Last post on Mar 19, 2004 at 7:54 AM
You are in the Pickups - Archived Discussions
What is this discussion about?
Ford Ranger, Exterior, Tires, Engine, Interior, Transmission, Fuel Efficiency (MPG), Truck
Join other Ford Truck enthusiasts in Edmunds.com Ford Truck Owners Club!
Apr 21, 2003 (10:21 pm)
I've never been in a standard cab Ranger. I'm 5'7". I had a 1966 full size Ford, standard cab. I kept the seat all the way back and there was no room behind the seat. Nothing. Course, there was a fuel tank back there in those days.
The 4 cylinder's power has been upgraded in last couple of years, but I did drive test drive one of the previous ones. Can you say 'weak'?
I would not get a 4 cylinder to drive, much less to tow. I would not get a standard cab. And also, if you do any towing, get an automatic, it will be rated for more towing than a manual. And although the automatic is not a strong transmission, the manual is worse if you try to tow with it.
P.S. I have a 1994 4L V6 Extended Cab automatic.
P.P.S. Don't expect any decent gas milage either. It's a truck.
Apr 22, 2003 (4:43 am)
I have some pictures here that may give you a good idea of the room behind the seats...
It's just enough to fit a subwoofer box, amplifier, and the tire jack kit. There is roughly 4-6 inches of space at the bottom, and it tapes down to 1-2 inches at shoulder level. Not much room, but my seat is all the way back (just barely not touching the rear wall or window). I think it may work for you, granted that the primary driver may not need as much legroom to drive comfortably. If that is not enough room, perhaps a cheap toolbox for the bed?
Also I would think about the towing and engine choices again. If the truck will be hauling some weight regularly, and that weight is near the limit, I would definitely step up. You don't want to always be near your limit, you want to be comfortable while hauling/towing. I think the 3.0l may be a good compromise, and it should not cost that much as an option. Of course you will not see 20mpg in the city with a v6, but you will with a 4 cylinder. So depends on what the truck will be doing mostly. But the 2.3l is a very healthy engine. I had a 2valve version of it in a 93 ranger, and it lasted over 140,000 with nothing but maintenance.
Apr 22, 2003 (5:14 am)
Dudleyr, I had the same questions as you and did a bit of research. I ended up getting the B2300 Mazda Extra cab last weekend. It's basically a Ranger (same engine & drivetrain) with different trim. It only comes with the 5spd manual which was fine for me as I'm looking towards fuel economy. I've only a couple of hundred miles on it but am quite satisfied so far with the way it drives and there is more than enough room behind the seats for duffels or small passengers. I got it fully loaded with the power and convenience packages for $15k with the $3500 rebate but before tax & lic here in California. Also the warranty on the Mazda is 4yr 50,000 mile. If you need the 4cyl and extra cab I'd consider this as an option. Hope this helps,
Apr 22, 2003 (7:39 am)
Thanks for all of the responses.
I am aware that the 1,500 lbs that may be towed are near the limit of 1,650 lbs, but the Toyota and Nissan both tow 3,500 lbs with their 4-cyl engines that have a smilar hp and torque rating. I am just wondering if Ford underates the 4-cyl so more people will buy the 6. Even my little Integra can tow 1,500 lbs.
Also the 3.0 v-6 only has about 8% more power and 17% more torque than the 4 at a huge penalty in fuel mileage (22 vs. 29 highway). This vehicle will be driven at about 70 mph on the highway about 4-5,000 miles a month during the construction season. No real big hills (SD), and not much starting and stopping (the hardest part on a vehicle that is towing).
This is not a pleasure vehicle - it is all about getting the job done efficiently.
Has anybody had problems towing with the new 2.3 liter engine (I know the old one wasn't as good).
Also how did people manage just a few years ago when the 3.0 V-6 only had 130 hp - 13 less than the 4 now has (I know the torque was about the same)
Apr 22, 2003 (7:50 am)
torque is what pulls, not horsepower.
17% more will be significant.
Apr 22, 2003 (8:47 am)
The v-6 with automatic also weighs about 300 lbs more than the 4-cyl w/ manual, so it has more to carry. This drops it's actual power and torque advantages even further.
FWIW the V-6 is not an option. If the Ranger is inadequate, then the Toyota 4-cyl will work (w/ 3,500lb tow rating) - just costs a little more (still less than V-6 Ranger). The extra reliability of the Toyota is offset, by the scarcity of dealers in these parts, otherwise it might have been the first choice.
Apr 22, 2003 (8:53 am)
The 2.3 will be working 70 loaded or not. I drove my 90 2.3 5-spd 70mph up and down I-75 thru South Georgia (flat), and rarely got more than 19-20 at that speed. Around town got 24 MPG. My 01extended cab 4.0 5-sp auto gets 21-22 MPG 70 MPH.
Apr 22, 2003 (9:01 am)
The '90 Range only has 100 hp - no comparison to the new 143 hp 2.3 (torque is 133 to the new 154). The V-6 from 1990 only had 140 hp and 170 lb ft of torque.
Apr 22, 2003 (10:43 pm)
You said "FWIW the V-6 is not an option."
You've got this all figgered out. Why are you asking us about it?
Apr 23, 2003 (5:57 am)
you are correct, just thought I'd memtion it. Good luck with
your decision. Keep us posted.