1997 Ford Ranger 4x4, what to look for?

My brother is looking at vehicals again and asked me about this:

1997 Silver Ford Ranger 4x4 - $2700 Runs Great, 5 Speed, Bed Liner, 4x4, 104k miles.

I know jack squat about trucks, what should I be looking for if/when we go check it out?

Thanks

Ford's been making pretty much that exact same truck for a really, really long time. there aren't a lot of bugs left.

3.0's sound terrible and have no power, but run a long long time. 4.0's have more guts (surprise surprise) and get about the same fuel efficiency. nearly as reliable, maybe more leaky.

can you even get the 4 cylinder with the 4x4? i don't remember seeing one before.

1997 Ford Ranger 4x4, what to look for?

Better taste in trucks.

the front coils on the twin i-beam suspension will sag, making alignment difficult, as there is no caster/camber adjustment. this will then affect tire wear. the 5 speed is a mazda trans (m50d, iirc) which is reliable but doesn't like to shift quickly. check the push-button (or knob) 4x4 operation, as the solenoids can go out and then you got nothing. i'd recommend only looking for one with the 4.0l as they made decent (not great) power and were pretty reliable, although both v6's were adequate and will run for a long time. if thats an extended cab and in good condition its probably a good deal.

John Brown wrote:

1997 Ford Ranger 4x4, what to look for?

Better taste in trucks.

I loled in my pants.

while funny, i disagree.

a nissan or toyota (which I would prefer in a little pickup) would either cost more or do less. I haven't had great experiences with the gm offering of this type. Dakota's are okay, but thirstier, and less reliable. what would you two have suggested?

Read the plate.

I have a 2001 Ranger, I'm not sure when Ford jumped ship but mine is a rebadged Mazda. It likes electricity, the dual plug set up needs a bunch of it. I've jumped other vehicles with the Ranger and each time, within 10 days, I've had to put in an alternator. No more Mr. Niceguy.

Rust. May not be an issue in Ohio, but it is for me. Structurally it will bite me someday, luckily I don't care what it looks like, it's a truck. Parts are readily available. I have a sliding rear window, I wished it slid the other way. Reach behind you and push the glass toward the passenger side, cold air blows down your neck. Opening the other way you would get air without inconvenience. Just picky I guess.

I like mine. It hovers between 71 and 74 mph everyday back and forth to work (25 miles one way). I get 20 mpg if I'm nice to it, drive like real people and give it good gas; or if I rip the nuts off it, still 20 mpg.

Dan

It was my impression that mazda was the one doing the impersonating, as of 1993~ish

My brother has a 2000. The Mazda is a rebadged Ranger. It's a 4 cyl and at 170 K it has not needed much except for a clutch and some rust problems like Dan mentioned. He beats it like it owes him money, and it keeps running. I had it for a few days last month and wished it had a sliding window. Did anyone think to get one with AC?

I've got AC but you have to shut it off to go up hill.

My wife's family has a 3.0 2wd version that was her grandfathers (even has whitewall tires lolz) but now we pass it around as the family truck for various odd jobs. It's good at hauling relatively light and small stuff around, not much else. Gets about 16 mpg, has terrible heat, the interior lights don't work (or they never turn off, I don't remember), the transmission shifts like crap, the ergonomics are just awful, it's uncomfortable, etc. It is really good at sitting next to my uncle-in-laws shed though...

In general the only things that break on it are stupid things like door switches, interior trim and whatnot. It's been reliable and we all beat the hell out of it. I wouldn't want to drive it every day but it's nice to have around when I need to move something nasty. AC is ice cold too.

Thanks for all the help, I think we are going to check it out this weekend.

I have a '96 2wd B-3000 Mazda. Tough as nails, reasonable gas milaeage, no real power, but dependable, no service issues. Oh yeah, 300,000 miles. Not too bad for a free truck.

live long and prosper!

My Dad has a 2000 4x4 with the 3.0 and the automatic. While it is a little under powered it has been rock solid reliable. I've borrowed it in the past when I was between trucks and really like it. When he is done with it I hope to get it just to kick around in. Plus if A/C is important to you all the Fords I've ever been around have had killer AC, including his truck.

a diesel would get better mpg.

How is the 3.0 when in a rwd truck? I found a freakishly clean '98, 3L/5spd/rwd. I have spent some time in an I4/5spd/rwd ranger and it wasn't too bad.

In reply to neon4891:

The one I posted about is a 3.0 2wd auto. With a stick it might be better, but it has the power of a big 4 with the gas mileage of a v8.

I drove the heck out of two: 88 and 93 rangers. The 93 is closer to what you're looking at. It had the twin-spark four banger with a five-speed and two wheel drive, which incidentally was the Mustang's base engine. It wasn't horrid acceleration, but it won't win any awards. I was doing 150+ miles of delivery in it a day, mind you. The rear is light on the 93, I spun the tires in a couple of gears on a steep slope when it rained. One thing to watch for is the transmission: I toasted one in it because some filter or something plugged up. I presume the preventative maintenance I didn't do might have helped avoid that. Oh, the AC/Heat. AC was okay, the Heat was fantastic. In short, it was a low-end truck which ran well with regular oil changes and other maintence. I'd take another in good shape, but I have wife+kids now...

skruffy wrote: In reply to neon4891: The one I posted about is a 3.0 2wd auto. With a stick it might be better, but it has the power of a big 4 with the gas mileage of a v8.

i'd say you're half right, i had a 93 4x4 3.0/5spd and while you're right about the power, mine got 18-20mpg pretty much regardless of how i drove it.

i will say that with the 3.0/5spd, don't bother with 4th gear, just skip straight to 5th when you're up to speed. only time 4th is worth the trouble is interstate passing at over 70, and even then you really have to pick your spots.

I've got an auto 3.0 2wd. It's adequate. If you're used to a 4-cyl, it'll be a mild upgrade. If you drive normally the acceleration is similar, but if you really flog it it'll move a little faster. The 3.0 is indestructible, but has to be wound up to do anything.

Incidentally, I get about 17mpg around town and about 21-22 on the hwy.

I'd have a mild preference for a 4.0, but I wouldn't pass up a nice 3.0 unless I really needed the extra towing capacity (about 1000 lbs, IIRC).

Nothing really to look for. Fords like to eat EGR components so look for a CEL. If it fails, fortunately all of the components are cheap and easy to get to. Otherwise, they are great trucks. I would personally steer clear from any pushbutton 4x4. They are operated either electronically, vacuum, or a combination of both. They fail constantly. The manual shift transfer case in that truck is super slick and its as easy to operate as the transmission shifter. Nothing like getting stuck in the mud or snow only to find that your electronic servo refuses to engage the front driveshaft. There is something that inspires confidence when physically pulling a shifter and knowing that you just mechanically engaged the cogs that you need to get you moving.

The engines are bulletproof. The tranny is most likely a mazda M5OD or possibly an AX15 which are both very adequate. Rear axle should be a 7.5" which again is adequate. If you're lucky its an 8.8 which is overkill. 8.8 wasn't common unless you were in a V8 explorer but it did make its way into a few V6 versions.

You'll find that your turn signals tend to flash fast every once in a while which indicates that you need to replace the rear bulbs and clean the contacts.

The M5OD is adequate as long as it has oil in it. Those stupid rubber plugs at the base of the shifter rot out and puke out the oil as you're driving.

In reply to curtis73:

iirc, the exploders and rangers with the factory towing (and possibly those with a 4.0l, but im not positive on that) package came with the 8.8 rear. similarly, the f150's with the 4.6 and tow package came with the 9.75 over the 8.8 that the other 4.6l trucks got.