I know, right? Rangers are an automotive equivalent to $10 toaster. It was cheap. You only expected it to last until you moved out of your first apartment. But, here, 20 years later in your third house you still have that fucking little toaster. Your wife says "lets get a stainless steel four-slice". But how can you throw away a perfectly functioning toaster. How can you throw away a perfectly functioning Ranger?
My uncle has had two, one that I wrecked that need an engine at 206k and the replacement and we love/loved both of them and besides the cylinder wall wearing through we haven't had any major issues
Underpowered engines are also generally understressed. Look at the reliability and the maintenance requirements for high performance engines. Then compare those to boring, low horsepower engines like in the Ranger or an econobox car. Many lower end or day-to-day commuter car engines are intentionally underpowered to help with longevity. Derating the horsepower places less stress on the engine and related components.
Absolutely not bullshit. Take a look at all engines known for extreme reliability. They are NOT performing at maximum power, and for good reason. Take those same engines and add some forced induction. See how long things last like that.
Mine has the 4.0 - 4. 10 gearing 4x4 with limited slip differential. I think your friend shouldn't have gotten the lowest trim level possible. That model is used as a fleet vehicle.
TatersUnited and Mazda L engine is insane for turbo charging, you’d be suprised, thing is the ranger is known as the danger ranger because it can easily flip when lifted lol, had that happen to mine :/
I had 97 2.3 base model that at its best got 27 mpg, 94 2.3 got 24 to 25, and 2000 2.5 20 to 22, all but the 2.5 had lackluster power, ie didn't like climbing hills on freeway. The latest 2000 is 3.0 auto and purrs and gets 20 mpg city so far and with 220k no trans probs. The first 3 were stick and had better acceleration and control than an auto trans. If this new truck gets the 27 rated or better mpg I'm happy. The 4 cylinder ford engines due to different rear end gearings lost the balls a stick pinto had, hell I had one that could chirp 4 gears and it's beat up shocked the fuck out of bigger car drivers as how quick it could move. But after all this in small trucks it beat hell out of the s10 4s which were constantly blowing head gaskets.
@@DieselDog1982 did you forget about the Toyota 3.0 that came in the 4runners and Pickups head gaskets for part of the 30,000 mile maintenance schedule..., that was the worst V6 engine ever made... Followed by the mopar 3.5. The pushrod 4.0 was good and the OHC 4.0 had mild timing chain issues when it wasn't properly maintained.
@@DieselDog1982 yeah and? mine has over 400k and it doesnt even tick. Runs a little hot but could prolly use a new thermostat nothin else wrong with it
That is not representative for the Europe I know of. I have never seen a US Ranger and full size pickup trucks are a relatively regular sight, although they are getting older and rarer. The only thing American trucks has going for them nowadays is looks and physical size. Global pickups has caught up, and even surpassed the Americans on payload and European rules bans us from hauling trailer heavier than 3500kg (7716lbs). That is unless the vehicle is registered as a commercial truck.
I have a 2001 edge. Everything is original gonna need to get the transmission replaced soon. My grandpa got it new and my father got it from him. It is mine now. My first car. It has 284k miles on it. I love it.
You picked one with the worst engine lmao...the 2.9l V6 or to a slightly lesser extent, the 3.0l V6 Rangers aren't very good BUT if you get a 2.3l or 4.0l Ranger it will NEVER die....
Rubber You’re correct, the 2.9l and both 4.0l’s are all Cologne engines. The 2.9 and pushrod 4.0 engines were fairly reliable, as long as you never let them overheat and crack their heads. The overhead cam 4.0 was plagued with timing chain issues in the first few years of production, but put out significantly more horsepower and a decent bit more torque.
3.0 is the most reliable,it's been proven time and time again, they don't have the head issues the 2.9 did ,head gasket and intake gasket addiction the 4.0 push rod motors have .the sohc 4.0 is absolutely junk.i have 220k on my rangers 3.0 and I drive it like a rental full of hooker's ..still going strong
Wade berry I have an 07, sport with 4.11’s and the 3.0. Very great truck, running strong. Haven’t had a single issue except the radiator, it was an easy and cheap fix though. Having a freon leak too, but other than that, it runs flawlessly.
The oil filter placement on the 3.0 is awesome, It's directly above the exposed live wires for the starter in a spot a hand can barley fit. If the filter slips out of your hand and jams against the starter it will arc the terminals and crank the motor over uncontrollably with no oil then catch fire from the spraying lube.. Saab Sonett Broh!
The rangers elegance lies in its simplicity. Interior that hasn't changed since the mid 90's and an engine that's hardly changed much either. I love mine for what it isn't.
I'm still head over heels for my 2004 base model with the 2.3 Duratec. It's got 3 pedals on the floor, limited slip in the back, AC, and the small square urban courier mirrors, and it's been very easygoing. The parts are cheap, it's Japanese (better) under the hood, and always turns right over and gets my ass and a trailer to Menards on the weekends. I know it's not glamorous, and it doesn't measure up well to other trucks or cars on their terms. But on its terms, it's the right tool for the job and doesn't embellish itself beyond its abilities. It attacks challenges with an honest, "well, let's try and see how far we get," attitude and typically succeeds, though without fanfare. To me, its owner in its home twin cities, it's a symbol of the virtues of compromise, of making do with less, and of Midwest modesty. You may have been able to afford the best, but this is enough, and that's okay. It's everything I could have wanted in a used vehicle, and it can be your only vehicle if you lack the ability to have two. It's slow, uncomfortable, and perhaps not as capable as its predators. But the box is never empty and it doesn't have s single square inch of chrome on it, and that's the way I want it.
Mr Regular, you missed the mark on this one. Not even close. Proud owner of a 2006 Ranger here. It's an extremely tough, reliable truck that is definitely NOT disposable.
Jon Clark yeah this episode was really disappointing. He just completely shit all over the truck. my 4.0 has been a dream, and everyone I know who has had one has talked about how reliable these trucks are.
@@BlackWidowMac The last few years of the OHV 4.0 5-speed Ranger (I can't speak about the SOHC version although it gives the truck over 200 horsepower so it should be pretty good too) represent, to me, the PERFECT power-to-weight ratio for a small pickup truck. On paper, more mass = more traction, but this is hardly ever applicable to real life in my experience. In real life, the truck just refuses to get stuck where a lot of bigger, more powerful, and overall "better" trucks will, simply because it's not sinking into the earth, digging itself a deeper and deeper hole the more you spin the tires. They're super fun to drive, too. When you're not carrying a load they actually haul ass. Really fun with the 5-speed, riding that fine line between traction and the rear end slipping out when you hit a wide open, empty on-ramp in the rain. RCR hates on 99% of trucks, if you see what he looks like IRL he's a dead-ringer for the bearded soyjak memes, right down to the whole raising someone else's kid cuckoldery.
@@helicopter2992 hard to maintain a clean manual when your arms are covered in grease and dirt up to your elbows. You would know that but... oh wait... you dont actually work on a car.
@@helicopter2992 it's not about money... I have enough money to take it to the shop. But the shop will not care for my baby like I will. A shop may not do the job right, amd a shop will likely try to sell you a job you dont need. If I do my own work, not only do I have the knowledge to repair it, which could help me should I get stranded, but I also know that my car is in top shape and the jobs have been done correctly.
those 2wd Rangers are indestructible! a company I worked for used them as work trucks..you couldnt kill the things. but they did have 4cyl...well mine was only running on three cylinders but it had ac and the bench seat is really comfortable
we still have a running 2.3 ranger on our lot. it gets taken out a few times a week. the new one is getting driven more but the old one puts in work too
we still have a running 2.3 ranger on our lot. it gets taken out a few times a week. the new one is getting driven more but the old one puts in work too
Owned an 08 2.3l, and now have a 05 4.0l Ranger and I couldn't disagree more. Love both of these trucks, they are so simple and compact, and do great in the city and off road as well.
the official Truck/ute of "rev its balls off, dump clutch and slam those gears, because we need to get through this intersection before the light goes red again"
I had a 1994 Ford Ranger with 271k miles on the original engine and transmission and I know other people who had even more miles on theirs. Suggesting that these trucks aren't built to last is quite laughable. I only got rid of it because I wanted something different. It was a 4x4 extended cab with the 4.0 v6 and a 5-speed manual transmission which is the most desirable ranger.
Audiwan Kenobi Drinking performance? What in the actual fuck are you talking about? I know, I know, you meant driving performance but make sure you proofread next time. And I've owned a Saab 9-5 Aero before so your assumption is incorrect my friend.
KentB27 my brother still owns the same Blue '96 Ford Ranger 2.3l RWD 5spd EXTCab XLT that our dad bought originally from a local Ford Dealership 21 Years ago. It's still on somewhat of the original drivetrain and most of the parts including some of the belts are original. It's had the clutch and some of the synchros replaced, but that's it. Needless to say, but it was also neglected. It was driven with 8-10 year old tires and was only given an oil change when it wouldn't crank which was usually in about 20-40k miles. It also towed alot as well hauling our popup and uhaul trailers across the country when we moved from NM to SC and back again. It's now at about 245k miles going strong and well maintained by my brother, opposed to our father. It's my brother's daily driver in which he uses to commute to a nearby school, ROTC, and anything else he wants to throw at it. It usually drives around 1k miles per week and like I said has had very few issues. Granted the Power Steering pump is very loud so loud in fact that it's more audible than the engine, but in the end it's a tried and true workhorse that keeps on going.
I have a 2001 XLT Supercab 4.0L. 243.000 miles. I went to Pick and Pull here in San Antonio along with a few other salvage yards just looking for a side mirror glass that got knocked off in the car wash. I could not find any Rangers, "none" ! Plenty of S-10's, Dodge Dakota's and Imports, but no Rangers! I asked the guy at the desk why no Rangers? He said, "they are all still on the road" !
@@philipgates988 best truck ever made???? the 4.0 SOHC engine is so bad.... it gave the explorer the "exploDer" nickname,... . the 5 speed stick is a LIGHT duty mazda trans.... that has shift fork issues the rest of the truck is mazda light duty as well...... from wheel bearings to ball joints to differentials . any old 73 to 86 GM half ton..... and the equivalent ford f150 and dodge will haul more, pull more, and not break parts doing it the 5.4 3v titan has its issues too..... but its LIGHT YEARS better than the 4.0 SOHC . idk..... if you live in a city, and only haul a bed and trash once in a while.... sure . but if you live in bum-fuck montana, like i do..... and actually do real work with the pickup.... ill take my old beater 77 chevy K-10 over any year ford ranger . and i own a 94 ford ranger.....4.0 pushrod, and 5 speed stick . hell.... my 97 jeep grand Cherokee is heavier duty than that 94 ranger.... front and rear axles are stronger.... the AMC 4.0 L6 is legendary.... it has a higher tow/haul rating.... and the transfer case is WAY better and stronger... . ford only has 2wd.... part time 4.... and part time 4 lo while the jeep has 2wd....FULL TIME 4 (aka, you can drive it on dry roads at highway speeds)....part time 4.... and part time 4 lo . and the jeep gets better MPG.....
hell.... you probably dont even have a 4 wheel drive ranger..... . just live in the city where it doesnt snow at all..... why not just get a pruis? its got the same tow rating lol
my friend has a ranger that he dailies since he sold his 2 step jetta. it's got well over 200k miles (so did that jetta). Rangers runs fine for that many miles
Sube Tube the older ones from the 80s-90s with a the 2.3l 4 cylinder 5 speeds go forever. The automatics were junk and the v6 with the Manuals were also junk.
