bigger of a truck but still handels the bush extremely well.
10/10 would buy again over ranger.
Ranger and Bronco are being developed on the same platform in Straya and will be manufactured in Dearborn.
2018- Ranger
2019/20- Bronco
Do a Google.
I really enjoy my b3000, all things considered
International Rangers are different from North American Rangers.
It is quite odd to me that the US market is made in Mexico where a decent share of the international market is made in the US.
Also, damn. Did not know that Broncos were getting a reboot. That sounds amazing but Ranger platform is... uh. Looks like it has a built-in winch and bar. but the sides do not look like they can take a hit. Also dat grill... pls no
Lemme put it this way. You may not enjoy getting to your destination, but you will always get there.
my cute 05 Ranger. 203,000 miles. 5,000 are mine
Awwww. One off of Cute nose
>Off by one
Story of my life
Thanks senpai I got a cute little ass too
You don't have to censor your plate, only basketball Americans with warrants out do that for CL ads before other idiots started doing it thinking it was important. No sliding rear window on that year?
Take it offbroding senpai
Cute nose
Truly the last of the normal trucks.
Not the Super behemoth sized trucks that serve no purpose but to state the size of your penis.
I can only vouch for my Ranger, but here goes:
2.3L is an anvil. You can abuse the dogshit out of them, run them out of oil, truly hilux-tier neglect, and they don't give a single fuck. Downside? Poor fuel economy for a 4, and slow as fucking balls. Turbocoupe and SVO bits bolt right on though, so that's cool.
3.0 is a pig of a V6. Nothing to write home about power wise, but damn thirsty for what you get. Meh torque, meh power, again, pretty reliable. 0 aftermarket, however.
4.0 is best, but ONLY the OHV. SOHC a shit. OHV has great torque, good power (for the 90s, which was the Ranger's heyday), and reasonably durable. I'm told they have problems with cracked heads, but only if you overheat them. Take care of it and it will take care of you etc.
Also, minitrucks need to come back. I need to replace my Ranger, and no one makes a Ranger-sized truck anymore. Don't need f150 size, but might have to swallow that bullshit.
What to look over before buying a 2004-05 4.0 XLT with 140-160k? When should the timing belt be replaced? Need a vehicle in a hurry and I think I'll go with a ranger
>I'm told they have problems with cracked heads, but only if you overheat them. Take care of it and it will take care of you etc.
You don't have to overheat them for it to happen. It's a flaw in the design of the OHV head casting. I've had one crack on me out of nowhere on my old 4.0 Ranger. One day it just started consuming coolant and misfiring on cold starts (water was getting a the cylinder when it sat). The truck was immaculate when I got it, and only had 50,000mi on it.
>Also, minitrucks need to come back. I need to replace my Ranger, and no one makes a Ranger-sized truck anymore. Don't need f150 size, but might have to swallow that bullshit.
Buy a newer Ranger. The OHC engine isn't as bad as you think it is.
2wd family. I'm not even down to try taking up to the canyon
Trucks are simply too large now
fox
grapes
Theres not a lot of rangers out there with the 4.0 OHV, at least not that many would consider buying since the last year that engine was available was 2000.
The huge majority of pre 2000 trucks ive seen are just beat to shit or have the 3.0 or 4 banger.
best ford truck
Sohc 4.0 takes a factory m90 supercharger out of the Thunderbird with very little work and can be done for 1500 including a tune, for a fairly easy 225HP. Cost me about $3000 because I bought all the pre-made ready to install shit.
Mine's at 135k miles (4x4 edge) and when I move in 2 years, I'll pluck the s/c setup out and buy another one on the east coast. Great little truck
It cost you $3000 to go from 207 hp to 225?
Torque increase? Fuel rating up?
...
had a few of them, all diesels in the UK and they are very good. Even drive pretty well on long distance runs and they work well for light off road use.
Had a couple of rust issues, but nothing that isn't easily fixed
diesel ranger?!
...
my SOHC cap really isn't that shitty compared to other engines post 2004. apples to apples, user.
>edited
>2016
>ranger thread
c'mon user.
Yeah. The non-North American Rangers have diesel options. They're also just below 30mpg which is apparently bad when it comes to EU standards.
I swear my old ranger got well over 20mpg with the 5 speed and tires I had on it
Yup, as far as I am aware we never got petrol ones. 2.5 4cyl turbo diesel, decent enough engine for the purpose. Think the newer ones come in 3.0 I5 turbo diesel from too.
Around 30 mpg yeah, bit higher on a run but not by much. It is about what you would expect from a pickup, but by car standards it isn't great compared to the average diesel Focus or Mondeo doing 50+ fairly easily.
Rangers aren't known for being bad on fuel, just pickups in general. Not far off what a Transit van does anyway
edge has 4x4 suspension but is 2wd. thats what i got and love it. rx is 4x4 i think, and sport is just a trim
Has anyone actually successfully lifted the back end of their Ranger without affecting ride quality? Everyone I have talked to mentions that it fucks with their ride since it stiffens the leaves.
Higher the body, weaker it is, I guess. Wish my Ranger had legs like
Does that mean you can do a really quick conversion on them?
205bhp is around 160-170whp stock.
owned a 3.0 RWD 5 speed with the LSD.
Honestly, with A/T tires and ~300lbs of gravel in the bed it was great in the winter, never got stuck even in 40 cm of snow. Sure is slid a bit but whatever.
Reliability wise it was great, nothing ever went wrong with it. Fuel economy was ~22MPG doing 90 km/h, ~ 18 MPG in city. I think I did 24 a couple times being SUPER jewish with the throttle.
Overall a good truck and it was cheap as fuck too. Would recommend if your looking for something you can beat to shit and not worry.
torsion up front + leafs in rear = goodness
pic related; you get to join 4 pedal master race
Just get extended shackles you dolt. Or softer spring rate lifted leaves. Retard.
Why are they so damned expensive in the used market? Christ, they're worse than Tacos.
I hear Ford has a replacement in the works.
probably decent reliability, they didnt really change from 93 onwards
Hey! Don't be mean, user.
Those conversions cost like ober $800 tho. ):
Engine, interior, front springs, tyre monitor, and annoying chassis obstacles
gay
im done shilling ford
only buy if you never plan on hitting dirt
I've taken my fx 2010 trim mudding, sand crawling, and trailing for 36+ hours multiple times with aftermarket skids and it is fan-fooking-tastic.
>only buy if you never plan on hitting dirt
What? 4x4 rangers are plenty good offroad
how did you ever shill for ford with that next statement?