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

[johngenx]

No, nice for two.  I only put two in the front of the Scoob!   

[Vanstar]

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.

In my opinion, if Ford were on the ball, they would build the Asian model Ranger, with its great diesel engine. I see them all over the Philippines and Thailand when I am there scuba diving.

[johngenx]

I see them all over the Philippines and Thailand when I am there scuba diving.

Trucks that DRIVE UNDER WATER?  Wow!  WANT!!!!!

[ArticSteve]

If your a midget the regular cab Ranger is just excellent.  Otherwise this "truck" does nothing well.

"I'll just roll my King Quad into my Ranger"    Oops .... CAN'T.

Really, just buy a 4x8 utility trailer, and attach it to almost any vehicle and use that when needed. 

[tortoise]

Enough for three do you think?

 I had a 98 B2500 5 speed..  Three of us drove from Fernie to Whistler.   So it's doable.  But it sucked.  And one guy was an Aussie, so he never drove.  Poor bastard.

Had it from 11,000 km to 125,000 km.  Reasonably reliable but had a few issues.  Ate the ball joints, a few upper control arms (though the shop put in inferior parts IMO), a coolant temperature sensor.

Was ok on gas.  10 L/100 km highway, worse in the city.  The later 2.3 was better on gas.

I was single, no kids and it was a good vehicle for the time. Easy to toss in the mountain bike, could tow a u-haul (what can't?) and served it's purpose well.

[Ex-airbalancer]

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.

Get into a transit, get into a Ranger, then get into a F-150
Then you will know why most people get the F-150

[kenm]

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.

I've long wondered why someone doesn't build some kind of FWD pick-up. The payload of the TC is 1600 lbs., so a pick-up version should be able to match that.

[Solstice2006]

Airbalancer, AP

"Get into a transit, get into a Ranger, then get into a F-150. Then you will know why most people get the F-150"

Not being very specific, you can't tell me it's because the Ford F-150 has these great interior materials, hard plastic everywhere.  Back seats in the extended cab, after 1/2 hour hurt your back.  I have been in the Ranger and the Transit, the Transit is not designed to be a comfort mobile, it's a utility truck.  More practical than the F-150 for everyday use.  But it depends on your needs, if you load drywall, and visit HomeDepot and Leons every week, get a full size truck.  Enjoy the climb into the cab, the parking, the stop at the gas station on the way home. 

Articsteve

"If your a midget the regular cab Ranger is just excellent.  Otherwise this "truck" does nothing well."

Not really sure what your talking about, if your able to fit in the Focus, you can fit in the Ranger.  Now, if your 6'5, and weigh 350lbs, don't blame the 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.

Get into a transit, get into a Ranger, then get into a F-150
Then you will know why most people get the F-150

Airb.   Some of us who, even if they wanted a truck, would NEVER want a huge vehicle like an F150.
That is the point of my argument.   However good a WORK TRUCK an F150 is, it is far too big for many many people.

[Great_Big_Abyss]

To all you detractors who are essentially saying 'forget the ranger, get the F-150, there's more room inside':

I'm 6'1", and relatively lanky.  I'm 28 and a bachelor (as in I don't have a family).  I enjoy outdoor activities such as mountain biking, sailing and backwoods camping.  I bought a Ranger because it's 'right sized' to do all of these activities.  Sure, I could fit my bike in the back of my Civic, but I had to remove both wheels, lower the back seats of the car, and put the bike in.  Forget about carrying more than 2 passengers in that situation.  I could have used a bike rack, but in some cases they destroy the look of the car and they're also relatively tedious to use.  Fairly often, 6 of us will go off for a day long mountain bike trip.  We'll load 6 bikes in the back of my truck, put one passenger in my truck, 3 passengers in another car and off we go.  Gasoline costs are amalgamated and split between us.  The fuel efficiency of the car balances out the inefficiency of the truck.

When it comes to sailing, I can easily pull my 16' Vanguard sailboat without straining anything.  Sure, any car could probably pull my little boat, but with the Ranger I don't even notice the weight.  It's also very easy to just throw the sail bags (which are very large and bulky) into the back of the truck (and I've got a few different sets, depending on what conditions are like) instead of trying to stuff them into the back of a car.