96 lima coming up on 300k. Its too good to get rid of when its worth nothing but wont die and can't be replaced without spending good money. Rust free as well.
I quite liked the older Ranger trucks. I'm surprised because I didn't think it had a bad reputation. I still see a lot on the road, and would seriously consider it if I found one in good shape, although I guess I like these sized trucks, as I still own an old Nissan pickup, and I used to own a Ranger too.
I just got a 2.3 2011 Ranger xl and its perfect for what I need it (fuel efficiency, and 1000 pounds of payload), most people drive overkill trucks they never fully take advantage of, but if you need more than the Ranger can give you then it isn't for you, that doesn't make it a bad vehicle, I love my Ranger.
My 98 has enough rust holes in the tailgate that you could cut it up and use as swiss cheese. 190,000 miles and no repairs except basic maintenance. It doesn't have working AC or interior lights thoughm
I have a 2010 Ranger with a regular cab and the 4 cylinder engine. I bought it with 80,000 miles on it and it was well taken care of. I've touched up a few rock chips, replaced the one piece center armrest with one that opens up for extra storage and put in a spray in bed liner. I've replaced the tranny fluid, diff oil, flushed the power steering, bled the brakes, coolant, replaced the spark plugs and wires and now I'm quite convinced I can go 300,000 miles on this plain old truck still getting 29 mpg and still laughing at the guys with the big trucks that aren't doing any more work than I do with it, and aren't having any more fun that I have with it transporting two kayaks, and bicycles for family fun. Everything is easy to work on, I actually like the roll down windows and rubber floors, parts are cheap and the radio sounds good enough. I don't know if I might have to go through some extra steps if I ever have to replace the motor mounts, but I doubt that's an issue with the four bangers. So, to hell with your putting down the Ranger. With the humble 4 cylinder engine I can still get to 75 mph if I really had to, but I drive it at 60 and 65 because that's the speed limit and that's how I get 29 mpg in a truck when F150's get 18.
my granddad drove ford rangers with 3.0 vulcan v6's for years, his last one lasted 330,000 miles without ever opening the engine, it was on the factory timing chain and factory head gaskets. he hauled tons of weight in the back of them too (a few times he had 2 55 gallon drums of lacquer thinner in the back), they're tough trucks
Agreed. They are tough and reliable. I have had two. One I sold at 220K miles never doing more than oil changes and breaks. It had a 2.3 liter 4 cylinder. The guy that bought it put 80K more miles on it before a collision with a deer brought the truck to its untimely death. I wouldn't even hesitate to buy another one
Pretty scathing review. Years ago, I owned a Ford Ranger similar to this one, mine was black with the 3.0L V6 and 5-Speed. It was actually a great truck! It had 70K on it when I bought it and was nearing 150K when I traded it off in 2011 for a new F-150. But in the 80K miles I drove that truck it never gave me a single problem, it worked like a fine tuned watch, Never ran rough, always started. So at least in my personal experience, I don't think the Ranger's are quiet as disposable as they are cut out to be here. But that's just one mans experience. Either way, enjoyed the video! Always do!
What is good for the consumer is bad for your neighbors. Consumers smile at low prices brought to you by cheap labor half a world away. I am proud to pay more if it means more Americans earn a living wage.
The Chicken Tax is why the beds for the Courier, Luv, Toyota and Nissan looked so much alike, they were made in California. The Scoobedoo Brat’s seats were outlandishly unsafe but exempted it. The first Ford Transit vans were fitted with every seat except the front two in the USA because of the Chicken Tax.
@@stopchangingmynameyoutube I bet your tool box has quality tools like mine and those who support globalization have a Chinese tool box full of knuckle breaking 3rd world slave labor tools and a house full of the latest and greatest particle board furniture. Live American, buy American, support American when ever possible is my motto and if US made isn't available I support our allies not some third-world communist shithole that wants America dead. I can't believe that people would support the loss of jobs in their communities for shitty made garbage that enforces brutal regimes and human rights violations.
wrong , wrong , wrong. the courier was a mazda, at 83 it became the ranger and it was a ford design. Mazda continued to use the b2000 for many years I think in the mid 90's mazda just rebadged the Ranger
its kinda of weird , in the 70's American manufacturers just rebadged Japanese trucks Ford Courier Chevy Luv, Dodge d50 but by the 90s they rebadged American trucks as Japanese , Mazda 2300, ISuzu Hombre , Mitsubishi Raider
You beat me to this comment. As I was watching I was asking myself...was I always wrong? lol I owned a Mazda B3000 manual that is exactly the truck in this video only badged a Mazda. Labels all over it as being built by Ford here in the states. Everything I looked into said it was a Ford design and the Ford 3.0L V6.
You want a really good mind fuck? The GMT355 Chevy Colorado, GMC Canyon Isuzu I series trucks started out as Isuzu trucks. GM then took their Atlas 4 and 5 cylinder engines as well as the made to break electrical, and replaced the Isuzu drivetrain and electrics. Then, they rebadged THAT back to Isuzu.
I own a 1995 Mazda B2300 5-Speed Manual. My truck is a rebadged Ford Ranger. 1994, I believe, was the first model year for the Mazda Rebranded Ford Ranger B2300 / B3000 / B4000. Mazda sold their own truck B2000 / B2200 / B2600i until the 1993 model year.
If I ever found myself to be in possesion of a Ranger, I'll just drop in an LS, a T56, and LSD and call it a day. Of course, there is no better name than Danger Ranger.
I have a 2003 Ranger base with V6. 3,290,000 miles on it. It was my first "truck" and I treat her like it. I don't have to time to fix her up without taking her out of operation but she has yet to leave me stranded. I've been in accidents and she always drove away working just fine. I don't know how she's still alive but I'll always love her for it.
I used to drive one of those when I was a parts driver for AutoZone. (4-cylinder) They handled surprisingly well for a truck but I have to agree with what you said in the beginning. They are one of the worst cars to dive in the wet or snow on the market.
Hakeem Mulholland I had two 67 coupes an 82 hatch, a 90 convertible and a 91 gt hatch. They were all great vehicles but where awful in wet conditions. I will say though the 67's were better than the latter one I drove. Anyhow the Ranger is a low maintenance and all around great little truck. Have had mine for going on 9 years 141000 miles and NO Major issues. Just normal wear and tear and upkeep. This video isn't even an actual review.
das 1988 You sure have had a nice collection of pony power. I'm sure the 67's lack of heavy modern safety features made it lightweight and a blast to drive, even on a solid axle! I knew the Ranger's simple built and bulletproof engines would serve them well. Thanks for sharing.
Interesting indeed. I like having both the high beams and fog lights on when driving through a forest at night. High beams to see far ahead, fog lights for the side of the road. The fog lights make the deer eyes twinkle as they stand in the dirt next to the road.
I guess my point is... how would you catch somebody? You'd turn off high beams before the cop comes around the curve, and it'd be impossible to tell if they're following.
And cars like my mom's XC90 would be illegal full stop because lowbeam and highbeams are separate bulbs, with an additional switch for auxiliary fog lights.
I still love my 2004 Ranger Edge Supercab with wing doors. I bought it new. It came with 3.0 V6, 16" wheels, 4.10 diff, AC, automatic with overdrive. I added a frame hitch and removable ladder rack. Otherwise it's bone stock. I'm an old guy and don't go out in public too often, so it only has 33,000 miles on it. The AC doesn't get cold anymore but I don't care since I think I've only used it 3 or 4 times since I got the truck. My only real complaint about the truck is the front suspension. The ball joints are creaking and I had to replace the sway bar linkage last year. Ball joints should last past 33,000 miles. I have the new parts and will get to them eventually. Broke my hip 2 years ago and the day after I was released from physical rehab facility, the fuel pump went tits up at Walmart. Being on a walker, I had no choice but to have it towed to a garage and the fuel pump replaced. The tow, labor and fuel pump set me back $875 that I really hated turning loose of. Other than the fuel pump episode, it has never let me down. Gas mileage runs between 16 and 19 mpg, but at about 1500 miles a year, that's not really a factor worth considering. It's good to have a truck once in a while and this one fills the bill. For the grungey, funky stuff, I have a small Harbor Freight trailer that I have used exactly twice since I got it 15 years ago. I use the truck so little that the battery would go down between uses and only last a year or two, so I tossed a 20 watt solar panel in the bed and hung a charge controller on the back of the seat that I could see from the kitchen window. If I look out and see the green LED, I know the battery is full. Current battery is almost 8 years old and still going strong. Overall I've been quite pleased with the Ranger and have no regrets over buying it.
6:37- 6:46 "the freedom from the anxiety that every true blooded weirdo has, that whatever face you're presenting to the world is the wrong one" Wow that sums up a lot
We had a 94 Ranger (but with the 4.0L V6 fuel chugger) in automatic. I bought it for $500, and put another $200 into it. My wife drove it for 3 years, then we gave it to her stepdad. He still drives it, and it still runs. It's made out of inefficiency and simplicity, just as I'd expected, but at 200,000 KM, it's not bad. As long as you don't have to sit in the "adventure seats".
He couldn't grasp that by the robust body on frame construction, or the fact that a small truck that they call a "half ton" actually hauls about 5/8 of a ton. Personally I think the ranger was a great truck and so did America considering it went from 98-2012 pretty much unchanged.
@@ragingmcqueen is a ¼" ratchet still a ratchet and still have a purpose even though a ½" ratchet is more robust? A truck is a tool to do a job, the Ranger wasn't meant to tow 15,000LBs but by that same rationale a 1 ton truck didn't get 23 MPGs either not even with the best diesel of the era... So if your a handyman, painter or landscaper a mini truck definitely fit the bill as the proper tool to do the job better then a truck that was designed to tow large equipment or carry large loads.
@@AtomicReverend quit comparing apples to oranges. A 1/4 actually has a purpose. This is a ranger with a shit v6. The ranger is the personification of "I just do enough so I dont get fired." The "pick up" is a sorry excuse of itself. With the likes of the little foreign pick ups in the same category the ranger, it will always be last. The only thing the ranger is good for is realizing your little rinky dink car with a box is good for a parts runner and a winter beater you hope to god doesnt break down on you during a blizzard.
