Anyone have a Ford Ranger?

[*kjm]

92 to 96 F150 straight six was the BOMB..... I got 16 in town and 26 hyw mpg..... And the motor never would give up on you!

Yes this was an F150 4x4.

 

[Murdoc]

I have a 1997 2wd manual with the 2.3l engine. It gets around 22-24 mpg mixed city/hwy (40/60) with 186,000 miles on the odometer.

 

[Throckmorton]

I don't understand why there's such a big range in gas mileage with the 2.3L. Some people get 20, some get 28.

 

[Arkaign]

I don't understand why there's such a big range in gas mileage with the 2.3L. Some people get 20, some get 28.

Auto vs. manual? I know the 4-speed autos were really greedy on the fuel economy, and have known several people with different year i4 Rangers that all got pretty good fuel economy (like 22/28ish).

 

[Vette73]

I don't understand why there's such a big range in gas mileage with the 2.3L. Some people get 20, some get 28.

Area of country (flat vs hills), driving style, and upkeep.

In my old Ranger the Mass Air Flow sensir was dirty and also had a lazy O2 sensor. Once I cleaned the MAF, replaced the O2 sensor, and cleaned out the throttle body mine went up about 3mpg.

 

[Zenmervolt]

We had a late '90's Ranger with the 3.0L V-6. Most worthless POS we've ever owned....almost.

The 3.0 litre V6 was a pointless engine choice. It mixed the lower power of the 4-cylinder with the lower fuel economy of the 4.0 litre V6. I've known many, many people who were disappointed with the 3.0 V6. I've never met anyone who was disappointed with the 2.3 four or the 4.0 V6.

OP: The Ranger is a great little truck, but it's a truck in the classic sense and was never meant to be anything more than that. It's not particularly fun to drive and it's not sophisticated, it's just a practical, bare-bones way to get shit done when your refrigerator dies and you need to haul a new one back from Home Depot or when you go camping and need to throw all your crap in the bed. With the 4.0 it's not a terrible towing platform (the 4.0 in my father's '91 Explorer pulled a 3,500 pound boat without issue) for the sort of towing that most people do. As a utility vehicle, I think the current Ranger is an exceptional choice; too many people just seem to expect it to be more than it is.

ZV

 

[Arkaign]

We had a late '90's Ranger with the 3.0L V-6. Most worthless POS we've ever owned....almost.

Engine was horribly underpowered. Rough, unyielding ride. Loud, uncomfortable, and got rid of it as soon as the residual value was more than what we owed on it.

Bought another "horrible" vehicle in its place, our '02 Blazer, but the difference was night and day. I don't wish a Ranger on anyone, enemy or friend.

Hahah, yeah the 3.slow! It had all the power of the 4-banger with the fuel economy of the 4.0.

The '02 Blazer is a total deathtrap in an accident, you'd do well to get rid of it asap. An accident above 30mph is likely to result in serious injury or death. It just folds up like a tin box. I think it might have to do with it being an old design (started in '94 as a '95 MY), and basically a cheap conversion of the S10 to get more of the bandwagon SUV sales, but they didn't do anything to beef up the superstructure of the vehicle, they just added weight, weight which causes the thing to fold up on impact.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzwzWI-WYBQ&feature=related

Of all of that gen's SUVs, only the Toyota really held up, but the Blazer takes the cake as the easy deathtrap. If you care about yourself and your family or anyone that rides with you, get rid of the damned thing.

 

[herm0016]

OP: The Ranger is a great little truck, but it's a truck in the classic sense and was never meant to be anything more than that. It's not particularly fun to drive and it's not sophisticated, it's just a practical, bare-bones way to get shit done when your refrigerator dies and you need to haul a new one back from Home Depot or when you go camping and need to throw all your crap in the bed. With the 4.0 it's not a terrible towing platform (the 4.0 in my father's '91 Explorer pulled a 3,500 pound boat without issue) for the sort of towing that most people do. As a utility vehicle, I think the current Ranger is an exceptional choice; too many people just seem to expect it to be more than it is.

ZV

totally agree. a great little truck. not a luxury car or a full size but built to get the job done.

 

[Turin39789]

I have an 06 with the newer 4 cyl and love it. For a while when I had an hour mostly highway commute I did manage 28mpg if I could keep it closer to 70 than 80. Mixed driving is closer to 25 and if I'm really being stupid in it I don't think I've ever gotten below 22-23 for a tank. Have had it loaded down with mulch/compost/rock, towed an old VW with it, had a bike in the back and one on a trailer and it has never given me a problem.

If you go for something other than the 4cyl, then mpg wise you will be in full size truck range, though it might cost less than a simlarly aged 150.

 

[Throckmorton]

Why did Ford fail to keep up with engine tech for so long? Up until a recently even the Mustang got that crappy 4.0L from the 60s.... so of course a tiny Ranger pickup with the engine gets terrible gas mileage.