Okay, going backwoods camping could really be done out of any vehicle.  I have no excuse for that.


In all the time I've had my truck (going on 3 years now) I've only ever carried 3 people a handful of times.  And the times that I do, it's only for short trips, and I just use the middle front seat (because it does have a seatbelt).  It makes shifting interesting, and it's a little cramped, but it does in a pinch (pun intended).  I agree, the back of my quad cab is next to useless for passengers.  So much so that I even removed the back seats and I use the area exclusively for storing gear that I want to keep locked up.  You know, things such as ratchet straps, my Hi-LIFT jack, my chain winch, tools, things of that nature that become useful.  Not once have I wished for more passenger space.

So, you're telling me that instead of buying a relatively inexpensive Ranger, I should have bought a hugely expensive Ford F-150(and the bargain stripper ones don't count, because to get into the 4 door ones you automatically have to pay a premium?  Just to have some extra room that I don't want?  And some extra comfort that, quite frankly I really don't need?  So I have crank windows and manual locks.  I don't really care.

But, the biggest advantage to having a truck small truck?  When my friends and I go out for a night on the town, I have a pretty good excuse not to take my vehicle and be DD.  Oh, sorry, my truck only fits one passenger comfortably, hehe.

[ktm525]

To all you detractors who are essentially saying 'forget the ranger, get the F-150, there's more room inside':

I'm 6'1", and relatively lanky.  I'm 28 and a bachelor (as in I don't have a family).  I enjoy outdoor activities such as mountain biking, sailing and backwoods camping.  I bought a Ranger because it's 'right sized' to do all of these activities.  Sure, I could fit my bike in the back of my Civic, but I had to remove both wheels, lower the back seats of the car, and put the bike in.  Forget about carrying more than 2 passengers in that situation.  I could have used a bike rack, but in some cases they destroy the look of the car and they're also relatively tedious to use.  Fairly often, 6 of us will go off for a day long mountain bike trip.  We'll load 6 bikes in the back of my truck, put one passenger in my truck, 3 passengers in another car and off we go.  Gasoline costs are amalgamated and split between us.  The fuel efficiency of the car balances out the inefficiency of the truck.

When it comes to sailing, I can easily pull my 16' Vanguard sailboat without straining anything.  Sure, any car could probably pull my little boat, but with the Ranger I don't even notice the weight.  It's also very easy to just throw the sail bags (which are very large and bulky) into the back of the truck (and I've got a few different sets, depending on what conditions are like) instead of trying to stuff them into the back of a car.

Okay, going backwoods camping could really be done out of any vehicle.  I have no excuse for that.


In all the time I've had my truck (going on 3 years now) I've only ever carried 3 people a handful of times.  And the times that I do, it's only for short trips, and I just use the middle front seat (because it does have a seatbelt).  It makes shifting interesting, and it's a little cramped, but it does in a pinch (pun intended).  I agree, the back of my quad cab is next to useless for passengers.  So much so that I even removed the back seats and I use the area exclusively for storing gear that I want to keep locked up.  You know, things such as ratchet straps, my Hi-LIFT jack, my chain winch, tools, things of that nature that become useful.  Not once have I wished for more passenger space.

So, you're telling me that instead of buying a relatively inexpensive Ranger, I should have bought a hugely expensive Ford F-150(and the bargain stripper ones don't count, because to get into the 4 door ones you automatically have to pay a premium?  Just to have some extra room that I don't want?  And some extra comfort that, quite frankly I really don't need?  So I have crank windows and manual locks.  I don't really care.

But, the biggest advantage to having a truck small truck?  When my friends and I go out for a night on the town, I have a pretty good excuse not to take my vehicle and be DD.  Oh, sorry, my truck only fits one passenger comfortably, hehe.

Makes pefect sense. I went from a standard cab Toyota 4*4 to a Dodge Dakota extended cab (fit a few things inside like golf clubs, shotguns etc) to a Dakota Quad cab as  first born rear facing seat req.) to a Honda Ridgeline (crash rating and new Dakota POS).  They all fit in the garage which was my first requirement.

[ArticSteve]

Articsteve

"If your a midget the regular cab Ranger is just excellent.  Otherwise this "truck" does nothing well."