@@ragingmcqueen I made a valid point not an opinion as you just did. The 3.0 vulcan V6 had a 22 year production run which is longer then most engine families from any manufacturer. it is a pushrod 2 valve engine... In other words the same style all domestic trucks used for decades. Is it the fastest? Probably not but it is a pickup truck it isn't built for speed, what it does have is a flat torque curve and good lower end power. Now let's leave the engine behind which clearly you do not understand let's look at the actual truck the Ranger was the last of the compacts sold in America at that time as the Nissan frontier, Toyota Tacoma, Chevy Colorado, and Dodge Dakota were all midsize trucks with larger engine compartments and also all of those trucks are significantly newer by design and yet couldn't dethrone the ranger until it was a really old body style but I degress. I bought little Rangers over the years the first was a brand new 1998 b2500 Mazda ranger clone and the next was a 06 with a 3.0 both manual trans trucks... both were sold off in great shape at over 200,000 miles of being southern California work trucks... They were good trucks for what they were both could have used 75 more horsepower but the reality is I bought them knowing they weren't the fastest... Again a ¼" ratchet doing small jobs...
I know this is an opinion piece, but I took it a little persoanl. You reveiwed the wrong ford ranger. It's too late of a model, and has the worst of the 3 engine choices. The vheichle I learned to drive stick on is a 94 ranger with over 300,000 miles and it's still going strong. These aren't as much of a throw away car as you portray them. anyway, love your stuff, keep it coming!
I disagree with most of your comments. I own a 2006 Ranger 2wd, 4 cylinder, and I love it. Whatever it needs, it gets. It has hauled a ton of cargo over the years, and I wouldn't trade it for anything. One of the best vehicles I have ever owned.
I can, actually. When you have your high beams on in fog (or heavy, large-flake snow), the light gets reflected back at you, lowering your ability to see beyond the reflective light sources. It's not a "depends" situation, it's a known safety fact. If you think driving around in fog with your brights on is a good idea, please please PLEASE do us all a favor and stay home during fog.
Grindstone, this can be true. However, there are times where it can be tricky between "Is there enough fog for it to reflect back," and "Is there not too much fog, and I can burn through it? The same with snow. Mike has it pinned--you try both, and pick which works best.
To be fair, I love my 2004 ford Ranger Edge. Mine has the 4.0 however. Edit, since moving to Arizona, with plentiful off road trails and shit to do, I can still vouch. This truck is fast, sporty, and generally fun. The 4.0 gives it a lovely sound, plenty of power for a light-duty truck. The edge trim, with the factory lift makes for a decent off road truck. Mine is RWD, so it makes a fairly good "pre-runner" even though it's still mostly stock.
I love my 95 ranger. It has 360k on the original 4 banger and manual trans. I treat it like shit, and it keeps asking for more. When everything else I have is broken, I know the ranger will get me there and back.
I have a 99 4.0 it has 150k on it and only problems I have with it have been vacuum lines on front hubs the very rear end of the frame rails rusting and a mix of o2 sensors not working and small vacuum leaks
Chantal Beck Nah fam. The ealry models are some of the most reliable light trucks around, which is why you'll constantly see these fuckers on the road 20 years later. With newer ones I can understand the gripes, but early models last longer than shit. My 95 is at 210, no issues and i beat the absolute fuck out of it on a daily basis. Its not heresay that makes it such a beloved machine its the genuine reliability. RCR really missed the mark by writing them all off as shit when he drove a Mexican assembled newer model but it really just reassures me that i made the right choice choosing an older one when i coulda grabbed a 2006 for a few hundred more
My 2008 Ranger 2.3L automatic has needed exactly one part replacement outside of oil and air filters. The A/C blend door. It is nearly indestructible and maintenance free. It rides a like an old truck, is not great in emergency response maneuvering, has the traction of steel wheels on an ice rink but I still like driving it.
IDk. I like my 2010 with the 4.0 It's slow and doesn't haul much. But it's nice to have a truck to do truck things, but still be able to park the damn thing in my garage. The 4 bangers backed with manuals will outlast cockroaches im pretty sure.
I like them too. In fact, I feel like getting one with a 4 cylinder and manual tranny once I start driving and have enough money to get one of them. And just to be clear here, this guy reviewed the wrong Ford Ranger because this particular one was a fleet truck with the lack luster 3.0 Vulcan V6. If this were a 2.3 4 cylinder or 4.0L V6, I am sure he would have much better to say about it so I wouldn't recommend letting this guy fool you about this Ranger.
What? The 3.0L Vulcan is a gem of a motor. It's the 4.0L that's the POS. This whole review seems like opposite day for me. The Ranger is an awesome light duty pickup that lasts forever. Literally every Canadian has had one in their families. I have a friend whole had one just like this and it ran up past 500,000K with virtually no issues and he beat the piss outta it.... and never changed the motor oil... not fucking once! Maybe that's this guys problem? He's not driving it like you're supposed to drive a Ranger. So hard it bleeds!
Canadian here: agreed, my father owned three, I have one, all standard, all 3 liters. Planning on keeping it for years. If I can fight the rust, I will just put a cummins r 2.8 in when it gets tired.
the cammer 4.0 is good...but the old 4.0 is really garbage...it suck the gas of a 460 and pull like a pinto 4 3.0l are tough but extremly weak and not as good on gas one would expect, for example i got better MPG with a EFI 302 i owned 4 with 3.0l
I got a 2000 ford ranger and it has some pretty good torque and some get up and go, even though it's a 3.0. honestly it's a great vehicle and very reliablr
The Trailhead is a great variant. LSD in the rear and a 4x4 suspension setup on a 2wd. Traction is great and it'll climb a wet gravel mountain road like a billy goat!
It kills me. Do you know how rusty that truck would be if it was here in central NY? That truck in the video would sell for $6,000-$7,000 up here on a used lot.
I semi-frequently visit the area Mr. Regular gets his review cars from and yes it's much different from central NY to south PA much different in terms of harshness. Much less salt and calcium chloride on the roads and I'm always surprised the stuff I see down there that people still drive. A mostly rust free ranger of this era would bring decent money here in central NY where everything is garbage after 10 years.
psergott That would be because South Eastern PA isn't good PA. That's fake "We wanna be PA, but we wanna be a bunch of wussy, jaggoff wannabies." They're a lot closer to the ocean and get warmer weather. Try central PA, through western PA though. Tons more snow, salt, and grick. If they bother salting or plowing, that is. Many communities just don't give a crap anymore, since their budgets were cut back during the sequester years of about 2012 and 2013.
about37ninjas In early 80's a couple of F1 engines were 4 cyl, the most powerful being the BMW M12/13 1.5 liters turbocharged engine, managing to make around 1400 hp in qualifying sessions during 1986 with maxed boost... and F1 is very very far from being a communist thing.. By the way, Mao Tse Tung's official car had a V8 engine :D
I see you haven't watched TGT yet. Also, of course the communist leaders keep the nice things for themselves and leave Communist 2 cylinder 2.1 liter engines for everyone else.
And look where a nation of lawnmower engine cars has gotten you 2.bp.blogspot.com/-RITkh3VBGP8/Vp4w1CPJknI/AAAAAAAAdEE/SXQ54r42JKw/s1600/crisis_diarios_Venezuela_Caracas_t670x470.jpg
Hell, I got my 2002 from my grandpa (its his old farm truck) and I've been fixing it up and so far it's been a really solid, simple truck. Perfect for a small, reliable, simple little pickup to do whatever you need to do
I drive a 2002 ford ranger. It's my first car and I really don't have many complaints. Sure it sucks that I can't street race anyone but a Volkswagen bug, and the locks & windows are manual. But it really is rugged and reliable. The A/C and defroster work better than any other car I've seen. The seats are comfortable and it's such a simple interior that it takes 10 minutes to vacuum and clean everything, and most important is that it gets me from point A to point B reliably and comfortably. I'm happy to have my Ranger
it got the name Ranger from the 1960s and 70s when Ford named F150 pickup body styles "Ranger" packages... some were also "Camper Specials". Has nothing to do with Edsel.
Edsel was the first Ford nameplate to use "Ranger" as a model name., Car companies do this a lot. The original Park Avenue was a Cadillac then a Buick later.
I must've been one of the lucky ones to get one that lasts, lol! I have the standard old barebones ranger that used to be a fleet truck for the highway crews. 2004 3.0 6 cyclinder single cab 7 foot bed. It has over 186,000 miles on it currently, use it as my daily driver. Never done anything but basic maintenance for the last few years I've owned it.
My 99 Ranger 2.5L 4cyl. was a hot steaming pile of dog shit. Low compression at 50k, blown trans at 17k, blown rearend at 95k. Headliner sagged, seat broke and the rear window leaked, all before it was 7 years old. Now my 93 ranger 4.0 V6 different story. I beat that thing like it owed me money. Had a 5" suspension, 3" body lift on 33's. Trans blew only because it got water in it after I partially submerged it in a lake. Hung in there for 220k miles until it met it's death in a rollover accident on the highway.
I had a 1994 Mazda b4000 LE ext cab, basically the same truck. kept it for 13 years after buying it used in 1995. Had the 4.0 liter Ford v6. Great little truck. Sold it to a friend of mine, he still has it to this day, still running just fine. Only issue i ever had out of it was the paint (black) was terrible. I think that was it. I had it painted about a year before I sold it. 2wd, had to be careful in the rain, motor had a lot of torque and would spin the tires easily. Later versions of the 4.0 had much more hp, i dont know if they were as bullet proof as my 1994... happy memories! mpg was about 19 overall in mixed driving i think...
I'm really sad.. I've had 2 rangers, first went to 200k absolutely worry free rattle free. 97 with the 2.3. I'm on my second, 150k, 3.0 v6, also a 97, and it's been unstoppable. best truck ever? he'll no. but it's unique and perfect for me. And here in new york, inside the Hudson valley they are highly wanted and EVERYWHERE. everyone's had one. they ARE the regular car.
