Last post on Jun 25, 2012 at 5:04 PM
You are in the Prices Paid - Buying & Leasing Experiences
What is this discussion about?
Ford Ranger, Truck
#43 of 72 Re: Hey guys never owned a ranger. [yhindy2006]
Sep 18, 2006 (8:40 pm)
Just purchased my first Ranger, an '06 (used to own a Toyota pickup), and my Brother has an '01 SL2 so am familar with Saturns. I'm no gear head but gut feel is unless you do your own work you should stay away from older Rangers (pre '00), especially if it has a known problem, as almost any repair these days costs $250 min just for the simple stuff. At a minimum before you purchase take the truck to the shop you plan to take it to to have the problem fixed and see how much it will cost to fix it (or just go there without the truck and describe the problem).
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.
#44 of 72 First Truck, A Ranger 07' : Feeling A Bit Bad...
Oct 17, 2006 (1:59 pm)
I was very excited with my new Ranger.
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."
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."
Jan 08, 2007 (7:09 am)
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)
#46 of 72 Re: First Truck, A Ranger 07' : Feeling A Bit Bad... [davidjulio]
Jan 08, 2007 (7:16 am)
That Ford 3.0 is from the dark ages... as is the underpinnings of the Ranger. Ruling out the Nissan and Dodge due to price, I would have gone with the Toyota first, then the Chevy 2nd when buying new.
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!
#47 of 72 Re: First Truck, A Ranger 07' : Feeling A Bit Bad... [billwfriend]
Jan 09, 2007 (8:28 pm)
I have owned my 01 Ranger since new and I have to disagree with the poster who said that all repairs are going to cost a minimum of $250. In my experience over the last 120K miles I have paid $70 in parts. This includes one U joint at 60K miles and a heater resister last week for $20. If anything there are so many parts out there that it cost next to nothing to fix just about anything. I do have to replace a upper ball joint soon but that is only $40 for the joint or $125 for the whole upper control arm. The 3L is a waste of money and anybody with half a brain would choose either the 2.3 or 4.0 depending on what their goal is.
#48 of 72 Thinking of getting a new Ranger....
Jan 28, 2007 (10:42 am)
I'm thinking about getting a 2006 Ranger (incentives are super right now for that model). XL, auto, AC - other than that, pretty simple. Pulliam Ford in Columbia SC quoted me a MSRP of $18500 and an internet price of $18,300 pre-rebates - that still seems high to me!! Any feedback would be appreciated.
Also, I posted a question on the performance vs mileage of the 2.3L and 3.0L on the "engine" forum - if you have any ideas, please let me know!
#49 of 72 Re: Thinking of getting a new Ranger.... [mookie2003]
Jan 29, 2007 (11:27 pm)
I just got an 06 XLT SuperCab 4-dr w/ tow and cruise for $18995 before rebates here in Seattle if that helps. Super great deal. But for an XL with auto and AC, (1k for auto and 850 for AC), it should run around 17K at invoice based on what I have seen during the past month I was looking. Invoice on these trucks has been around $1500 to $2000 under MSRP when you factor dealer holdback and the like.
For a great research tool while looking at Ford Truck, hit http://www.fordvehicles.com/trucks/ranger/
and click on "search dealer inventory" to see what the local dealer has. You can even see the window sticker with MSRP (from Ford) and options for that truck. Hope this helps.
BTW, on the 2.3L vs. 3.0L question; I've had both and the economy on the 2.3L is great (23-25mpg typical). The 3.0L isn't worth the waste in gas for performance. It lacks any real power, (acts much like the 4 banger) and only averaged 18mpg for either city or hwy. I have the 4.0L now and see the same mileage with way better performance for 17mpg so far.
#50 of 72 Re: Ford Ranger: Prices Paid and Buying Experiences [lee_w]
Feb 05, 2007 (11:09 pm)
Rangers are dinosaurs, but look at the junk yards what do you see. Imports, they make up >50% of the junk Yards.
#51 of 72 Re: Ford Ranger: Prices Paid and Buying Experiences [fordenvy]
Feb 09, 2007 (9:16 am)
Dinosaurs yes, but would not even consider buying anything but. Are people paying invoice to own? My first 1983 Ranger 4x4 2.3l drove it for over 11 years, 250k + sold it to my brother for $1K and could have got more if it wasn't my brother. Bought a 1994 Ranger 4x4 4.0l and my son is still driving it with 295K miles and going strong. Only complaint was the auto 4x4 push button crapp, should have kept it manual hubs with a shift on the floor. I'm going to be buying my third Ranger in a few months, won't even consider taking another make for a test drive. Yes sir I will stick with the brand I trust the most. My current vehicles are a 1966 Mustang, 1994 Ranger, 2001 Escape, 2004 Freestar(...wifes), and last but not least my 2007 GT 500 Shelby. P.S. Ford did not pay me to post this message, nor am I affiliated in any way with Ford. HA! HA! Although I think they should give me a few shares.
#52 of 72 Re: Ford Ranger: Prices Paid and Buying Experiences [bri66]
by kyfdx HOST
Feb 09, 2007 (12:29 pm)
Ford shares? Better get any payment in cash!!