Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Prices Paid: Buying & Leasing Experiences Ford Ranger Prices Paid and Buying Experiences
67 messages, Last post on Dec 17, 2008 at 6:54 AM
You are in the Prices Paid: Buying & Leasing Experiences Forum. Your Hosts are car_man & kyfdx
|
Replying to: bolivar (Jul 17, 2006 8:34 pm)
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: yetti8 (Jul 18, 2006 4:07 pm) There are a million variables associated with making a used car purchase decision. You've given two-age and mileage. To offer a more informed opinion, knowing such things as price, maintenence/maintenence records, type of driving done by the owner, was it a northern or Arizona car, 4 cylinder vs. 6, etc. would help. For instance, given the mileage and age alone without knowing anything else, I would say not to buy it. However, if the truck was driven primarily cross country through the southwest, meticulously maintained, and going for $500, I might still question it because of the low price makes it look like the owner is trying to get rid of it fast. Thus, not only do you have to consider many variables, but also how much weight to give each variable-high mileage might not necessarily be bad versus a truck with 30k miles that was driven only in stop and go traffic and only for 5 miles at a time even though both trucks are the same age. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: rangermang (Jan 11, 2006 9:04 pm) but with 170k miles. My 99 ranger was actually a really good truck my dad bought it new and handed it down to me the same clutch and same tranny lasted 170k miles. However now either my clutch or tranny has blown and its being looked at. I want to get all the price checks i can on a new tranny for a 99 for ranger so i dont get ripped off.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: gclark1022 (Aug 03, 2006 9:47 pm) |
|
|
|
| Hello im looking at a ranger right now for a new vehicle. I drive a saturn 98 sl2. Now the truck im looking at right now is a v6, 94, nice condition, 4x4 and owner says it runs nice. I forget how many miles are on it. Now there are minor problems. The hub is screwed up because I guess they forgot to hit a switch for the 4x4 before running it and now it makes noises when ever running in 4x4. Is this fix inexpensive? Also its for $1500 for the truck which is nice. Please need a reply. | |
|
|
|
Replying to: yhindy2006 (Sep 18, 2006 5:51 pm) If you really like it for the price and never plan to use 4wd, then buy it and don't put any money into fixing the hub problem. Good luck! 
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: yhindy2006 (Sep 18, 2006 5:51 pm) I've never owned a truck before and the feeling of height and power was invigorating. I really enjoy doing research on the internet and I decided to look up the reviews of the Ranger and bask in the glory of my new truck. As you can imagine it was quite a shock when I read Edmunds review of the Ranger. The quote that applied directly to me was: "If you're not a hard-core off-roader, though, there's little reason to consider the 2007 Ford Ranger. Trucks like the Dodge Dakota, Nissan Frontier and Toyota Tacoma are easier and more comfortable to drive on pavement, and all offer roomier cabs with more conveniences and safety features." What??? So I did some research on my Ranger and comparable trucks. My Ranger (XLT Extended Supercab 4x2) Engine : 3.0 L 12 Valve V6 Horsepower : 148 hp  4900 rpm Torque : 180 lb-ft 3980 rpm Fuel Economy: 17 city / 23 hwy Nissan Frontier (King SE-V6 4x2) Engine: 4L 24 Valve V6 Horsepower : 261 hp 5600 rpm Torque : 281 lb-ft 4000 rpm Fuel Economy : 16 city / 20 hwy Toyota Tacoma (Access Cab 4x2) Engine: 2.7L 16 Valve V4 Horsepower : 159 5200 rpm Torque : 180 lb –ft 3800 rpm Fuel Economy : 21 city / 27 hwy Dodge Dakota (ST Club Cab 4x2) Engine: 3.7L 12 Valve V6 Horsepower : 210 5200 rpm Torque : 235 lb –ft 4000 rpm Fuel Economy : 16 city / 22 hwy Chevy Colorado (LS Ext Cab 2WD) Engine: 2.8 L 16 Valve V4 Horsepower : 175 hp 5600 rpm Torque : 185 lb – ft 2800 rpm Fuel Economy : 17 city / 24 hwy Going by these specs taken off the company websites, the Ranger is severely underpowered. Exactly what Edmunds said: "When equipped with the 4.0-liter V6, the Ford Ranger offers solid acceleration, but it feels underpowered with either the 3.0-liter V6 or the base four-cylinder." I have never driven any other trucks, but I can state from my own experience that the truck feels kind of slow. It's only a feeling, but I had it even when I test drived. I thought it was all trucks. Going by the review and specs it obviously isn't. And then there is the price : (www.xe.com for Canadian to US funds) Ford Ranger: $22,899 ($20,069 US) Nissan Frontier: $26,598 ($23,314 US) Toyota Tacoma: $22,535 ($19,749 US) Dodge Dakota: $24,925 ($21,843 US) Chevy Colorado: $21,440 ($18,790 US) and my research leaves me feeling really, quite, unhappy. The Ranger is weaker than the competition, even weaker than the Tacoma and Colorado which are using 4 cylinder engines. The Ranger's fuel economy is almost identical to Dodge and Chevy and comparable to Nissan (which is far more powerful) and much worse than the Tacoma (which is still more powerful). The Ranger has the comparable cargo space to the other trucks too with the Chevy, Dodge and Nissan being even a bit bigger. Finally, there's price. The Ranger is more expensive than the Chevy (which is still stronger), more expensive than the Tacoma (only a bit stronger, but much more fuel efficient and it's a V4!), a little cheaper than Dodge (but far less powerful and barely more fuel efficient), and a good bit cheaper than Nissan (but much, much less powerful and still only a bit more fuel efficient). It feels good to get this off my chest, but I have to say: "I think I've been pwned."
|
|
|
|
|
Picked up a 2002 Ranger reg cab 2wd XL last week. 124k miles, cruise, cd, auto tranny for $3,750 private party. Edmunds TMV is $3,850 wholesale, $4,800 private, and $5,750 dealer... so I got a nice deal! The truck was originally used as a delivery vehicle in a networking business, then privately owned, and since the vehicle was maintenanced at the same garage, I've got a complete maintenance history, including the transmission replacement in late 2004. It's got a bed liner and a tonneau cover too, both in mint condition. The truck was smoked in, so I got rid of the odor... now to just find seat covers that actually fit a 60-40 split bench seat snugly. The 2.3l engine runs good, with some minor vibration and slight rocking at a stop, so I'll look into that. Overall I love having a truck again! (Former owner of a 1997 Mazda B4000 4x4) |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: davidjulio (Oct 17, 2006 12:59 pm) Used, however, Ford is the clear choice due to uber depreciation and dependibility of the old technology. If it'll make ya feel any better... Toyota is having lots of quality/reliability issues the past 2 years, and I've heard horror stories about the seating position/fit and finish in the Colorados. So, you basically traded engine power for dependability and cheaper repair costs due to older design/technology. There, did I find the silver lining within a pile of dog poop? lol!
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Prices Paid: Buying & Leasing Experiences Ford Ranger Prices Paid and Buying Experiences
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Ford Ranger
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
