Ranger - B-series

>didnt ask how much money ever
>asked if there was anything better about the mazda
Reading comprehension eludes you

Sorry i didnt realize no one wanted to talk about automotive things here

This doesnt explain shit
And from research it seems the best one is the one with a mazda engine after 2003.
The article still doesnt tell anything about trims, features, etc except the rare models
And most importantly doesnt say if the 2.3 duratec came in 4x4.

>Look at Mazda trucks on craigslist
>A good number them have been engine swapped

How fragile were Mazda's truck engines? Were they rotaries or something?

What years?
They didnt really have problems till after 1993

>How fragile were Mazda's truck engines? Were they rotaries or something?

They're Rangers

2.3/2.5 Lima - anvil
2.3 MZR - reliable
3.0 Vulcan - anvil
4.0 Cologne - few gotchas on OHC but again, 300k mile engines easy.

Seems to be 1995-1998. A number of them can be explained away by owner incompetence, but it seems like too many of them blow engines.

Its because those have Ford engines

they weren't fragile, just a bit underpowered.

Cummins/Isuzu also have some pretty dope diesels that fit really well.

OP here
Just got done reading a ton of forums
They are the same truck.
Which is a shame since that means the mazda is just as shitty as the ford.
Oh well. Back to toyota.

Enjoy your Toyo tax for worn out shit, cuck.

I can afford one with lower mileage.
Just didnt want another one really.

At least it will run
Cant say that much about fords

>but i really hate ford rangers.
The B series are literally rangers with Mazda badges.

Get an S10 or Dakota

Had an S10 V6 4x4. Nothing but problems
Buddy had a dakota. Also nothing but problems.
Im convinced no one makes a good truck

What gen S10 and what gen Dakota?

first gen Tundra owner here. I disagree. Other than the rusty frame issue (which mine doesn't have), and the ball joints, this thing is a fucking tank, and a pleasure to drive

GET RANGER
2007
FLEET TRUCK
5SPD
3.0
LOL SPEED LIMITER 100
3 OVER 100 TICKETS
YEAR 1

I ACTUALLY FUCKING HATE REGULAR CAR REVIEWS FOR CHOOSING A 3.0L FORD RANGER
All they had to do was choose a the 4.0L and they would've had like 10x more fun and their review wouldn't be as shit.

youtube.com/watch?v=L_TQo3yDkVo

Why are all the post 2008 4x4 models starting priced at 12k?

What came first

>the mazda
or
>the ford

I'll wait.

My 2.3L Ranger has 188k miles and runs great. Since I bought it with 85k miles I've replaced starter, clutch (because slave), timing belt and serpentine tensioner. You see Rangers all the time, S10s and Dakotas are getting scarce.

1997 s10 and 1998 dakota
How would i know?
Who cares?
2.3 is dogshit slow. May as well keep the truck i have

Mazda trucks post 1993 are no good Ford shit. Stick to a pure Mazda design, the b2600i. The I is important because the b2600 is carborated and sucked ass.

Specs 121 HP and 143lb/ft torque. Also a period correct dyno test has the 4x4 at 113 rw-HP and 161 max torque, I assume in 3rd gear.

They are great trucks mate, just don't expect power windows.

DELET

Success breeds jealously.bmp

ford ranger is my dream car

I recently got an 86 D21, and honestly I'm impressed at how it's survived 30 years of abuse.

Granted, the drivetrain is basically shot now. A 350 + 700r4 will net at least another 20 years out of the thing.

4.0 ohc is dogshit and to be avoided at all cost. whoever engineered that and the early 6.x diesels should be shot.

lima or vulcan if 2wd vulcan or 4.0 ohv if rwd

lima has the easiest timing belt you will ever do in your life.

this
>Cologne heads came cracked from factory
>4L, 168hp

93 ranger 2.3l 5speed 500k miles. Love rangers.

This 302 is a common swap in rangers because of this

OP here.
Thats what i own. 1992 B2600i
Its a great truck. Just needs more power.

My grandpa gave me his 97 2.3l ranger with 50k miles, ive been bashing the fuck out of red line everyday for years now. its at 120k and doesn't burn a drop of oil, no leaks, nothing one of the most reliable cars I have ever owned for how much abuse it takes. Its dangerously slow though, getting on the highways in ct where people zip around going 75-85 during commuting hours is scary.

>only 120k
>he thinks thats reliable
Kek
Honestly though. Ford a shit

Explorer V8 swap.

Ive been debating v8 swaping for a while now, I could also slap a turbo on it ive seen some people getting crazy horsepower on the stock motor but I can only imagine how bad the lag it

Had a '97 B2300 my aunt gave me for free for a long time.

The thing about Rangers is they are piles of shit, but they are dead fucking reliable piles of shit. You can beat the fuck out of a Ranger day in and day out (and I did) for years and it will never give two fucks. And if you do break them their ubiquity means they are cheap as fuck to find parts for and fix.

When I sold it it had 264k miles and ran like it did when I got it. Only maintenance/repair items outside of oil changes were a set of u jointsat 160,000 miles, plugs at 200,000 miles (lel 8 plug 4 cylinder), and a coil pack that went out at 215k miles, all of which were cheap as fuck and in stock.

People who talk shit about Rangers and say they are worthless are just letting their ignorance be known. There's a reason Rangers were the go to fleet vehicles for light duty for decades. Hell they're discontinued and you'll still find fleets running them year after year.

Oh and I had to buy a $50 catalytic converter and have it welded up once to get it to pass smog at over 200k miles.

Get a post-2008. All the engines' issues were kinda hammered out by then when the F-150 started to match the pricing.
This is when they were less fleeter and more for the sporty people.