You have saved this page | See all saved pages
Ford Ranger III - READ ONLY
1143 messages, Last post on Mar 19, 2004 at 8:54 AM
You are in the Pickups - Archived Discussions Forum.- Your Host is kcram
This discussion is ARCHIVED. To reactivate the discussion, post a request in the Javascript runtime error--TypeError: obj has no properties-- no stack trace file was written discussion.
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!
#1124 of 1143 jrosasmc by midnight_stang
Jan 27, 2004 (4:34 pm)
In fact they are the same engines. The 2.3l (and 2.5l) at the same engine. The Mustangs received only 2.3l, while the Ranger received the same block with varied stroke throughout the years. I believe they also had a smaller stroke version, a 2.0l or 2.2l, but I forget which. Parts are totally interchangeable.rickc5, the new Ranger will be at least a 2006 model truck. Sadly the F-150 gets all the glory for a year or two. (maybe more)
I'm sure once the sales units drop to a significant degree, Ford will pay attention. Sadly I don't think the Ranger can hold onto the title as "best selling compact truck" that it has had for around 18 years.
#1125 of 1143 by jrosasmc
Jan 27, 2004 (4:40 pm)
So I could very well install a '97 Ranger 2.3 engine in a '93 Mustang, right?#1126 of 1143 by midnight_stang
Jan 27, 2004 (4:51 pm)
Yes you could. It's the same engine, but I'm not sure about the electronics, but it should be compatible. I had a 93 2.3l, dual spark plug, great motor that lasted 140,000 miles and was still going strong.I would goto a local parts store, and check out the Haynes or Chilton's repair manuals for both vehicles in question. That would confirm any miscellaneous items like wiring, vacuum schematics, and would give you a good idea of any accessories or intakes you could reuse.
Food for thought, If you have a 93 mustang, it probably wouldn't cost you a whole lot more to put in a 5.0l v8. You just need a donor car with transmission, brakes, differential, and springs. Most of those items can be left off until you can afford it later(except the transmission), but you would get more bang for the buck. But the brakes and suspension of the 10 year old 4 cylinder won't last long-term with a v8 powered drivetrain. There are alot of resources in magazines or on the web about doing a 2.3l to 5.0l conversion.
#1127 of 1143 Loved my 2.3 by eharri3
Feb 16, 2004 (10:09 pm)
IT was a rock solid little motor, the most trouble free part of the truck without a doubt. But if I were looking to put something under the hood of a Mustang it'd be WAAAAY down near the bottom on the list of options.#1128 of 1143 Input Appreciated! by lswfrombigd
Feb 22, 2004 (9:22 am)
Looking to buy a new Ranger truck. Daily commute minimal, but I take periodic road trips and have limited budget so gas mileage important. No towing; no cross country expected. Currently driving 1997 Saturn SL2 (premature death on the horizon) 1.9L 5spM, so the 2.3L 5spM will probably seem peppy to me. Here's the dilemna: I've had my eye on an extended cab for the extra interior protected storage and all I've seen have the 3.0L Auto which drops gas mileage from the 20's to the teens. So, the question is extra space or gas mileage?Any thoughts from anybody? If I go with the 2.3L single cab, will I be wishing for that extra space 6 months down the road and not caring about the drop in gas mileage? And, it bumps up the price of the vehicle - is it worth it?
#1129 of 1143 YEs. Most definitely. by eharri3
Feb 22, 2004 (9:43 am)
ID really only recommend a regular cab compact truck of ANY type as a second vehicle.I had a regular cab Ranger for 5 years and even though the truck was very useful for hauling and moving lots of stuff back and fourth between school and home and for household projects, at times it was a real pain in the you know what. Think about it...think you ever might want to carry a TV AND stereo AND computer all at the same time? Then that's one fragile piece of electronics you'll have to figure out some way to secure in the bed. Not to mention it effectively eliminates the possibility of carrying any passengers at the same time.
Think maybe you might want to stop at a hotel to spend the night on some of those road trips? Then you have two choices if you don't want to risk getting the luggage you stored in the bed stolen. Cart it all into the hotel room at night and then back down stairs when you start out in the morning, or else invest money in a locking cap or hard tonneau. I dont imagine right there there's much difference between what youd pay for a quality cap or tonneau and whatever the extra cost is for the 3.0/extended cab.
Even if you just want to leave the truck unattended for a few minutes at a rest stop, if you have to store all valuables and luggage in the bed, you're taking a chance that it won't be there when you get back if you dont have any locking storage in the bed. I think the most annoying thing for me was if I had one or two fragile pieces of cargo that I didn't want in the bed, it meant I could no longer fit a passenger in the cab with me.
I dont know about the newest Rangers, but I know up until 98 or 99 you could get a 4-banger extended cab. But with the heavier truck, all else being equal, a 3.0 that doesn't have to work as hard to move the extra weight probably wouldn't be that much of a mileage penalty anyway.
Either way, Id say find a way to get the extended cab truck, even if you take a slight mileage penalty in the process. You'll be more likely to end up with a vehicle that will meet your needs for long enough that you can hold onto it for a very long time, instead of getting sick of the lack of interior storage space and having to trade in a few years.
#1130 of 1143 Input Appreciated Reply! by lswfrombigd
Feb 22, 2004 (9:58 am)
Thank you eharri3. This will be my only vehicle so I'll definitely give serious thought to what you wrote.#1131 of 1143 eharri3 by totheendoftime
Feb 22, 2004 (11:43 am)
Check out the Mazda Pickup's (same as the Ranger) they offer a 2.3 engine with the extended cab.James
#1132 of 1143 Personally Im done with the small compacts by eharri3
Feb 22, 2004 (3:29 pm)
Now own 04 Dakota Quad.#1133 of 1143 Extended Cab by bolivar
Feb 22, 2004 (5:20 pm)
Yes, I think the extended cab is worth it.With 2 people in a standard cab, you can't even bring home the groceries from the store very well. The sacks will be blowing around in the back.
No place for basic tools, coat, etc inside the cab. I had a standard cab 1966 Ford, it just had no room at all outside the bed.
I'm not sure, but I think the seats also move back more in the extended cab. If you are tall at all, you better check to see if you will even fit into a standard cab....
Advertisement
Most Popular in Forums
Search Forums
Enter Keyword(s):
Learn More, Do More
Edmunds Community
Advertisement