Topic: Used Vehicle Review: Ford Ranger, 1998-2011

[Autos_Editor]

The most reliable Ford Ranger is the rear-wheel drive model with four-cylinder engine and five-speed manual transmission, says Chris Chase.

Read More...

[Gardiner Westbound]

"Too much of a good thing is wonderful." - Mae West

Ford Rangers are great little trucks, reasonably priced, reliable and durable. There are gazillions of them on the road.

As gasoline prices increase the small and midsize pickup markets will return. Too late, Hyundai will have swooped in and eaten the domestics' lunch - again!
 

[richink]

The age of the compact pick up truck is over? I find that VERY difficult to believe. There has to be something major in the works over at Ford.

IMO the Ranger is a phenomenal value. I just looked at Ford's website and you can get one nicely equipped at just over $18K on the road and they are giving free financing. Cheap to buy, cheap to run, cheap to fix plus a 6 foot bed perfect for hauling around drywall and other supplies. Then there are the 10,001 accessories you can add to the thing and the legions of young tradespeople that will buy it from you in 6-7 years for a good price.

Too bad I'm not a pickup truck guy...

[overtakeyouintheleftlane]

This would be the 1st on my list for an affordable pick up if I was ever in the market. Simple is good.

[Solstice2006]

AP says

"The only advantage the Ranger has over the F150 is purchase price." 

I will have to strongly disagree with that statement.  A lot of people buy a full-size pickup for the wrong reasons.  Having rarely using them to tow, or using a small payload.  A handyman gets far better use out of something smaller.  Newer trucks are getting more and more difficult to load, as the boxes are so damn high.  Jil just wrote an article about her 95 1/2 ton Ram is about the size of a midsize Tacoma.  In the new Ram, she can't even reach the glovebox, not very practical.  Oh wait, it can tow 10,000lbs.  Bigger is not always better.  Trucks need to get back to their roots.  Make them closer to how they were 10 years ago, but with new engines  that we have today, 4 cylinder in a compact should be sufficient, V6 in a midsize, V6 as a volume seller in fullsize, with optional V8 for the rare people that use the truck to their potential.  Most of this is we can blame on Texas.  I would like a Ranger, but no crew cab for baby seat, I would spend the extra money on the Tacoma.  Then people say, for that price why not the F-150.  Put an F-150 and Tacoma side by size.  F-150 is too big, too high, even the new V6 isn't as good as the V-6 is in the Tacoma, and the interior in the Tacoma is pretty sharp.

[tpl]

I disagree as well.   In the event I needed a truck I'd want a simple 2 litre 4 cyl 5MT  truck about the size of the Toyota that Top Gear tried to destroy.  Ranger sized or the Mazda clone one.  The one you see in any South/South-east Asian country scurrying about like cockroaches carrying  many people or tonnes of stuff.

A F150 would be far too much truck and would have far too big an engine to be economical... in fact AFAIK the current Ranger  has far too big an engine as well.

[Great_Big_Abyss]

The only advantage the Ranger has over the F150 is purchase price.  Otherwise it offers the same (and in some cases worse) fuel economy, less interior space, less safety and less utility.  Last fall these could be bought with the (ancient) V6 in 4x4 trim for $15k.  Around about the same time, I scored a brand new F150 Supercrew 4x4 5.4 for $25k.

Agree with your point about fuel economy, if the Ranger is equipped with the V6.  On the other hand, a small 4-banger still offers as much utility as a V6 Ranger (in that you can still haul that refrigerator from your neighbour's house to the dump) while getting phenomenal (for a truck) fuel economy.  Hard to argue with that.

The only other advantage is the Ranger's small size compared to an F-150.  F-150's are just so damned big.  I'd hate to have to park one in a tight shopping mall parking lot.  The Ranger is no wider than most mid-size cars and no longer than a fullsize sedan.

Oh, and 10K is a LOT of money when you're talking about 25k to 15k.  Don't marginalize that.  Also, there's no way you're getting the fuel economy that I'm getting with your 5.4.  I know ho greedy those things are, too.

[ktm525]

I imagine the safety ratings on Rangers can't be great considering the length of the model run?

[Snowman]

The only advantage the Ranger has over the F150 is purchase price.  Otherwise it offers the same (and in some cases worse) fuel economy, less interior space, less safety and less utility.  Last fall these could be bought with the (ancient) V6 in 4x4 trim for $15k.  Around about the same time, I scored a brand new F150 Supercrew 4x4 5.4 for $25k.