The base 4 cylinder seemed pretty forgiving. They were often discounted for like 9 grand and some change that era for a basic work truck. A fuel efficient (over 25 mpg common) work truck for landscapers and light work duty. Sure, it was all we had for simple cheap work duty. I would prefer a Tacoma, but those things suddenly became a Camry Truck in the mid 2000's. Weighted, Expensive, not Simple. The best small trucks were the last of the 22R Yota in 1993. My friend had a 89 white base model vinyl seat with no rear bumper model that his dad bought for 6500 bucks new. Drove it through high school and into 1999 with over 250k miles, doing third gear chirps, taking it off road, and there was not a single panel without a dent of some sort. All he did was a clutch and heater core in over 10 years and 250k. It was burning a qt a week when he sold it, but it ran well enough. Sold it for $1500 to a Gardener in the bay area. I wish we could get simple tough cheap cars and trucks these days.
kirbyswarp The Ranger “S” had the 2.0 and no power steering. It also had a Mazda engine management system, not even the simple and stupid EEC-III Ford setup
I own a 2001 Ford Ranger 3.0 v6 (3rd generation 1998-2012) and it's awesome. And I'm at 188,000 miles. Plus I see them every where I go running and sounding great. 💪
Wow REALLY? High maintenance?! My old man has a 2000 which, despite what the internet will tell you had the 1998 2.3 liter engine they SUPPOSEDLY stopped using in 1998, the same engine they used in a fucking Pinto, the same engine they used in shitty 1980s 2.3 liter Mustangs... it's a dog for sure, but it's 17 years old now and the only thing he's ever done is put gas in it and barely remember to change oil every 7,000 miles (and no, that's not the recommended interval). Almost 2 decades of pure hassle free motoring... the only problem it really has is the RUST. The cab is bad enough it probably won't pass PA inspection this fall when it's due, which is a shame, because the thing just keeps going and never needs any work.
I always kinda wondered what happened to the small truck market. Chicken Tax. I didn't understand anything you said about that, but now my kneejerk answer to what happened to the Ford Ranger will be "Chicken Tax".
It goes deeper than that actually. The problem is these days the demand doesn't justify them. People want bigger vehicles. Compare a 2003 F-150 to a 2013 F-150. These true small trucks also had poor crash test ratings due to their old designs and they weren't going to shell out to upgrade them. They had sold the same Ranger from 1989-2012. And then there's fuel mileage. They were hard to get exempt from car fuel mileage requirements due to their low weight.
I refuse to believe that Ford couldn't build a better, more efficient, more usable small truck if the demand was there. When I was in high school in the late 80's EVERYONE had a small truck. There was even a pretty active tuner marked specifically for small trucks. With the added bonus that you could move everything you owned (at 20 years old) from apartment to apartment in two trips. I just miss the whole concept of an affordable, but viable, small car/truck market. But I think technology and regulation has ruined all that. I own a 2016 Miata and a 1990 Miata. I prefer the 1990 every single day.
The Mazda MX-5 ND is smaller in size and about 100Kg less in weight than the NC from 2015, and is in fact, the same length and height and only 300 pounds (about 15%) heavier as the original NA from 1990. So, clearly, you can. But it's hard. And automakers would rather put in a 7" touch screen and adaptive cruise control and extra large cup holders in their new cars than really make efficient use of space and weight. And then there's the issue of what the market wants. Yes, Americans want bigger and bigger vehicles. I know. Many of the vehicles I pull up to have tires taller than my door line and my entire car doesn't even measure up to the bottom of their windows. We absolutely CAN design and build small, efficient and cost effective vehicles. Big auto just ... isn't.
It was basically a protectionist tariff. 25% on light duty trucks built outside the US. It gave domestic automakers a leg up, and eventually caused other automakers to start assembling their trucks in the US to avoid the tax. However demand dropped off and it became less profitable to build for that segment in the US. The flipside of the tax is that it also means "domestic" companies like Ford, that are building small trucks outside of the US in places where the production costs are lower, can't import them back into the US for sale without incurring the tax themselves, and thus eliminating whatever profit margin they hoped to make on the smaller market that could be fulfilled by light duty trucks. So an automaker could build a true light duty pickup, but by the time all the numbers were added up, either because it was assembled in a tax-exempt location, or incurred the tax, it would likely be in the same price bracket (or pretty close) as a full sized pickup.
"Look on the bright side, 2016 is over"
If only you knew
For sure man 😂
facts
yep try 2020 on for size.... looking for a good 2011 4x4
I got some more bad news from the future you guys
The fools
“Throw away after 10k miles”
Every ranger on market place: laughs in 300k
I have a 2002 Ranger with the 2.3L 4-Cyl and its at over 299,000 miles
2007 3.0 with 200k here
original owner of an 05 ranger edge 2wd 3.0 255+.
I know, right? Rangers are an automotive equivalent to $10 toaster. It was cheap. You only expected it to last until you moved out of your first apartment. But, here, 20 years later in your third house you still have that fucking little toaster. Your wife says "lets get a stainless steel four-slice". But how can you throw away a perfectly functioning toaster. How can you throw away a perfectly functioning Ranger?
2006 2wd bought at 65k few years ago and it's now at 97k
“The ford ranger is disposable”
Ford ranger gang member :
*Angry*
It's a Mazda. Admit it!
@@utah133 that's not the argument
A N G R E
You damn Skippy!
A N G Y
>:c
I knew a guy with one. He fixed it by yelling and swearing at it a lot.
Well, that's Ford for you.
Yeah, that does work
😂😂 I'm dead
People can rag on a Ranger all they want. I have a 1991 that I just rolled over 300 thousand miles and drive it daily with no issues
Hmm, maybe it varies from year to year; maybe newer ones aren't as easy. I have no idea though.
My uncle has had two, one that I wrecked that need an engine at 206k and the replacement and we love/loved both of them and besides the cylinder wall wearing through we haven't had any major issues
The old 2.3, how such an underpowered engine could last so incredibly long...is astonishing.
Underpowered engines are also generally understressed. Look at the reliability and the maintenance requirements for high performance engines. Then compare those to boring, low horsepower engines like in the Ranger or an econobox car. Many lower end or day-to-day commuter car engines are intentionally underpowered to help with longevity. Derating the horsepower places less stress on the engine and related components.
Absolutely not bullshit. Take a look at all engines known for extreme reliability. They are NOT performing at maximum power, and for good reason. Take those same engines and add some forced induction. See how long things last like that.
Mine has the 4.0 - 4. 10 gearing 4x4 with limited slip differential.
I think your friend shouldn't have gotten the lowest trim level possible. That model is used as a fleet vehicle.
J. James I’d rather have the four banger than the 3.0 V6. Similar power and better gas mileage.
TatersUnited and Mazda L engine is insane for turbo charging, you’d be suprised, thing is the ranger is known as the danger ranger because it can easily flip when lifted lol, had that happen to mine :/
I had 97 2.3 base model that at its best got 27 mpg, 94 2.3 got 24 to 25, and 2000 2.5 20 to 22, all but the 2.5 had lackluster power, ie didn't like climbing hills on freeway. The latest 2000 is 3.0 auto and purrs and gets 20 mpg city so far and with 220k no trans probs. The first 3 were stick and had better acceleration and control than an auto trans. If this new truck gets the 27 rated or better mpg I'm happy. The 4 cylinder ford engines due to different rear end gearings lost the balls a stick pinto had, hell I had one that could chirp 4 gears and it's beat up shocked the fuck out of bigger car drivers as how quick it could move. But after all this in small trucks it beat hell out of the s10 4s which were constantly blowing head gaskets.
@@DieselDog1982 did you forget about the Toyota 3.0 that came in the 4runners and Pickups head gaskets for part of the 30,000 mile maintenance schedule..., that was the worst V6 engine ever made... Followed by the mopar 3.5. The pushrod 4.0 was good and the OHC 4.0 had mild timing chain issues when it wasn't properly maintained.
@@DieselDog1982 yeah and? mine has over 400k and it doesnt even tick. Runs a little hot but could prolly use a new thermostat nothin else wrong with it
In Europe this is pretty much the only "American" truck we get so people buy it and think it's a F150. It's sad.
Although these days an F-150 is considered the small truck and most men 'round here drive an F-250 or an F-350. The F-150 is for GIRLS.
That is not representative for the Europe I know of. I have never seen a US Ranger and full size pickup trucks are a relatively regular sight, although they are getting older and rarer.
The only thing American trucks has going for them nowadays is looks and physical size.
Global pickups has caught up, and even surpassed the Americans on payload and European rules bans us from hauling trailer heavier than 3500kg (7716lbs). That is unless the vehicle is registered as a commercial truck.
Your Ranger and our Ranger are not the same truck.
Torvikholm
What I saw in the Netherlands, vans were much more popular than pickup trucks.
vesinorsu fully loaded ford ranger in vietnam. 32k. fully loaded camry... 100k the tax laws are great
"The Ford Ranger is Disposable."
*Cracks fingers whilst preparing to type on keyboard*
The Kerminator same man, obviously some people have better experiences with the ranger than others but it is what it is
Just like your brain was, too bad it was already gone many years ago
I have a 2001 edge. Everything is original gonna need to get the transmission replaced soon. My grandpa got it new and my father got it from him. It is mine now. My first car. It has 284k miles on it. I love it.
Lol it's because he has a 2007. 2004 is the last year of the "reliable ranger" that lasts 300k.
@@demontrav1918 I have a 2007 at 230k right now
You picked one with the worst engine lmao...the 2.9l V6 or to a slightly lesser extent, the 3.0l V6 Rangers aren't very good BUT if you get a 2.3l or 4.0l Ranger it will NEVER die....
the 4.0L is the cologne right? same as the 2.9?
I got 170k on my 3.0 2004, still running strong
Rubber You’re correct, the 2.9l and both 4.0l’s are all Cologne engines. The 2.9 and pushrod 4.0 engines were fairly reliable, as long as you never let them overheat and crack their heads. The overhead cam 4.0 was plagued with timing chain issues in the first few years of production, but put out significantly more horsepower and a decent bit more torque.
3.0 is the most reliable,it's been proven time and time again, they don't have the head issues the 2.9 did ,head gasket and intake gasket addiction the 4.0 push rod motors have .the sohc 4.0 is absolutely junk.i have 220k on my rangers 3.0 and I drive it like a rental full of hooker's ..still going strong
Wade berry I have an 07, sport with 4.11’s and the 3.0. Very great truck, running strong. Haven’t had a single issue except the radiator, it was an easy and cheap fix though. Having a freon leak too, but other than that, it runs flawlessly.
The oil filter placement on the 3.0 is awesome, It's directly above the exposed live wires for the starter in a spot a hand can barley fit. If the filter slips out of your hand and jams against the starter it will arc the terminals and crank the motor over uncontrollably with no oil then catch fire from the spraying lube..
Saab Sonett Broh!
before doing all this, I would disconnect the battery first
That's 80s American engineering for you. Haha 😂
Amesie's Automotive Corner no that's great because oil always gets on the starter and kills it.
Amesie's Automotive Corner yeah I don't miss working on the Ranger we had with that motor. Although spark plugs on an Ecotec S-10 are just as fun.
nah, Saab Turbo bro! :D
The rangers elegance lies in its simplicity. Interior that hasn't changed since the mid 90's and an engine that's hardly changed much either. I love mine for what it isn't.
