I like the look/style of these older Rangers but I've heard

>old ranger
>unreliable
I mean, they'll have old car problems but it's a low comp ferd 4 cyl, a manual transmission, and a ferd rear axle. Those last forever with proper maintenance.

Just get a hillux nigger

If they've made it this far they've had most of their niggling issues fixed. They suffer from electrical gremmlins, people will replace the entire wire harness. Mechanically they're pretty good but water pumps ans alternators are pretty poor quality.

>>17787794
Sure. It's just all the little things inbetween.

>>17787796
I live in the states.
>>17787798
That seems to be the case. I know a guy from work that used to try and commute in one of these. He drove a Subaru most of the time but anytime he tried to drive his Ranger it would give him some kind of issue. The sad thing is he only lived like 6 miles away.

>>17787787
My '92 is incredibly reliable. ~180k miles, constant offroad speed sessions, and frequent redlines, yet no damage to anything but the suspension so far.

File: 165747.jpg (106KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 600x450px

>>17787787
cologne engine is fantastic if underwhelming
don't think it got the 4.0 sohc but that engine is trash

first year had 2bbl motorcraft carbs were pretty good, dont remember if fuel injection or computer controlled carb came after but it had some weirdass ignition people like to swap them back to a duraspark II

Mazda 5 speed used behind 5.0's in F150's, dana 28 might be weak for bigger tires but the later 35 is ok.

I think it gets the most crap over the TTB and A4LD auto trans.

Pretty solid truck.

>>17788076
Someone who actually knows what they're talking about. Seconding this, OP. Do not get the 4.0, get an old 4 banger manual if you can.