I disagree. I have seen a ranger in the bush go where an F-150 could not. Narrow gauge, a shorter wheel base, and better approach angles are a huge advantage in real world off-road conditions. Not all trucks go up and down 40o series highways.

[ktm525]

The only advantage the Ranger has over the F150 is purchase price.  Otherwise it offers the same (and in some cases worse) fuel economy, less interior space, less safety and less utility.  Last fall these could be bought with the (ancient) V6 in 4x4 trim for $15k.  Around about the same time, I scored a brand new F150 Supercrew 4x4 5.4 for $25k.

I disagree. I have seen a ranger in the bush go where an F-150 could not. Narrow gauge, a shorter wheel base, and better approach angles are a huge advantage in real world off-road conditions. Not all trucks go up and down 40o series highways.

All modern crew cab trucks make awful offroad vehicles because of their ginormous wheelbases...

[D70]

Not all Ranger drivers make sensible choices

http://www.flickr.com/photos/d70w7/6096108351/

[Great_Big_Abyss]

I agree that $25k is a notable step up from $15k, why is why price is an advantage of the Ranger. 


I get 11-12 l / 100 km during highway use.  The lie-o-meter reads 14.5-15 l / 100 km if I just let it average out over months of mixed city/highway.  The Ranger V6 will not be much, if any, better.

I get exactly 10L /10kms on the highway at 100kms/h.  I've measured this by doing my mileage.  City driving is around 14-15.

[Cord]

The big problem with the current Ranger is that they have a tiny cabin by today's standards. A regular cab is almost claustrophobic and the super cab isn't much better. Relatively few 4 cyls are sold and the V6s are not very efficient. Definitely reliable though.

[Minou]

"...In 2001, the 4.0-litre “Vulcan” V6 was replaced by the more advanced “Duratec” 4.0-litre V6"...


IIRC the Vulcan V6 is the 3.0 liter from Taurus fame.  Both 4.0 liter versions were spawned from the Cologne V6.  There was no such thing as a 4.0 liter Duratec.  Anyhow, it's only semantic for these hugely obsolete powertrains...

[Cord]

"...In 2001, the 4.0-litre “Vulcan” V6 was replaced by the more advanced “Duratec” 4.0-litre V6"...


IIRC the Vulcan V6 is the 3.0 liter from Taurus fame.  Both 4.0 liter versions were spawned from the Cologne V6.  There was no such thing as a 4.0 liter Duratec.  Anyhow, it's only semantic for these hugely obsolete powertrains...

Correct. The original 4.0L was the "Cologne" pushrod V6. This evolved into an SOHC version of the same engine in 2001.

[kard00d]

The only advantage the Ranger has over the F150 is purchase price.  Otherwise it offers the same (and in some cases worse) fuel economy, less interior space, less safety and less utility.  Last fall these could be bought with the (ancient) V6 in 4x4 trim for $15k.  Around about the same time, I scored a brand new F150 Supercrew 4x4 5.4 for $25k.

I agree with this.  Wish it wasn't true, but I think it is - probably why there's no market for small trucks.   I believe Ford is replacing the Ranger just with a lower cost trim level of the F-150.

You can easily spend $30K + on a Dakota or Ranger..

[tpl]

if Ford were on the ball they'd find a way to make a pickup version of the Transit Connect...avoiding the "chicken tax" by  building them in Mexico or Canada.

For people who just want a small truck, FWD should not be a problem, it would be very economical, powertrain and the cabin stuff in series production already. You could probably put > 1000 lbs of stuff in the bed if the rear suspension was done right.   And it ought to be inexpensive.  Plenty of room for a refrigerator and the Ikea run in spring and the garden junk in the fall.

Many people I suspect just do not want a behemoth like the F150 'cos they don't need the towing capacity nor the room inside.

[Cord]

Many people I suspect just do not want a behemoth like the F150 'cos they don't need the towing capacity nor the room inside.

I'd think that if that were true, it would be the F-150 being cancelled and the Ranger would be the best selling vehicle for the last 350 years.

[johngenx]

The big problem with the current Ranger is that they have a tiny cabin by today's standards. A regular cab is almost claustrophobic and the super cab isn't much better. Relatively few 4 cyls are sold and the V6s are not very efficient. Definitely reliable though.

Really?  A buddy and I rode to Jasper and back in his Ranger, and I didn't find the cabin tiny.  More than enough room for the two of us.  Sure, we had all our gear in the bed, but the actual cabin space was fine.  His V-6 was hard on gas compared to my Scoob, so we took the Subaru all trips after that...

[Cord]

More than enough room for the two of us.

Enough for three do you think?