Last post on Mar 19, 2004 at 8:54 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!
#157 of 1143 3.0 liter will continue through 2002, and other tidbits from Ford:
Oct 27, 2000 (7:51 pm)
According to Ford's internal documents, Ford's 3.0L Vulcan V6 and 2.5L Ranger engines are both going to be discontinued.
The Vulcan 3.0L will continue through the 2002 model year Ranger, although some production might spill over into early 2003 models. 2000 will be the last year for the 3.0L FFV Ranger.
The Vulcan 3.0L will be replaced by an I-5 cylinder engine for Ranger/B-series light truck applications. BlueOvalNews was the first publication to first report the existence of the I5 back on 21 July 1999 <here>.
While the Ford Ranger will use the 2.8L I5, the Ranger's Mazda cousin will use a 2.7L version of the I5.
From 2002 forward the only V6 engine to be offered in the Ranger will be the 4.0L V6. The Koln 4.0L V6 has some temporary safety and will even receive an upgrade within the next few years. We'll cover the fate of the 4.0L when we publish information on the 2003+ Explorer. We expect that the 3.0L Vulcan 3.0 will be completely discontinued from both the car and truck lines by 2003.
Gone with the Vulcan is the 4R44E automatic transmission. It will be replaced by the 5R55E, also in 2002. The R1 manual transmission will remain in use through 2003.
Also on the chopping block is the 2.5L I4 cylinder engine. 2001 will be the last year in which the 2.5L will be used when a new 2.3L I4 replaces <more> it as well. Both will use the same transmissions as the I5.
Oct 27, 2000 (9:16 pm)
zig, nice info. Thanks.
I-5 sounds kind of funny though? Why not an I-6 like Chevy is doing? Hope to see a diesel too.
Oct 30, 2000 (3:58 am)
I applaud the gas/hybrid anything vehicle. It is the best step in the right direction that we have gone yet. I think these vehicles hold a lot of promise - don't count me as one of the first buyers, but they could at least be the first good, urban-style vehicles that offer alternative power. Pick-ups? Probably on the horizon, not there yet.
Still don't hear from anyone how Ford will update the Ranger? I understand it will get the Explorer's old engine - soon to be base engine for the Explorer - the SOHC 4.0, same old engine with a newer design. Sounds like GM to me? Is that really a big step forward?
Face it - an old engine design, updated a few years ago to keep the Explorer competitive. Now, the Explorer gets a nice new and small V-8 in a few months - where has the new Ranger engine been?
I follow Ford closely - have owned many of their vehicles, mostly with very good results. Own two F-series trucks now and I must say I am most happy with both. But, where is the good technology in the Ranger? Had a new Ranger (1998) with very poor results - 4.0 engine woes. A new chassis would have allowed the really nice 4.6 OHC engine from the base F-150 to be an option and probably make an incredible competitor to the Dodge Dakota with the V-8. They have missed this one - one of the first I have ever seen Ford miss with trucks.
I truly like the hybrid idea - it will have to be a good car design before it works as a truck. And, that is where the Escape comes to view - it's really a car with nice Taurus engine. But, then maybe that is the direction the Ranger is going. In my mind, it is not going in the direction of a good compact truck. We need a Dakota competitor to keep up with the Ranger's original design theme - a very durable, compact truck that works hard as a pickup but also delivers the best value on the planet.
Oct 30, 2000 (4:57 am)
Your last sentence hits the mark with the value statement. The Ranger can be had in so many configurations it will make your head spin. The Ranger is the best compact truck value in the market today.
As far as the SOHC 4.0 being "old" its only been int he Explorer for about 3 years, 4 tops. The SOHC 4.0 is no slouch either. To develop an engine solely for the Ranger would cost serious dollars in development/parts/support you name it. I feel its smart of Ford to offer this engine. It fits perfect into this truck class. A V8 Ranger is overkill in my book. If I want a V8 I would go to a full size. I have a 4.0 V6 and it has pulled, hauled and towed everything I have asked of it..