I'm still head over heels for my 2004 base model with the 2.3 Duratec. It's got 3 pedals on the floor, limited slip in the back, AC, and the small square urban courier mirrors, and it's been very easygoing. The parts are cheap, it's Japanese (better) under the hood, and always turns right over and gets my ass and a trailer to Menards on the weekends.
I know it's not glamorous, and it doesn't measure up well to other trucks or cars on their terms. But on its terms, it's the right tool for the job and doesn't embellish itself beyond its abilities. It attacks challenges with an honest, "well, let's try and see how far we get," attitude and typically succeeds, though without fanfare. To me, its owner in its home twin cities, it's a symbol of the virtues of compromise, of making do with less, and of Midwest modesty. You may have been able to afford the best, but this is enough, and that's okay.
It's everything I could have wanted in a used vehicle, and it can be your only vehicle if you lack the ability to have two. It's slow, uncomfortable, and perhaps not as capable as its predators. But the box is never empty and it doesn't have s single square inch of chrome on it, and that's the way I want it.
The Mazda 2.3 is good, but the Ford 2.3 or 2.5 is stupid reliable as well.
Wow boy if you already like the 2.3 this much test-drive a 4.0 one day
Your comment sounds like if RCR wrote it themselves (but actually liked the ranger)
Mr Regular, you missed the mark on this one. Not even close. Proud owner of a 2006 Ranger here. It's an extremely tough, reliable truck that is definitely NOT disposable.
Jon Clark yeah this episode was really disappointing. He just completely shit all over the truck. my 4.0 has been a dream, and everyone I know who has had one has talked about how reliable these trucks are.
Jon Clark My 2001 works just fine
@@BlackWidowMac The last few years of the OHV 4.0 5-speed Ranger (I can't speak about the SOHC version although it gives the truck over 200 horsepower so it should be pretty good too) represent, to me, the PERFECT power-to-weight ratio for a small pickup truck. On paper, more mass = more traction, but this is hardly ever applicable to real life in my experience. In real life, the truck just refuses to get stuck where a lot of bigger, more powerful, and overall "better" trucks will, simply because it's not sinking into the earth, digging itself a deeper and deeper hole the more you spin the tires. They're super fun to drive, too. When you're not carrying a load they actually haul ass. Really fun with the 5-speed, riding that fine line between traction and the rear end slipping out when you hit a wide open, empty on-ramp in the rain. RCR hates on 99% of trucks, if you see what he looks like IRL he's a dead-ringer for the bearded soyjak memes, right down to the whole raising someone else's kid cuckoldery.
I loved the shot of him throwing the repair book.
i love how he thinks he can maintain a truck but can't even maintain the manual
@@helicopter2992 hard to maintain a clean manual when your arms are covered in grease and dirt up to your elbows. You would know that but... oh wait... you dont actually work on a car.
@@guy_incognito7538 yeah, because i'm not poor loser
@@helicopter2992 it's not about money... I have enough money to take it to the shop. But the shop will not care for my baby like I will. A shop may not do the job right, amd a shop will likely try to sell you a job you dont need. If I do my own work, not only do I have the knowledge to repair it, which could help me should I get stranded, but I also know that my car is in top shape and the jobs have been done correctly.
@@helicopter2992 I must say though im impressed you came back to reply to a comment on your year old reply.
those 2wd Rangers are indestructible! a company I worked for used them as work trucks..you couldnt kill the things. but they did have 4cyl...well mine was only running on three cylinders but it had ac and the bench seat is really comfortable
we still have a running 2.3 ranger on our lot. it gets taken out a few times a week. the new one is getting driven more but the old one puts in work too
we still have a running 2.3 ranger on our lot. it gets taken out a few times a week. the new one is getting driven more but the old one puts in work too
"displacing 3 liters of disappointment"
Man that hits hard
It's true, if you've ever owned one. That V6 was WEAK.
Vulcan V6 Taurus and Sable. The 3.8l '94 Sable I also had, gave out more punch than either of those dogs.
That8oySimba9302 140hp on a 3.0 is disappointing
The engine revs (unwillingly), but the truck doesn't move. I'm not sure how that's possible, but it's true.
That engine was basically unchanged since the late 80's Aerostars. Remember those junkers?
worst vehicle he's ever driven in the snow? I mean it is a 2wd truck right?
Maybe if he put some ballast in the back. . .
Open diff is really the problem here
Terminxman Big issue is no weight in the back, happens with my truck too.
Terminxman we reviewed the 4wd version. It did just fine in the snow
Worst is probably a gmc savanna which I've seen get stuck on 3 wet leaves.
I had a 98 ranger sport and you couldn't kill that damn thing.
I drove the wheels off it then went to Walmart and bought a new set.
Finally someone who understands no competition = shit cars.
Let me Borrow that Truck, surely a homage to the 2006 Let me Borrow that Top?
Owned an 08 2.3l, and now have a 05 4.0l Ranger and I couldn't disagree more. Love both of these trucks, they are so simple and compact, and do great in the city and off road as well.
the official Truck/ute of "rev its balls off, dump clutch and slam those gears, because we need to get through this intersection before the light goes red again"
I had a 1994 Ford Ranger with 271k miles on the original engine and transmission and I know other people who had even more miles on theirs. Suggesting that these trucks aren't built to last is quite laughable. I only got rid of it because I wanted something different. It was a 4x4 extended cab with the 4.0 v6 and a 5-speed manual transmission which is the most desirable ranger.
KentB27 fix or repair daily
zhbvenkhoReload Witty retort, chum.
KentB27 so basically you buy vehicles because you really don't car about drinking performance?....don't answer that, we already know.
Audiwan Kenobi Drinking performance? What in the actual fuck are you talking about? I know, I know, you meant driving performance but make sure you proofread next time. And I've owned a Saab 9-5 Aero before so your assumption is incorrect my friend.
KentB27 my brother still owns the same Blue '96 Ford Ranger 2.3l RWD 5spd EXTCab XLT that our dad bought originally from a local Ford Dealership 21 Years ago. It's still on somewhat of the original drivetrain and most of the parts including some of the belts are original. It's had the clutch and some of the synchros replaced, but that's it. Needless to say, but it was also neglected. It was driven with 8-10 year old tires and was only given an oil change when it wouldn't crank which was usually in about 20-40k miles. It also towed alot as well hauling our popup and uhaul trailers across the country when we moved from NM to SC and back again. It's now at about 245k miles going strong and well maintained by my brother, opposed to our father. It's my brother's daily driver in which he uses to commute to a nearby school, ROTC, and anything else he wants to throw at it. It usually drives around 1k miles per week and like I said has had very few issues. Granted the Power Steering pump is very loud so loud in fact that it's more audible than the engine, but in the end it's a tried and true workhorse that keeps on going.
Wow you're just trashing this thing, ive seen many rangers still running that are at almost 400 thousand miles
I heard there is one in a showroom in Columbus that's not only at 700,000 but spotless.
Yeah, this guys an idiot. Best trucks ever made.
I have a 2001 XLT Supercab 4.0L. 243.000 miles. I went to Pick and Pull here in San Antonio along with a few other salvage yards just looking for a side mirror glass that got knocked off in the car wash. I could not find any Rangers, "none" ! Plenty of S-10's, Dodge Dakota's and Imports, but no Rangers! I asked the guy at the desk why no Rangers? He said, "they are all still on the road" !
@@philipgates988 best truck ever made????
the 4.0 SOHC engine is so bad.... it gave the explorer the "exploDer" nickname,...
.
the 5 speed stick is a LIGHT duty mazda trans.... that has shift fork issues
the rest of the truck is mazda light duty as well...... from wheel bearings to ball joints to differentials
.
any old 73 to 86 GM half ton..... and the equivalent ford f150 and dodge will haul more, pull more, and not break parts doing it
the 5.4 3v titan has its issues too..... but its LIGHT YEARS better than the 4.0 SOHC
.
idk..... if you live in a city, and only haul a bed and trash once in a while.... sure
.
but if you live in bum-fuck montana, like i do..... and actually do real work with the pickup....
ill take my old beater 77 chevy K-10 over any year ford ranger
.
and i own a 94 ford ranger.....4.0 pushrod, and 5 speed stick
.
hell.... my 97 jeep grand Cherokee is heavier duty than that 94 ranger....
front and rear axles are stronger.... the AMC 4.0 L6 is legendary.... it has a higher tow/haul rating....
and the transfer case is WAY better and stronger...
.
ford only has 2wd.... part time 4.... and part time 4 lo
while the jeep has 2wd....FULL TIME 4 (aka, you can drive it on dry roads at highway speeds)....part time 4.... and part time 4 lo
.
and the jeep gets better MPG.....
hell.... you probably dont even have a 4 wheel drive ranger.....
.
just live in the city where it doesnt snow at all..... why not just get a pruis?
its got the same tow rating lol
To whatever happens to everyone reading this comment, have a good new year and make 2017 better than the last👍🏼
Thank you
Mike Halve why was last year soooooo awful? maybe for kids in Aleppo, but why you?
Mike Halve hopefully less celebrities will die this year.
Back at ya, Mike!
NO! 2016 was fine (entertaining), if you weren't in the Middle-east or Europe.
my friend has a ranger that he dailies since he sold his 2 step jetta. it's got well over 200k miles (so did that jetta). Rangers runs fine for that many miles
Sube Tube the older ones from the 80s-90s with a the 2.3l 4 cylinder 5 speeds go forever. The automatics were junk and the v6 with the Manuals were also junk.
Dodge 318 Cummins he's got a 99 manual 4 cylinder, so that explains why it's going so long
Sube Tube ya but those 1998-99 rangers are notorious for rotting out frames lol.
Dodge 318 Cummins got a 97 so I'm all good than
96 lima coming up on 300k. Its too good to get rid of when its worth nothing but wont die and can't be replaced without spending good money. Rust free as well.
I quite liked the older Ranger trucks. I'm surprised because I didn't think it had a bad reputation. I still see a lot on the road, and would seriously consider it if I found one in good shape, although I guess I like these sized trucks, as I still own an old Nissan pickup, and I used to own a Ranger too.
I was gonna go to sleep but an rcr video is a little more important
Molly Popper my point exactly
ya i feel ya bud it is now 8;12 am and i can see through time
a true rcr fan
Caroline Keat sure thing bot
To displace that kind of impatience, I'll wait a week.
You managed to not say DANGER RANGER even once
Congratulations
I exclusively refer to mine as the danger ranger lmao
@@bearspiritjpz my license plate says danger ranger
:'(
I just got a 2.3 2011 Ranger xl and its perfect for what I need it (fuel efficiency, and 1000 pounds of payload), most people drive overkill trucks they never fully take advantage of, but if you need more than the Ranger can give you then it isn't for you, that doesn't make it a bad vehicle, I love my Ranger.
