How bad of a choice would this Ranger be for a truck that wo

it would be fine and you would like it and you should buy it the end

>>17885400
Honestly I'd say that's a pretty good deal, especially since it's from a dealer.

I drive a 1992 ranger myself daily, and love it.

So my opinion would be to go for it.

shouldn't be that bad
You'd probably not be able to have too much fun with it, but with the low mileage, id go for it

>automatic
d
r
o
p
p
e
d

>>17885400
Rangers are pretty good, I had 2.

A 1998 and 1993, Both 4.0L's.

One was stolen at gun point and never seen again (RIP) and the other a drunk 16yo girl side swiped in front of my house doing 50+

>>17885717
why are they so much cheaper than tacomas?

>>17885771
Probably due to the indestructible meme. Tacos seem to be more popular, so people can sell them for more.

>>17885400
Rangers are good trucks.

They last forever if maintained properly.
Parts sourcing is easy and cheap due to popularity
Lots of forum advice on trucks since they basically did not change for 20 years or so

The bad:
V6 burn almost as much feel as a v8
Ride is harsh when empty since they are meant to carry stuff.
Not the best in anything, but decent in most.


It's a utilitarian vehicle. It will do anything you ask it to do. But at the end of the day it is a meh car.

Source:
Owned more Ford rangers and explorers than I can count. Sold them to family members who needed cars or they were crashed by other people. All in all, a decent truck.

>>17885400
>automatic
get a manual.

>>17887599
any experience with the 4 cylinder engine?

File: taynger.jpg (474KB, 1920x1280px) Image search: [Google]

474KB, 1920x1280px

>>17887599
this

GET
THE
4.0

>>17888086
Tows much more than it says it can (similar gearing to the 4.0s but just less torque). Nice on gas. Can handle some boost if you want to turbo it down the line.

>4bt swap when

File: minitruck.jpg (100KB, 399x480px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 399x480px

>>17888086
Yeah. Had a 4 cylinder manual. It is gutless. I imagine it is even more gutless in the automatic version, because in the manual you can at least control your shifts and abuse it to get more out of the engine.

It sucked going up hills loaded, but the 4 cylinders get GREAT gas mileage. For a truck that is.

4.0s are goddamn bulletproof. 3.0s are even more meh, might as well go for the 4.0 to squeeze out more power if you are going to get shitty gas mileage.

Oh depending on where you live. 5.0 swaps are easily done with a lot of aftermarket support. Or sometimes people also supercharge 4.0s. I personally think it is a waste of money. If I wanted it to go fast, or more power, I would've bought a larger V8 truck.

How bad are the auto's in rangers? I'd rather have a manual, but if I find a clean auto I'll get one if they aren't too bad.

As long as you take care of it and not off-road it like everyone else does, you should have little issue

File: 2 rangers.png (431KB, 660x367px) Image search: [Google]

431KB, 660x367px

rangers are dope, buy it
ranger on left has 3 inch body lift and the one on right has cranked t-bars and leaf blocks

>>17885400
I drive my family's 2003 ranger as a dd. Now my commute is 6 miles foward amd back but the truck has been fine over these last few years. Just broke 80k recently and that is nothing for for the 3.0 vulcan. It is a slow as fuck truck and it gets shit empeegees but it is reliable and easy to work on. (expect getting the oil filter off) i ddi have to change the radiator recently because it developed a crack and was leaking bad, but the first major repair in 15 years is not bad. Parts are cheap and it took me 2 hours. The transmission is a bit rough though and i feel like it will be the first major thing that gives out, but it still works fine for now. But if you get a manual you should be good until the clutch is kill

Oh i should mention the cam shaft position sensor assembly (looks like a metal dildo). It called the " cherp of death" on ranger fourms. I believe it only effects the 3.0 v6 which is by far the most common engine on these trucks and this is one of the most common issues. The problem starts off as a squeaking similar to a belt squeak whenever you start the engine cold. It tends to go away after a bit, but if you ignore it, or just think it is a belt and not anything else, it will get worse until the squeak is constant. If you keep ignoring it and the sensor assembly fails, you end up losing oil pressure because the damn thing also drives the oil pump. A new position sensor assembly is cheap and its easy to fix as long as you do it right, which you need to or your engine will be off timing.

>>17888086
The 2.3 mazda engine is great. you'll get mid 20s if you live in the suburbs and don't have a lot of stop signs and around 28mpg on the highway. It's a good combo if you're not hauling much. If you're hauling heavy loads, multiple days a week get a full-size truck. The 3.0 and 4.0 are gutless and get the gas mileage of a v8, so you should just get a v8.