Ford Rangers? The good, bad, and ugly.

I'm looking to replace my aging, high mileage, E150s. They have done outstanding work for me, but they are all over 400K miles. It's time to move on.

I'm looking to replace them with something more fuel efficient. 25mpg+

I've made some calls in our industry, and the Transit Connect is off the list. Multiple transmission issues seem to be the rule, rather than the exception. They just can't handle the abuse. No one trusts the Promaster City yet, the 9 speed transmission has everyone scared and none of them have been on the road long enough to tell how they will hold up. The Nissan/Chevy is a joke, unless you are delivering flowers.

So, that leaves small trucks with a bed cap. Rather than financing $70k, I'm looking used to pay cash. Toyota's are too expensive and Nissan's are made by Nissan. That leaves Chevy and Ford and I'd rather have Fords.

I'm thinking 2005+, 4 cyl, automatic. Under 100K miles.

How long will it last with minimal maintenance. Getting 300K would be nice but I don't know Rangers well enough to know.

Teach me everything Ranger.

All I know about Rangers is that the rear spring shackles are apparently made out of leftover 80's Alfa stock, as they tend to rust, and then disappear, with alarming regularity.

Some years, not sure of all, have the clutch-slave inside the transmission, which makes replacement a complete PITA.

At work we have a fleet of 2007-2008 Rangers. White, basic, 4 cylinder, automatic, slow, abused trucks. They all have very low mileage due to our facility (mine is an '07 with 13k miles).

MPGs aren't great because the motor is a very old design and they are underpowered so you have to work hard to maintain highway speeds. The automatic does some weird stutters and lurches sometimes but seems to work.

I carry about 20 lbs of tools under an aluminum cap so I can't report about load capability.

My HVAC system has gone wonky and only does full cold or full hot. I need to get the mechanic on it.

Otherwise it starts and runs every day.

The 01 and up ranger 4 cylinder is the thoroughly modern Duratec 23

I know most of the auto part stores around this region had Rangers from about 2000-2005, and I still see many of them driving around still. At this point they're probably on their 3rd or 4th owners, and I'm sure they haven't had an easy life from any of them.

There is only one Ranger that matters.

They're not bad trucks, but the Colorado is a far better truck in every regard, by a lot.

I have an 05 4 cyl (duratec motor), manual transmission. Auto would be better for loads, but I can tell when I have a 400lb quad in the rear. Still gets up and goes close to normal speed though, you just have to rev it!

Confirmed about the slave cyl/throwout bearing inside the trans - sucks; my throwout bearing is making noise right now and will probably need to be replaced at some point. I'm procrastinating.

I have averaged 28 mpg over the last 78k miles; mostly highway/freeway mileage with maybe 8k miles of towing a 1500lb trailer in there too. I have had to replace shocks, batteries, rear differential pinion seal and bearing (twice...don't try and cheat the crush washer ), and a thermostat (stuck open). Its been a fun truck; I'm loathe to get rid of it because it wouldn't sell for much (4k if I was lucky) and it's useful thanks to the good mpg.

Zomby Woof wrote: They're not bad trucks, but the Colorado is a far better truck in every regard, by a lot.

I forgot about the Colorados. What do you like about them above the Rangers.

I work on some fleet Rangers automatics, seems like most of these have problems with the column shifter wearing out and developing a ton of play. Other than that just the regular, change oil, brake pads, etc.

The 01+ Ranger 4 cylinders are equipped with the Duratec 2.3L, which is basically the most high tech engine they ever put in a Ranger. They're lightweight, fuel efficient and make decent power for a naturally aspirated engine of that size. At it's core, it's an NC Miata engine, so thats cool.

The automatic transmissions are the suck. Besides being The Enemy of Fun, they're an ancient, inefficient design. Duratec trucks with the auto trans also got higher rear end gears. Because of those two factors, most Duratec/auto trucks get low to mid 20s for fuel economy, while the Duratec/manual trans combo easily gets upper 20s, low 30s if you try. I've seen a best of 32mpg in my 01 with manual trans. Some minor aero mods could probably get me into the mid 30s. If fuel economy is a primary concern, I'd hold out for a manual equipped truck (Bonus: they're more fun)

Besides, Duratec engine/manual trans equipped trucks are essentially the truck version of a Miata. They're lightweight, with a Miata engine up front and a real manual trans driving the rear wheels. Seems like GRMers should be all over it.