Technically ranger started out as a trim level on the F-100
And then the product of one of the then most expensive research projects in automotive history. That's why the early rangers are immortal
Our old '91 is still in service. It's like, 45% rust.
My 98 has enough rust holes in the tailgate that you could cut it up and use as swiss cheese. 190,000 miles and no repairs except basic maintenance. It doesn't have working AC or interior lights thoughm
@@notgray88 Ours likes to pop freeze plugs all the time, and I can’t remember the last time we flushed it.
Four year update: it is now 55% rust.
@@ckn4rf that's really sad to hear. My f150 from 2003 is 10% rust and I stopped it in time. Can't imagine losing it
I have a 2010 Ranger with a regular cab and the 4 cylinder engine. I bought it with 80,000 miles on it and it was well taken care of. I've touched up a few rock chips, replaced the one piece center armrest with one that opens up for extra storage and put in a spray in bed liner. I've replaced the tranny fluid, diff oil, flushed the power steering, bled the brakes, coolant, replaced the spark plugs and wires and now I'm quite convinced I can go 300,000 miles on this plain old truck still getting 29 mpg and still laughing at the guys with the big trucks that aren't doing any more work than I do with it, and aren't having any more fun that I have with it transporting two kayaks, and bicycles for family fun. Everything is easy to work on, I actually like the roll down windows and rubber floors, parts are cheap and the radio sounds good enough. I don't know if I might have to go through some extra steps if I ever have to replace the motor mounts, but I doubt that's an issue with the four bangers. So, to hell with your putting down the Ranger. With the humble 4 cylinder engine I can still get to 75 mph if I really had to, but I drive it at 60 and 65 because that's the speed limit and that's how I get 29 mpg in a truck when F150's get 18.
my granddad drove ford rangers with 3.0 vulcan v6's for years, his last one lasted 330,000 miles without ever opening the engine, it was on the factory timing chain and factory head gaskets. he hauled tons of weight in the back of them too (a few times he had 2 55 gallon drums of lacquer thinner in the back), they're tough trucks
Agreed. They are tough and reliable. I have had two. One I sold at 220K miles never doing more than oil changes and breaks. It had a 2.3 liter 4 cylinder. The guy that bought it put 80K more miles on it before a collision with a deer brought the truck to its untimely death. I wouldn't even hesitate to buy another one
Jessa Phillips Mine had 215k when I sold it, fixed the clutch throw out bearing, that's it. Averaged 26 mpg too.
Jessa Phillips holy shit thats alot of lacquer thinner
Jessa Phillips I just wrecked a 2007 Ranger last week in a car accident. With no major injuries, I can agree these are tough little trucks
Yeah I was involved in a rollover accident and nobody was injured. I agree, these trucks are safe and reliable.
My friend have one of those, but a blue one, great little truck, not bad on gas, and it always get us everywhere.
Poland Garage isnt the v4 ok? I heard its reliable wayyyy more compared to thr v6
My uncle had a 97 Ford Ranger and it lasted all the way until 2010. The Ford Vulcan v6 is pretty reliable if you take care of it on oil changes.
Corrupt Zach Actually no it's not the stright 4, his ranger is a v6
Novusod exactly as long as you know how to take care of your stuff, it should be okay.
My neighbour had one for a duration of 2016.
I’ve had 4 rangers. All of them have served me well.
I disagree with most of this video.I own a 2004 and it is still going strong.
Same
This guy is lazy and apparently doesn’t research much. The 4.0 and 4 cylinder are reliable and affordable to maintain.
This guy has no clue. Ford Rangers are not a Mazda. They are 100% Ford. And my 99 3.0 5 speed manual has been extremely reliable
yea they last forever
Doxx Holiday even the 3.0 wasn’t too bad when it was in production
Pretty scathing review. Years ago, I owned a Ford Ranger similar to this one, mine was black with the 3.0L V6 and 5-Speed. It was actually a great truck! It had 70K on it when I bought it and was nearing 150K when I traded it off in 2011 for a new F-150. But in the 80K miles I drove that truck it never gave me a single problem, it worked like a fine tuned watch, Never ran rough, always started. So at least in my personal experience, I don't think the Ranger's are quiet as disposable as they are cut out to be here. But that's just one mans experience. Either way, enjoyed the video! Always do!
"tarriffs are bad for the consumer"
WHO WOULD HAVE GUESSED
What is good for the consumer is bad for your neighbors. Consumers smile at low prices brought to you by cheap labor half a world away. I am proud to pay more if it means more Americans earn a living wage.
Stop asking me to change my name, TH-cam people love to say this but never actually pay the extra or just complains
The Chicken Tax is why the beds for the Courier, Luv, Toyota and Nissan looked so much alike, they were made in California. The Scoobedoo Brat’s seats were outlandishly unsafe but exempted it. The first Ford Transit vans were fitted with every seat except the front two in the USA because of the Chicken Tax.
@@stopchangingmynameyoutube I bet your tool box has quality tools like mine and those who support globalization have a Chinese tool box full of knuckle breaking 3rd world slave labor tools and a house full of the latest and greatest particle board furniture.
Live American, buy American, support American when ever possible is my motto and if US made isn't available I support our allies not some third-world communist shithole that wants America dead. I can't believe that people would support the loss of jobs in their communities for shitty made garbage that enforces brutal regimes and human rights violations.
@Carthago Delenda Est the worker is the consumer you half-wit. What's the worker going to buy with his paycheck? With tarrifs, shit products.
wrong , wrong , wrong. the courier was a mazda, at 83 it became the ranger and it was a ford design. Mazda continued to use the b2000 for many years I think in the mid 90's mazda just rebadged the Ranger
its kinda of weird , in the 70's American manufacturers just rebadged Japanese trucks Ford Courier Chevy Luv, Dodge d50 but by the 90s they rebadged American trucks as Japanese , Mazda 2300, ISuzu Hombre , Mitsubishi Raider
You beat me to this comment. As I was watching I was asking myself...was I always wrong? lol I owned a Mazda B3000 manual that is exactly the truck in this video only badged a Mazda. Labels all over it as being built by Ford here in the states. Everything I looked into said it was a Ford design and the Ford 3.0L V6.
Correct, and a source of confusion for a while now. Mazdas were badged as Fords, then later, Fords were badged as Mazdas.
You want a really good mind fuck? The GMT355 Chevy Colorado, GMC Canyon Isuzu I series trucks started out as Isuzu trucks. GM then took their Atlas 4 and 5 cylinder engines as well as the made to break electrical, and replaced the Isuzu drivetrain and electrics. Then, they rebadged THAT back to Isuzu.
I own a 1995 Mazda B2300 5-Speed Manual. My truck is a rebadged Ford Ranger. 1994, I believe, was the first model year for the Mazda Rebranded Ford Ranger B2300 / B3000 / B4000. Mazda sold their own truck B2000 / B2200 / B2600i until the 1993 model year.
If I ever found myself to be in possesion of a Ranger, I'll just drop in an LS, a T56, and LSD and call it a day. Of course, there is no better name than Danger Ranger.
I have a 2003 Ranger base with V6. 3,290,000 miles on it. It was my first "truck" and I treat her like it. I don't have to time to fix her up without taking her out of operation but she has yet to leave me stranded. I've been in accidents and she always drove away working just fine. I don't know how she's still alive but I'll always love her for it.
I love my ranger and nothing will change that 😊
5:00 you passed a twin lol
Wow 😱 good eye bro I didn't notice
I'm sure it had a better spec sheet considering it wasn't white...
Drove one of these working for a lighting company, it had 314000 miles.
I used to drive one of those when I was a parts driver for AutoZone. (4-cylinder) They handled surprisingly well for a truck but I have to agree with what you said in the beginning. They are one of the worst cars to dive in the wet or snow on the market.
TheTarrMan Handles surprisingly well? It's the worst suspension I've ever driven on.
TheTarrMan Not really. It's handles way better than my old mustangs....the problem isn't the truck it's the driver...
das 1988 I knew I should have never listened to shifty Consumer Reports, the Ranger is a great truck! Which old Mustangs, like the year or generation?
Hakeem Mulholland I had two 67 coupes an 82 hatch, a 90 convertible and a 91 gt hatch. They were all great vehicles but where awful in wet conditions. I will say though the 67's were better than the latter one I drove. Anyhow the Ranger is a low maintenance and all around great little truck. Have had mine for going on 9 years 141000 miles and NO Major issues. Just normal wear and tear and upkeep. This video isn't even an actual review.
das 1988 You sure have had a nice collection of pony power. I'm sure the 67's lack of heavy modern safety features made it lightweight and a blast to drive, even on a solid axle! I knew the Ranger's simple built and bulletproof engines would serve them well. Thanks for sharing.
That headlight law is kinda stupid really. Most people turn off their high beams when oncoming traffic is approaching anyway
Interesting indeed. I like having both the high beams and fog lights on when driving through a forest at night. High beams to see far ahead, fog lights for the side of the road. The fog lights make the deer eyes twinkle as they stand in the dirt next to the road.
I guess my point is... how would you catch somebody? You'd turn off high beams before the cop comes around the curve, and it'd be impossible to tell if they're following.
And cars like my mom's XC90 would be illegal full stop because lowbeam and highbeams are separate bulbs, with an additional switch for auxiliary fog lights.
If only everybody were like you and were considerate with their high beams
I'm sure fogs are disabled when high beams are on.
I still love my 2004 Ranger Edge Supercab with wing doors. I bought it new. It came with 3.0 V6, 16" wheels, 4.10 diff, AC, automatic with overdrive. I added a frame hitch and removable ladder rack. Otherwise it's bone stock. I'm an old guy and don't go out in public too often, so it only has 33,000 miles on it. The AC doesn't get cold anymore but I don't care since I think I've only used it 3 or 4 times since I got the truck. My only real complaint about the truck is the front suspension. The ball joints are creaking and I had to replace the sway bar linkage last year. Ball joints should last past 33,000 miles. I have the new parts and will get to them eventually. Broke my hip 2 years ago and the day after I was released from physical rehab facility, the fuel pump went tits up at Walmart. Being on a walker, I had no choice but to have it towed to a garage and the fuel pump replaced. The tow, labor and fuel pump set me back $875 that I really hated turning loose of. Other than the fuel pump episode, it has never let me down. Gas mileage runs between 16 and 19 mpg, but at about 1500 miles a year, that's not really a factor worth considering. It's good to have a truck once in a while and this one fills the bill. For the grungey, funky stuff, I have a small Harbor Freight trailer that I have used exactly twice since I got it 15 years ago. I use the truck so little that the battery would go down between uses and only last a year or two, so I tossed a 20 watt solar panel in the bed and hung a charge controller on the back of the seat that I could see from the kitchen window. If I look out and see the green LED, I know the battery is full. Current battery is almost 8 years old and still going strong. Overall I've been quite pleased with the Ranger and have no regrets over buying it.