Not really sure what your talking about, if your able to fit in the Focus, you can fit in the Ranger.  Now, if your 6'5, and weigh 350lbs, don't blame the Ranger!

In a Focus one can at least recline the seat back, back.   

It is what it is and most of the Rangers in Canada tend to be the extended cabs with automatic.  They are poorly engineered, medicore quality at the very best, poor mileage/power ratio, and generally just nickel and dime the owners to death just like all Fords of that era did.

I do not think a base F150 6 cylinder is a replacement whatsoever.

Beats me why someone doesn't introduce a mini pickup.  Toyota is well positioned to steal that market, but they're idiots of late and don't seem to be inclined to take risks.  They could take a page out of Ford's book and start building in Mexico. 

The base Tacoma is still available in the US which would probably run 500K km without any repair other than regular wear items and a clutch.

 

[johngenx]

The base Tacoma is still available in the US which would probably run 500K km without any repair other than regular wear items and a clutch.

 

Hopefully it would have the new bellhousing that is costing older Taco manual-shift owners a bucket of dough...

[ArticSteve]

What year would that be and how many hours would in be to change a clutch in a base Tacoma?

2  , 3 if you're drinking. 

[johngenx]

FJ's and Tacos have a defective bell housing.  It's a helluva lot more than changing some clutch parts, though Toyota has a TSB that involves that.  I wouldn't buy a used manual of those two until it's seen if the update fixes it.  I don't think it will, as the wear point is the pilot shaft on the bell housing, not the throw out bearing.  Replacing the bearing fixes the symptom, does not cure the disease.  I REALLY want a six-speed FJ, but all of them have noisy throw-outs, so I won't touch them.  Toyota only does the TSB for free if you're in the warranty, and the second the warranty is over, f-u.  I bet the cheap TSB fix just gets people to out-of-warranty.

Oh, and 3 hours of labour alone is >$300, and if your logic is correct, having to spend more than $15 on repairs means a car/truck should be tossed out.

[dirtyjeffer]

They could take a page out of Ford's book and start building in Mexico. 

don't laugh...Honda and Mazda will be opening up factories there in the next 1-2 years (already in the works)...Toyota and Suzuki are also considering it...cheap labour, minimal environmental regulations, and with the suppliers moving down there with them, their "local content" requirements are satisfied (62.5% for Canada/USA, 50% for South America and Europe)...there were something like 2.5 million cars made in Mexico last year, with about 75% of them exported.

[ArticSteve]

I'm not laughing. Ontario has been losing assembly jobs and Mexico now leads by a big margin.  Don't see this ever changing.

[ArticSteve]

FJ's and Tacos have a defective bell housing

As speculated by ppl on the V6 FJ forums. 

The TBS allows 2.8 hours for the V6 Taco 2wd and 3.2 hours on FJ

Introduction

Some manual transmission equipped FJ Cruiser and V6 Tacoma vehicles may exhibit a squeak or
rattle noise from the transmission area when the clutch pedal is released. Changes have been made
to the clutch system to eliminate this noise. Follow the procedure in this bulletin to address this.

R & R Transmission to Replace
Clutch Release Bearing, Fork
Support, and Release Cylinder

Oh, and 3 hours of labour alone is >$300, and if your logic is correct, having to spend more than $15 on repairs means a car/truck should be tossed out.

It's an easy DIY repair.  I suggest that ppl that buy used out of warranty FJs or Tacomas should be the type that can change a clutch.  However, take this warning: the manual shift Tacos and FJs are heavy on gas.


However, this thread was about Rangers and the Toyota alternative is the base Taco, 2.7 4 banger, in 2 wheel drive. 

[kenm]

With all the talk of alternatives to the Ranger, I'm surprised that there's been no mention of the Frontier:

http://nissan.ca/buying/configurator/en/modelChooser.html?vehicle=2

[Ex-airbalancer]

With all the talk of alternatives to the Ranger, I'm surprised that there's been no mention of the Frontier:

http://nissan.ca/buying/configurator/en/modelChooser.html?vehicle=2

Nice truck, but once you load it up a bit cost the same as as a large one and real life mileage will probably same as a large truck