Oct 31, 2000 (4:25 am)
for you guys getting the new 2001 4.0 ranger, be prepared for it to suck gas. there are two local rangers [owned by a glass business] in my area using new ranger xlt's [extended cabs] 4x4's with 5 sp autos and new 4.0.s. they say the mpg is about 1 to 1.5 less than the old 4.0 engine, as long as you don't get too heavy on the foot. if you really "gas" it, mileage is about 15 to 15.5. when you think about it, this makes sense. you can't get something for nothing, thermodynamically: do more work-use more fuel. also, the engine seems noisy to me, not a "knocking" as much as a high frequency "rattle", much like my old kawasaki motorcycle engine. maybe it's just the nature of ohc engines...a lot of metallic "clicking". i think the trucks look great, and will buy one if i wear out the ranger that i already have. good luck to all 2001 buyers: it looks like a real nice truck, with lots of power ! just take a gasoline credit card wtih you ! ford and others are going to have to start thinking about the fuel cost issue. i am sure this engine was on the drawing board LONG before $2 gallon gas.
Oct 31, 2000 (4:45 pm)
I'm getting about 17mpg around town in my old 2.8L V6 Ranger 4x4 5sp & I'm pretty sick of it. I'll probably pick up a Ranger with the new 2.3L 4cyl at some point. Unfortunately, it looks like you can't get the 7' bed with the 4cyl! I hope Ford changes their mind about that. I really can't predict where gas prices will be in, say, 5 years, so I'm going to play it safe with the 4cyl. I tend to keep my trucks/cars for at least five years.
The Ranger would be perfect for a hybrid gas/electric like they're developing for the 2003 Escape. If this system was available today at a reasonable cost I'd consider it.
Nov 03, 2000 (3:22 am)
I have a '95 Ranger and the 'dinger' is driving me crazy. When I start the engine, the light stays on and the dinger "dings" for quite a while. Has anyone else experienced this problem, and if so, what can be done to 'stop the noise'?
Nov 03, 2000 (11:48 am)
Spray WD40 inside the door latch, both sides. The switch inside there is getting stuck.
#165 of 1143 No LSD for 2001 4x2 Ranger
Nov 03, 2000 (2:02 pm)
Amazingly, Ford is cutting costs by only providing certain packages in the 2001 Rangers, so it's no longer easy to tailor to your tastes. I've said to the salesmen, "Hey, with this approach, I might as well buy a Toyota. After all, everybody always gripes about having to buy options packages with them, now Ford is doing it, too."
A casualty of this seems to have been the choice of rear end in the 4x2 Rangers.
I cannot pick the gearing or whether I want Limited Slip Differential . . . and I do! Maybe they'll offer it later, but I wouldn't expect that, so I'm going ahead anyway. Dammit. I'll be investing in some sand bags for this winter I guess.
They do offer LSD on the 4x4 2001 Ranger, however. So close . . . yet so far.
And I'm getting the 4x2 with the 4.0/auto (which you can only get in one fully loaded package) - I can only hope that the 3.55 that I'm forced to get helps with the fuel consumption.
Nov 04, 2000 (6:08 am)
List price, top of the line Ranger 4x4 extended cab -- around $23K.
List price, top of the line Toyota Tacoma 4x4 extended cab -- around $28K.
Of course that's not all of the cost involved. The Ranger, for example, would need serious cash investment (another $2-3K worth), such as new tires, new wheels, airlockers for the differentials, etc. to make it a serious off-road machine, while the Tacoma is a serious off-road machine as-is. But even so, the $$$ is enough to make me seriously look at the Ranger, despite the poor quality, old engine design, etc. I don't plan on doing serious off-roading in a $20K+ pickup truck anyhow -- I may be a highly paid computer professional, but not to the point where I can afford to destroy $20K toys on jeep trails!
For those complaining about the lack of development dollars put into the Ranger: Ford could afford to hike the price of the Ranger and make it a state-of-the-art small truck. Or even state-of-1995 small truck (the Tacoma was introduced in 1995). But that is not what they sell the Ranger as. They sell it as a cheaper alternative to things like the Tacoma and Dodge Dakota, and apparently it's working, because the Ranger remains the best-selling small truck.
Personally I prefer the Nissan Frontier. Not quite as uncomfortable as the Tacoma, not quite as bloated as the Ranger. Alas, I seem alone in that opinion. I am reluctant to purchase a truck that seems as seriously snubbed by truck aficiandos as the Frontier is. If I'm interested in after-market goodies for my truck (hey, a boy has to have his toys , well, I gotta have a truck that other people like to buy goodies for... Frontiers appear to be bought by rather prim folks looking for bare-bones functionality out on the ranch, whose idea of a truck accessory is a load of firewood. Maybe the new XTerra-derived look for 2001 will change that. But at the moment, that's still speculation.