6:37- 6:46 "the freedom from the anxiety that every true blooded weirdo has, that whatever face you're presenting to the world is the wrong one"
Wow that sums up a lot
We had a 94 Ranger (but with the 4.0L V6 fuel chugger) in automatic. I bought it for $500, and put another $200 into it. My wife drove it for 3 years, then we gave it to her stepdad. He still drives it, and it still runs. It's made out of inefficiency and simplicity, just as I'd expected, but at 200,000 KM, it's not bad. As long as you don't have to sit in the "adventure seats".
3:42 The Ford Ranger is actually a truck. The first three digits of the vin is 1FT, which signifies it's a Ford truck.
He couldn't grasp that by the robust body on frame construction, or the fact that a small truck that they call a "half ton" actually hauls about 5/8 of a ton.
Personally I think the ranger was a great truck and so did America considering it went from 98-2012 pretty much unchanged.
It's not a truck lmaooooo
@@ragingmcqueen is a ¼" ratchet still a ratchet and still have a purpose even though a ½" ratchet is more robust?
A truck is a tool to do a job, the Ranger wasn't meant to tow 15,000LBs but by that same rationale a 1 ton truck didn't get 23 MPGs either not even with the best diesel of the era... So if your a handyman, painter or landscaper a mini truck definitely fit the bill as the proper tool to do the job better then a truck that was designed to tow large equipment or carry large loads.
@@AtomicReverend quit comparing apples to oranges. A 1/4 actually has a purpose. This is a ranger with a shit v6. The ranger is the personification of "I just do enough so I dont get fired." The "pick up" is a sorry excuse of itself. With the likes of the little foreign pick ups in the same category the ranger, it will always be last. The only thing the ranger is good for is realizing your little rinky dink car with a box is good for a parts runner and a winter beater you hope to god doesnt break down on you during a blizzard.
@@ragingmcqueen I made a valid point not an opinion as you just did.
The 3.0 vulcan V6 had a 22 year production run which is longer then most engine families from any manufacturer. it is a pushrod 2 valve engine... In other words the same style all domestic trucks used for decades. Is it the fastest? Probably not but it is a pickup truck it isn't built for speed, what it does have is a flat torque curve and good lower end power.
Now let's leave the engine behind which clearly you do not understand let's look at the actual truck the Ranger was the last of the compacts sold in America at that time as the Nissan frontier, Toyota Tacoma, Chevy Colorado, and Dodge Dakota were all midsize trucks with larger engine compartments and also all of those trucks are significantly newer by design and yet couldn't dethrone the ranger until it was a really old body style but I degress.
I bought little Rangers over the years the first was a brand new 1998 b2500 Mazda ranger clone and the next was a 06 with a 3.0 both manual trans trucks... both were sold off in great shape at over 200,000 miles of being southern California work trucks...
They were good trucks for what they were both could have used 75 more horsepower but the reality is I bought them knowing they weren't the fastest... Again a ¼" ratchet doing small jobs...
I know this is an opinion piece, but I took it a little persoanl. You reveiwed the wrong ford ranger. It's too late of a model, and has the worst of the 3 engine choices. The vheichle I learned to drive stick on is a 94 ranger with over 300,000 miles and it's still going strong. These aren't as much of a throw away car as you portray them.
anyway, love your stuff, keep it coming!
Older Rangers are supposed to be exactly what this truck isn't
Its meant to be the small truck that gives more than it gets
Extreme Potato I have a 88 Ranger
2000 V6 4.0 DOHC, 398,000 miles and still running strong. I've heard things about the 3.0 and the majority would say, "eh".
Ford ranger is disposable? Really? My dad has a ranger with 226k miles on it.
4 or 6 cylinder?
4 and manual. It's on the original clutch too.
Yeah, I think the inline 4cyl Rangers are best Rangers. Most of the folks I know have the 4cyl versions and eschew the 6cyl ones.
That's the Mazda 2.3. Great engine.
headcas620 friend has a 99 ranger with the 4 cylinder, it's got over 200k too
Who called orkin?
Roman reigns can't wrestle nah man it's an oreily's truck. Didn't you see the owners beard in the opening clip?
You totally forgot about NAPA Auto Parts c2.staticflickr.com/4/3449/5817223456_4f7341ed51_b.jpg
Lolz, mine looks identical to that white orkin truck.
The rangers were so crap they use chevy's in Canada now
I was gonna say who called Weaver!
I disagree with most of your comments. I own a 2006 Ranger 2wd, 4 cylinder, and I love it. Whatever it needs, it gets. It has hauled a ton of cargo over the years, and I wouldn't trade it for anything. One of the best vehicles I have ever owned.
You shouldn't be running high-beams in fog anyway...
Depends. Sometimes it hurts, sometimes it helps. Really can't say it blanket-ly like that. Same with snow.
CPD0123a The trick is to push buttons until you can see clearly.
Or hit a tree, whichever happens first.
I can, actually. When you have your high beams on in fog (or heavy, large-flake snow), the light gets reflected back at you, lowering your ability to see beyond the reflective light sources. It's not a "depends" situation, it's a known safety fact. If you think driving around in fog with your brights on is a good idea, please please PLEASE do us all a favor and stay home during fog.
Grindstone this. Fuck people using high beams in fog.
Grindstone, this can be true. However, there are times where it can be tricky between "Is there enough fog for it to reflect back," and "Is there not too much fog, and I can burn through it?
The same with snow. Mike has it pinned--you try both, and pick which works best.
To be fair, I love my 2004 ford Ranger Edge. Mine has the 4.0 however.
Edit, since moving to Arizona, with plentiful off road trails and shit to do, I can still vouch. This truck is fast, sporty, and generally fun. The 4.0 gives it a lovely sound, plenty of power for a light-duty truck. The edge trim, with the factory lift makes for a decent off road truck. Mine is RWD, so it makes a fairly good "pre-runner" even though it's still mostly stock.
I live in Arizona what city u moving to? Phoenix?
I'm stationed here and AZ can't wait to get my 2008 lifted 4x4 xlt here
I always liked the Ford Ranger and I have never owned one. I like the looks.
I love my 95 ranger. It has 360k on the original 4 banger and manual trans. I treat it like shit, and it keeps asking for more. When everything else I have is broken, I know the ranger will get me there and back.
those PVC cup holders are a game changer!
4:56 the ranger in the background is the one you want, newer year with the supercab, probably has a better engine also
I couldn't disagree more with this video
What a terrible argument!
At least provide your reasons for disagreeing
@@PaulRudd1941 not really an argument. just stating an opinion
@@lukegaming86 yeah, you're not wrong
Life as Gage and Kassie get a real truck with a v8
These things frequently reach over 300k miles.
I have a 99 4.0 it has 150k on it and only problems I have with it have been vacuum lines on front hubs the very rear end of the frame rails rusting and a mix of o2 sensors not working and small vacuum leaks
I rolled mine at 270k. It was a 97 though
Kodiak Express No. No they dont.
Youve seen one do that and have shoe horned a myth into the discussion.
Just. No.
I hit 300k now I'm putting a 5.0 in mine
Chantal Beck Nah fam. The ealry models are some of the most reliable light trucks around, which is why you'll constantly see these fuckers on the road 20 years later. With newer ones I can understand the gripes, but early models last longer than shit. My 95 is at 210, no issues and i beat the absolute fuck out of it on a daily basis. Its not heresay that makes it such a beloved machine its the genuine reliability. RCR really missed the mark by writing them all off as shit when he drove a Mexican assembled newer model but it really just reassures me that i made the right choice choosing an older one when i coulda grabbed a 2006 for a few hundred more
My 2008 Ranger 2.3L automatic has needed exactly one part replacement outside of oil and air filters. The A/C blend door. It is nearly indestructible and maintenance free. It rides a like an old truck, is not great in emergency response maneuvering, has the traction of steel wheels on an ice rink but I still like driving it.
IDk. I like my 2010 with the 4.0 It's slow and doesn't haul much. But it's nice to have a truck to do truck things, but still be able to park the damn thing in my garage.
The 4 bangers backed with manuals will outlast cockroaches im pretty sure.
4.0 isnt that slow really with manual transmission
@@jpegjake you're right it does get out of its own way, but I'm definitely in the slow lane if I'm hauling a car.
@@tartredarrow im sure if you have automatic it probably is much slower and sucks for hauling
Him throwing the car's repair manual was hilarious!
I have a 99' with close to 300,000 miles on it. Love my little pickup. Never let me down. Hard working and reliable.
Snow tires are an absolute must, Must, MUST on the Ranger in winter.
But but... I like Rangers! :-(
GT7786 91 ranger 4.0 v6 🖒
I’m with you I drive I 2003 4.0L 4x4 ranger and I love it
I like them too. In fact, I feel like getting one with a 4 cylinder and manual tranny once I start driving and have enough money to get one of them. And just to be clear here, this guy reviewed the wrong Ford Ranger because this particular one was a fleet truck with the lack luster 3.0 Vulcan V6. If this were a 2.3 4 cylinder or 4.0L V6, I am sure he would have much better to say about it so I wouldn't recommend letting this guy fool you about this Ranger.
the amount of these I still see on the roads is both impressive and interesting to say the least
What? The 3.0L Vulcan is a gem of a motor. It's the 4.0L that's the POS. This whole review seems like opposite day for me. The Ranger is an awesome light duty pickup that lasts forever. Literally every Canadian has had one in their families. I have a friend whole had one just like this and it ran up past 500,000K with virtually no issues and he beat the piss outta it.... and never changed the motor oil... not fucking once! Maybe that's this guys problem? He's not driving it like you're supposed to drive a Ranger. So hard it bleeds!
Oh and he sold it still running to buy a Blazer with less than half the mileage which ate it's own computer and died after two weeks.
Canadian here: agreed, my father owned three, I have one, all standard, all 3 liters. Planning on keeping it for years. If I can fight the rust, I will just put a cummins r 2.8 in when it gets tired.
the cammer 4.0 is good...but the old 4.0 is really garbage...it suck the gas of a 460 and pull like a pinto 4
3.0l are tough but extremly weak and not as good on gas one would expect, for example i got better MPG with a EFI 302
i owned 4 with 3.0l
I got a 2000 ford ranger and it has some pretty good torque and some get up and go, even though it's a 3.0. honestly it's a great vehicle and very reliablr
Mountain_Man I had one as well and I agree they are reliable but they r slow as well and weak
The Trailhead is a great variant. LSD in the rear and a 4x4 suspension setup on a 2wd. Traction is great and it'll climb a wet gravel mountain road like a billy goat!
