Ford Ranger

>>14804971
4banger with a stick

I hear the v6 is so bad that you shouldnt bother

>>14804986
Had the 4.0 manual. Was good for a while then it all started going to hell. Had an old 2.3 manual and even with 300k+ miles it was great

>>14804971
2.3 or 4.0, anything in between is trash.
>stick

Bumping, I might be picking up a 2002 4X4 this Sunday if everything goes to plan

>>14805112
Make sure it's a 4.0 though.
3.0
>same power as a 2.3 and 2.5
>mileage like the 4.0

>>14805169
Thx friendo,

It is indeed a 4.0, what are some things I should expect to fix on this thing over time? It's got 160 000km on it

>>14804971
Mine had issues with the windshield wipers randomly not working. It was a 95, though. Never figured out why that was.

>>14805345
If that's the worst I'll see I am OK with this

not op

is this overcharge?

http://dallas.craigslist.org/dal/cto/5529210600.html

i mean, it is essentially new

>>14805394
100% worth it. pick up a hurst shift kit and itll last you at least 400k and plenty of memories inbetween

the shift kit wont add longevity, but it makes it shift like a sports car

>>14804986
I can't comment on the 4.0, but the 3.0 v6 is aight. Shit mpg, shit power, but reliable.

>>14804971
2.5 lima is a dog but literally run forever and average 21mpg unless you're beating it stoplight to stoplight. 2.3l Mazda/duratec engine is better. 3.0 Vulcan is a dog and gets shit mpg and makes shit power. 4.0 makes decent power but gets shit mpg. Manuals are good. 220k on the original clutch in my dad's 2000 lima i4 Ranger.

>>14804971
Go for the 4.0 V6, the 3.0 was a car engine they shoved in there and the 2.3 couldn't get out of its own way if it tried.

I had a 93 4.0 automatic and the engine's never needed any major work. My brother drives it now, still going without issue at 280,000km's

>>14804971

I'm trying to decide between a Ranger or a Tacoma. The thing is it's infinitely easier to get a Ranger and cheaper to boot.
From reading this thread they're also reliable those Rangers. I bet it's hard to find a 4.0 though

>>14804986
>>14804971
Got a 06 ranger with the 3.0
There are indestructible, people say the v6 is trash well that's from the 4.0 and it's God awful issues. But the 3.0 is a great engine it has a little more power then the 4 cylinder and it's gas mileage is okay I dd my ranger and I average 17 mpg and i kinda drive like a maniac
The auto transmissions are slush box's and the real only weak point to most Rangers
Don't waste your time with the 4.0 I haven't heard of any lasting 200,000 miles reliably but the 4 cylinder and 3.0 will last a life time
I paid about 7,000 for mine 2 years ago I could have gotten the price down but I didn't have any bargaining power
8,000 sounds like an ok price if it's a lower mileage clean loaded truck, you can pick up worn out beaters with 250,000 miles on them from 1 to 4 thousand all day
Bottom line is try to stay away from the auto trannies and the 4.0 try to get a manuel 4 cylinder or 3.0. aftermarket ability for all the engines with the Ranger is almost non existence without doing an engine swap. With stock suspension it rides stiff with alot of body roll but it ain't bad it just feels like a truck. Also stay away from anything carborated then tend to have trouble

>>14805251
Timing belts and blowing out cams

>>14805169
They call the 3.0 bullet proof for a reason bub
3.0s gots more balls then the 4 cylinders 4.0s are pretty garbo

>>14806332

The 4.0 is an amazing engine. Cannot kill that engine.

>>14806362
The Dohc isn't as reliable as the good ol pushrod 3.0, 4.0 is a good engine don't get me wrong but compared to the 3.0 it is a more powerful engine but its still under powered for a 4 liter v6 but it's reliability to the 3.0 isn't comparable I've seen tons more 3.0s with well over 300,000 miles then 4.0s

>>14804971
i had a '99 2.3.

we called that turd the poop bus and had a great time cramming people into the 3 person cab, or the bed, or pushing it out of parking spaces when it iced (rwd with no traction control or weight on the rear end is hilarious)

loaded, pedal to the floor i could hit around 70 on the highway

sometimes it would skid into the oncoming lane if the road was wet

So, it brings me fond memories from highschool, but why do you want one? I wouldn't.

>>14804971

With that kind of budget, you should just look for a newer (mid-2000s) reg cab F150 with a V8. It's hard to find in a manual transmission though.

>>14806332
God-tier advice.
>>14806362
Except you are the opposite of correct, m80.
>what are timing tensioners

File: MK 1 Lift Ref.jpg (1MB, 2816x1880px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2816x1880px

>>14806617
Also I dd pic related and get 15mpg forever.
also it's 2000 kgs.

I would say get an S10 but, I don't know. I like the way rangers look.

These two mini trucks are just so weak when it comes to their engine options. And theres no real mod support for either.

But thats if your into that sorta thing.

Kyle?

>>14806657
Yee

>>14804986
I just bought an i4 with a stick

Holy fuck is it slow

File: DSC00714.jpg (163KB, 1095x821px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 1095x821px

>>14806944
4.0 Edge here. 185,000 with no major work done yet. No leaks, starts up on first crank.

Downsides:

It is a truck and rides like a brick. MPG are pretty shitty. 15-18mpg depending on traffic and how heavy your foot is.

Christ. I keep thinking I want to get a smaller truck, but I get the same/better mpg as smaller trucks in my F250/F350s.

just not worth. God damnit small trucks, get diesels again.

File: woods front.jpg (3MB, 2656x1494px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2656x1494px

I have an 04 4x4 with 4.0L
currently at 253k miles

They've changed so little that you can bolt a bed from a 93 directly onto a 2010

they're great little trucks, just test drive one that looks decent and check for anything that seems fucked

File: WP_20160331_19_48_44_Pro_LI.jpg (994KB, 2501x1357px) Image search: [Google]

994KB, 2501x1357px

>>14807027
Nice m8. Here's my piece of shit. It actually rides pretty nice but I want to get some new suspension and some bigger wheels. And maybe a sweet bumper. I have 14s on the front and matching 14 inch alloys for the rear but the tires on them are so shit I just pulled the 15s from my toyota and stuck them on.

Currently it has a gnarly coolant leak but it needs a new radiator so I'm just holding off to fix the leak until I decide to fix the radiator too.

>>14807027
Whatd you do for the front lift? I got the whole stink bug thing going on with my truck and the only way I ever hear to lift the front in lift spindles and I can't bring myself to spend 600 bucks just for a front lift

File: 20160320_180404.jpg (1MB, 1836x3264px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1836x3264px

NZ reporting in with a Ranger

3.2L 6spd

File: 1459037191314.jpg (180KB, 720x479px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 720x479px

>>14807213
BASTARD CHILD LEAVE NOW
RRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>14807213
It's beautiful anon

>>14804971
>>14804986
V6 engine is so underpowered it makes me cry driving it. Hasn't broken after 165k though. The only problem is that Ford cheaped out on materials for everything else so unless you live in Nevada the brakes/oil pan/driveshaft and the like are probably going to be rusted to shit. I wouldn't drop more than $2000.

t. a Ranger owner for 4 years

>>14807036

I average 20 in my f350.

Ive owned a 2.5 lima with a stick for about a year now. Got it for 2.5k with 80k miles.

Excellent gas mileage but slow as shit, doesnt bother me though