Are mid 90's Rangers any good?

[SAWYER]

I found a cheap extended cab 1996 ranger I am thinking about getting. The miles are high but it is sound mechanically.

 

[LS8]

Tough little trucks. Which engine? The I4 is great on gas, the 3.0L sucks gas and has no power, the 4.0L has a lot of torque and a nice power band.

 

[SAWYER]

4 cyl

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: LS8
Tough little trucks. Which engine? The I4 is great on gas, the 3.0L sucks gas and has no power, the 4.0L has a lot of torque and a nice power band.

This pretty much sums it up.

The 3.0 is reliable enough, but it isn't much more power than the 2.3 and it gets the same mileage as the 4.0, so there's really no point to the 3.0 V6. Overall the Rangers are solid little trucks.

ZV

 

[Arkaign]

IIRC, changing the plugs (8 of them?? lol) on some of the 4-bangers can be a hassle. But overall they seem to last a long time.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: LS8
Tough little trucks. Which engine? The I4 is great on gas, the 3.0L sucks gas and has no power, the 4.0L has a lot of torque and a nice power band.

This pretty much sums it up.

The 3.0 is reliable enough, but it isn't much more power than the 2.3 and it gets the same mileage as the 4.0, so there's really no point to the 3.0 V6. Overall the Rangers are solid little trucks.

ZV

Yea I was about to say the same. The 3.0l is just a waste. Kinda like there were trying to do something inbetween the 4cyl and 4l v6 but just failed.

I have a 94 mazda B4000 (Ranger 4.0L). It has 160k or so and a rebuilt trans. The top of the motor looks to clean like it has been worked on. But for $1800 runs great after cleaning the mass air sensor.
The 96 has the nicer interior but should be about the same as my 94. So if it is cheap enough and taken care of go for it.

 

[SAWYER]

Well I am thinking of trading my shitty 2001 Focus ZX3 for it. It has a busted front bumper from where I hit something on the highway and a salvaged title so it's not worth much. I am supposed to meet the girl tonight and check it out.

 

[funboy6942]

Timing belt timing belt timing belt
That is all

If it aint been done in a while, or dont know if it has EVER been done, get it done and the water pump at the same time, and idler pulley for the belt as well.

Pretty much all else is good about the truck, just keep up on the timing belt on the rangers, or pretty much any high mile car or truck with a rubber timing belt on it.

 

[MrPickins]

I wish I knew about the 3.slow before I bought my Ranger. It's a decent truck, but I'd love to have the 4.0 instead.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: MrPickins
I wish I knew about the 3.slow before I bought my Ranger. It's a decent truck, but I'd love to have the 4.0 instead.

My 94 4.0 has a lot of good usable low end torque. But the 3.0's I have driven I swore were 4cyls. The major diff. was the 3.0 was a little more quite but I did not really notice the power. I did notice the lower gas milage.

 

[FeuerFrei]

My sister had a 1995 Ranger. Solid and trouble free for years.

Sold it recently because of 1st baby on the way.

Don't know any details.

 

[Pacfanweb]

The 4 cylinder Rangers are damn near indestructible. Can't tell you how many I've seen with 2-300k miles on them.

 

[Deviant Grasshopper]

I have a 4cyl ranger (1998) and love it. It has given me minimal problems and even though it won't win any races it has enough to scoot around town.

Mine is a 5 speed, I would be a bit leery of the 4cyl auto for power reasons.

 

[drum]

My 94 4.0 V6 has 172K right now. I'm driving it in this sh*tstorm until the snow and salt is gone so I can get my 07 back out :thumbsup:

 

[Black88GTA]

The 2.3 4 cyl is bulletproof, but a slug. Make sure you test drive it first, to make sure you're OK with this. I had this motor (the "upgraded" dual-plug 105 hp version) in a Mustang, and it was a dog. 🙁

As someone above said, don't consider an automatic with this engine. The auto saps a lot of the power it does have, and the automatic transmissions that were mated with this motor were fragile and short-lived, unlike the motors.

Note: This is true for the Mustang with the NA 2.3 - I'm not sure if they changed things around for the Rangers or not.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Sawyer
I found a cheap extended cab 1996 ranger I am thinking about getting. The miles are high but it is sound mechanically.

Death traps in collision and rust like no other if your state salts roads (ask me how I know).

 

[3chordcharlie]

You can put these trucks through a lot - we just retired a 93 3L/5speed with over 200k miles, most of it towing.

I'll add my vote for avoiding the 3L and the 4-banger, unless the truck is a manual.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: Black88GTA
The 2.3 4 cyl is bulletproof, but a slug. Make sure you test drive it first, to make sure you're OK with this.

True...it doesn't have enough power to pull your dick out of your pants, but it will run forever.