Mountain_Man I have a 91 ranger with a 4.0 v6 best truck ever built
Mountain_Man we have the same truck lol
I got a 2001 b2500, 2.5 turbo diesel. Best truck I ve ever owned.
I’ve got an 08 4 cylinder and even with less power it is still dangerously tail happy in the wet
It kills me.
Do you know how rusty that truck would be if it was here in central NY?
That truck in the video would sell for $6,000-$7,000 up here on a used lot.
Wak Job well it is a 2007 that's basically new in my eyes lol.
I'm sure that central NY and PA aren't much different. And, at least in older versions, these trucks have frame issues to begin with.
I don't know but I've been told
Fluid Film's worth its weight in gold.
(check it out if you want to prevent rust. PA resident speaking here.)
I semi-frequently visit the area Mr. Regular gets his review cars from and yes it's much different from central NY to south PA much different in terms of harshness. Much less salt and calcium chloride on the roads and I'm always surprised the stuff I see down there that people still drive. A mostly rust free ranger of this era would bring decent money here in central NY where everything is garbage after 10 years.
psergott That would be because South Eastern PA isn't good PA. That's fake "We wanna be PA, but we wanna be a bunch of wussy, jaggoff wannabies." They're a lot closer to the ocean and get warmer weather. Try central PA, through western PA though. Tons more snow, salt, and grick. If they bother salting or plowing, that is. Many communities just don't give a crap anymore, since their budgets were cut back during the sequester years of about 2012 and 2013.
That's what happens when people underrate 4 cyl versions
Anything less than 8 cylinders or 4.0 liters is probably Communist.
about37ninjas
In early 80's a couple of F1 engines were 4 cyl, the most powerful being the BMW M12/13 1.5 liters turbocharged engine, managing to make around 1400 hp in qualifying sessions during 1986 with maxed boost...
and F1 is very very far from being a communist thing..
By the way, Mao Tse Tung's official car had a V8 engine :D
I see you haven't watched TGT yet. Also, of course the communist leaders keep the nice things for themselves and leave Communist 2 cylinder 2.1 liter engines for everyone else.
about37ninjas I live in a communist country.
And look where a nation of lawnmower engine cars has gotten you 2.bp.blogspot.com/-RITkh3VBGP8/Vp4w1CPJknI/AAAAAAAAdEE/SXQ54r42JKw/s1600/crisis_diarios_Venezuela_Caracas_t670x470.jpg
Hell, I got my 2002 from my grandpa (its his old farm truck) and I've been fixing it up and so far it's been a really solid, simple truck. Perfect for a small, reliable, simple little pickup to do whatever you need to do
I drive a 2002 ford ranger. It's my first car and I really don't have many complaints. Sure it sucks that I can't street race anyone but a Volkswagen bug, and the locks & windows are manual. But it really is rugged and reliable. The A/C and defroster work better than any other car I've seen. The seats are comfortable and it's such a simple interior that it takes 10 minutes to vacuum and clean everything, and most important is that it gets me from point A to point B reliably and comfortably. I'm happy to have my Ranger
it got the name Ranger from the 1960s and 70s when Ford named F150 pickup body styles "Ranger" packages... some were also "Camper Specials". Has nothing to do with Edsel.
AimlessMoto No one cares.
Tell them brother.
Edsel was the first Ford nameplate to use "Ranger" as a model name., Car companies do this a lot. The original Park Avenue was a Cadillac then a Buick later.
AimlessMoto Companies have to use a name every XX years or lose the rights to it. And yes there was an Edsel Ranger.
I must've been one of the lucky ones to get one that lasts, lol! I have the standard old barebones ranger that used to be a fleet truck for the highway crews. 2004 3.0 6 cyclinder single cab 7 foot bed. It has over 186,000 miles on it currently, use it as my daily driver. Never done anything but basic maintenance for the last few years I've owned it.
My 99 Ranger 2.5L 4cyl. was a hot steaming pile of dog shit. Low compression at 50k, blown trans at 17k, blown rearend at 95k. Headliner sagged, seat broke and the rear window leaked, all before it was 7 years old. Now my 93 ranger 4.0 V6 different story. I beat that thing like it owed me money. Had a 5" suspension, 3" body lift on 33's. Trans blew only because it got water in it after I partially submerged it in a lake. Hung in there for 220k miles until it met it's death in a rollover accident on the highway.
I had a 1994 Mazda b4000 LE ext cab, basically the same truck. kept it for 13 years after buying it used in 1995. Had the 4.0 liter Ford v6. Great little truck. Sold it to a friend of mine, he still has it to this day, still running just fine. Only issue i ever had out of it was the paint (black) was terrible. I think that was it. I had it painted about a year before I sold it. 2wd, had to be careful in the rain, motor had a lot of torque and would spin the tires easily. Later versions of the 4.0 had much more hp, i dont know if they were as bullet proof as my 1994... happy memories! mpg was about 19 overall in mixed driving i think...
Mine lasted from '97 until '12 when a tow service stole it from me.
The PVC cupholders are genius.
I just bought a 2004 Ford Ranger XLT FX4 with 26,000 miles on it.
Nice find! How much? if you don't mind me asking.
A friend of mine in Tennessee has one of these.
He's getting ready to yank the Vulcan and shove in a Duratec from a wrecked Taurus.
I'm really sad.. I've had 2 rangers, first went to 200k absolutely worry free rattle free. 97 with the 2.3. I'm on my second, 150k, 3.0 v6, also a 97, and it's been unstoppable. best truck ever? he'll no. but it's unique and perfect for me. And here in new york, inside the Hudson valley they are highly wanted and EVERYWHERE. everyone's had one. they ARE the regular car.
The base 4 cylinder seemed pretty forgiving. They were often discounted for like 9 grand and some change that era for a basic work truck. A fuel efficient (over 25 mpg common) work truck for landscapers and light work duty. Sure, it was all we had for simple cheap work duty.
I would prefer a Tacoma, but those things suddenly became a Camry Truck in the mid 2000's. Weighted, Expensive, not Simple.
The best small trucks were the last of the 22R Yota in 1993. My friend had a 89 white base model vinyl seat with no rear bumper model that his dad bought for 6500 bucks new. Drove it through high school and into 1999 with over 250k miles, doing third gear chirps, taking it off road, and there was not a single panel without a dent of some sort.
All he did was a clutch and heater core in over 10 years and 250k. It was burning a qt a week when he sold it, but it ran well enough. Sold it for $1500 to a Gardener in the bay area.
I wish we could get simple tough cheap cars and trucks these days.
My 2003 Ranger has the 4.0 v6 and Trsion bar springs and 4x4. Perfect in the snow and plenty of power. Tows my boat, and 230000 miles.
I don't feel like this review did this truck any justice. I have 93 ranger with almost 300k and it doesn't skip a beat.
Can't get much regular than THIS truck!
Heartiest little truck I ever owned, loved my ranger
You're wrong. yes the courier was a Mazda, but after that it was all Ford. Mazda rebadged the Ranger, not the other way around...
kirbyswarp The Ranger “S” had the 2.0 and no power steering. It also had a Mazda engine management system, not even the simple and stupid EEC-III Ford setup
4:58 the 2nd gen ranger rolling away while the 3rd gen rolls toward the camera is a cool little nuance.
I own a 2001 Ford Ranger 3.0 v6 (3rd generation 1998-2012) and it's awesome. And I'm at 188,000 miles. Plus I see them every where I go running and sounding great. 💪
Wow REALLY? High maintenance?! My old man has a 2000 which, despite what the internet will tell you had the 1998 2.3 liter engine they SUPPOSEDLY stopped using in 1998, the same engine they used in a fucking Pinto, the same engine they used in shitty 1980s 2.3 liter Mustangs... it's a dog for sure, but it's 17 years old now and the only thing he's ever done is put gas in it and barely remember to change oil every 7,000 miles (and no, that's not the recommended interval). Almost 2 decades of pure hassle free motoring... the only problem it really has is the RUST. The cab is bad enough it probably won't pass PA inspection this fall when it's due, which is a shame, because the thing just keeps going and never needs any work.
I always kinda wondered what happened to the small truck market. Chicken Tax. I didn't understand anything you said about that, but now my kneejerk answer to what happened to the Ford Ranger will be "Chicken Tax".
It goes deeper than that actually. The problem is these days the demand doesn't justify them. People want bigger vehicles. Compare a 2003 F-150 to a 2013 F-150. These true small trucks also had poor crash test ratings due to their old designs and they weren't going to shell out to upgrade them. They had sold the same Ranger from 1989-2012. And then there's fuel mileage. They were hard to get exempt from car fuel mileage requirements due to their low weight.
I refuse to believe that Ford couldn't build a better, more efficient, more usable small truck if the demand was there. When I was in high school in the late 80's EVERYONE had a small truck. There was even a pretty active tuner marked specifically for small trucks. With the added bonus that you could move everything you owned (at 20 years old) from apartment to apartment in two trips. I just miss the whole concept of an affordable, but viable, small car/truck market. But I think technology and regulation has ruined all that. I own a 2016 Miata and a 1990 Miata. I prefer the 1990 every single day.
You can't build small vehicles these days. The regulations cause them to swell up quickly. Look at the Canyon.
The Mazda MX-5 ND is smaller in size and about 100Kg less in weight than the NC from 2015, and is in fact, the same length and height and only 300 pounds (about 15%) heavier as the original NA from 1990. So, clearly, you can. But it's hard. And automakers would rather put in a 7" touch screen and adaptive cruise control and extra large cup holders in their new cars than really make efficient use of space and weight.
And then there's the issue of what the market wants. Yes, Americans want bigger and bigger vehicles. I know. Many of the vehicles I pull up to have tires taller than my door line and my entire car doesn't even measure up to the bottom of their windows. We absolutely CAN design and build small, efficient and cost effective vehicles. Big auto just ... isn't.
It was basically a protectionist tariff. 25% on light duty trucks built outside the US. It gave domestic automakers a leg up, and eventually caused other automakers to start assembling their trucks in the US to avoid the tax.
However demand dropped off and it became less profitable to build for that segment in the US. The flipside of the tax is that it also means "domestic" companies like Ford, that are building small trucks outside of the US in places where the production costs are lower, can't import them back into the US for sale without incurring the tax themselves, and thus eliminating whatever profit margin they hoped to make on the smaller market that could be fulfilled by light duty trucks.
So an automaker could build a true light duty pickup, but by the time all the numbers were added up, either because it was assembled in a tax-exempt location, or incurred the tax, it would likely be in the same price bracket (or pretty close) as a full sized pickup.
These things are so great i have always loved these trucks. Never failed me and was always a great daily driver.
I really want RCR to review a Sonoma/S10 with the 2.2l.
Me too! That'd be a great nostalgia trip, I rolled one of those for 8 years in my 20s and had a hell of a lot of fun doing it