I've seen a ton of Rangers with 200k+ miles on them, so I think they're fairly durable workhorses. But their design is ancient...it was the same basic truck for something like 20 years.

Maybe it's just the people who buy them, but I swear that the Ranger has a top speed of 54mph. When I come up on a car doing 10mph below the speed limit, 75% of the time it's a Ranger.

What about an HHR? Or it's Dodge twin?

I've never owned a Ranger but I've seen a ton of them that keep running every day when there's no earthly reason they shouldn't just give up and die from the abuse. Of course, most of those are the older ones.

bentwrench wrote: What about an HHR? Or it's Dodge twin?

I have an HHR as a daily driver. As a station wagon, it's awesome. I'm very happy with it from a practicality standpoint. But I don't think it would do well as substitute for a small pick up with a cap.

I had a ranger for years. It was a good truck and ate the miles OK. No real complaints here.

Toyman01 wrote:

Zomby Woof wrote: They're not bad trucks, but the Colorado is a far better truck in every regard, by a lot.

I forgot about the Colorados. What do you like about them above the Rangers.

The Colorado was released in 2004. The Ranger was released in 1982, and was basically not updated from 1993 on.

Ranger might do everything you need it to (actually, it probably will) without fail, but there are others out there that do it more comfortably and likely more efficiently as well.

I had a 99 ranger with 4.0. I built it ordered new with the heaviest springs I could, 5spd, and all that. Once loaded up 1600#'s of cattle feed and ran home with it. The front was a little high, but it did it.

My brother had a 2000 RC 5spd with 2.3 in it. He got 25+ mpg normally. On the highway, he would run 30mpg on a regular basis. He does drive like a old farmer though...

They are good tough trucks, probably not the best, but solid trucks. At least in non-rust belt areas.

Klayfish wrote:

bentwrench wrote: What about an HHR? Or it's Dodge twin?

I have an HHR as a daily driver. As a station wagon, it's awesome. I'm very happy with it from a practicality standpoint. But I don't think it would do well as substitute for a small pick up with a cap.

We have a very tired 93 Ranger, Dakota, Canyon, and a HHR in our fleet and far and away the best one seems to be the Canyon. The Ranger, complete with a stick and manual steering, just cannot be killed, but it's everyone's least favorite one to put up with. Can't seem to kill it, though. The less said about the Dakota, the better. The HHR is actually a pretty good vehicle, but it likes to eat bearings and brakes. Still though, it's great for hauling parts.

mtn wrote:

Toyman01 wrote:

Zomby Woof wrote: They're not bad trucks, but the Colorado is a far better truck in every regard, by a lot.

I forgot about the Colorados. What do you like about them above the Rangers.

The Colorado was released in 2004. The Ranger was released in 1982, and was basically not updated from 1993 on. Ranger might do everything you need it to (actually, it probably will) without fail, but there are others out there that do it more comfortably and likely more efficiently as well.

The Ranger got new powerplants, new front suspensions, new interiors, added cab length for the regular cab, updated safety features and updated styling on different occasions between 93 that you mentioned and it's demise. It was a far different truck by the years the OP is considering.

My uncle has an older one maybe 2000 or so, I don't know if its the camper shell but that thing is slow as molasses. Too bad the toyota trucks are either beat to E36 M3, rusted away, or expensive. If my 22re truck dies I'll try and find another one. I think the small truck market is dead.

I always thought the rangers were hard to use in manual trans form. The pedals are to close together so whenever I drive one with workboots on I manage to stomp the brake when trying to shift. Thats unpleasant.

I wouldn't mind a rc stepside ranger 2wd manual 4 cyl lowered a bit with some white letter tires on it

Thanks for the info.

Thanks to Zomby Wolf, we are going to find out how good the Colorado is. A lot just down the street from me had two fleet trucks. They had good records, were well taken care of, and had 120k. The price was right so I bought both of them.

They are both stripped down, basic trucks. Manual everything except steering and brakes. I probably would have preferred the I4 for the better economy, but these have the 3.5 I5. They should still get in the 20-23 mpg range.

Hopefully I can run them another 150-200 thousand miles. We shall see.

In reply to Toyman01:

May I ask what you paid? I'm contemplating getting a Colorado.