How about a small pickup with the 3.7L or the Ecoboost??

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

Why did Ford fail to keep up with engine tech for so long? Up until a recently even the Mustang got that crappy 4.0L from the 60s.... so of course a tiny Ranger pickup with the engine gets terrible gas mileage.

How about a small pickup with the 3.7L or the Ecoboost??

Small market. Look at the f150. The 365 horsepower Ecoboost gets 16/22 with 3.73 gearing and they have 6 speed autos. If people wanted a ranger that would get 30mpg and were willing to buy them ford would produce them. Why is ford going to dump a ton of cash into redesigning the ranger when they'll sell 50,000 rangers and the f150 sells over half a million a year.

 

[Throckmorton]

Small market. Look at the f150. The 365 horsepower Ecoboost gets 16/22 with 3.73 gearing and they have 6 speed autos. If people wanted a ranger that would get 30mpg and were willing to buy them ford would produce them. Why is ford going to dump a ton of cash into redesigning the ranger when they'll sell 50,000 rangers and the f150 sells over half a million a year.

The REASON no one has been buying Rangers is they get the shitty engine with shitty gas mileage.

And it doesn't need to be redesigned. They have had a new Ranger platform in other markets for a long time now. They just failed to bring them here because of their ass-backwards logic.

Ford did the same thing to the Taurus, which used to be an icon. They let it languish as a crummy fleet vehicle for a decade, then canceled it completely. Now they've brought it back as a good car. Hopefully they wake up and do the same for the Ranger.

 

[cbrsurfr]

I don't understand why there's such a big range in gas mileage with the 2.3L. Some people get 20, some get 28.

Different trans and towing packages change the axle ratio which in turn affects the mileage.

 

[wirednuts]

if they made took the new ranger platform and changed the body to make it not look gay, gave it close to 300hp and 30mpg highway, i would buy one so fast my creditors wouldnt even know.

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

Ford is discontinuing the ranger in the U.S.
http://www.motortrend.com/features/auto_news/2010/1009_new_global_ford_ranger_coming_soon/index.html

 

[wirednuts]

^^ and chevy killed the camero. and dodge let the durango die. ford hasnt said if the ranger was eliminated permanently or just under a revamp. my guess is revamp, coming back as the utmost fuel efficient full frame truck on the market. that, or it comes back as a unibody truck (yuk!)

 

[kalrith]

I had a 1999 Ranger with the 4-banger for 2-3 years. I got about 16 city and 20 highway. The engine was quite underpowered, so the highway mileage dropped to about 17 when driving through a hilly area. I really liked that little truck though.

 

[Vette73]

I had a 1999 Ranger with the 4-banger for 2-3 years. I got about 16 city and 20 highway. The engine was quite underpowered, so the highway mileage dropped to about 17 when driving through a hilly area. I really liked that little truck though.

Something was wrong then. My 94 with a 4.0L got better gas milage than that and it had 160k+

 

[SpatiallyAware]

The 4 cyl lima motor (pre ~2000 4 cylinders) are very picky about tune-ups, plugs, and o2 sensors whilst not throwing a code. If you're getting less than 20mpg out of it then something is wrong. I get low 20's out of mine and it doesn't matter much whether I'm on the hwy, towing, etc

The engine was designed before a lot of the emissions crap was required, and they've done some funky stuff to make it pass whatever fed regulations are required nowadays. The most frustrating is the 2nd set of plugs (there are 8) along the driver's side. They're a PITA to replace, and mine goes through plugs every 30-40k miles.


Edit: Even though I love the lima motor the newer duratec is regarded as a better engine. The post 2000 rangers have duratecs...

 

[Gillbot]

I had a 2000 model I think it was. Base plain can styleside with a 5 speed and 4 cyl. Thet thing sipped gas and I loved that truck but my wife hated it and traded it in.

 

[Throckmorton]

Edit: misread

 

[kalrith]

Something was wrong then. My 94 with a 4.0L got better gas milage than that and it had 160k+

I think I would've gotten better gas mileage with the 4.0L. I live in a really hilly area, and the 105hp really struggled to move the truck up the big hills. If I lived in a flat area, I'm sure it would've done much better.

 

[wirednuts]

yeah the 4.0's 18mpg gas guzzlin isnt fun to look forward to every week, but the motor is a lot stronger then what the papers say. when im driving normally, it rarely jumps above 1800rpm's, even when accelerating. even at 70mph its still rides at like 1600rpm in overdrive.

 

[Vette73]

yeah the 4.0's 18mpg gas guzzlin isnt fun to look forward to every week, but the motor is a lot stronger then what the papers say. when im driving normally, it rarely jumps above 1800rpm's, even when accelerating. even at 70mph its still rides at like 1600rpm in overdrive.

I would take my old 94's 4.0 gas milage over what my Nissan truck gives.