Our Community is 705,000 Strong. Join Us.


Ranger owners...would you buy your Ranger again if you had it to do all over again?


Pages : [1] 2

bagwell
12-01-2004, 02:11 PM
I'm very close to purchasing a used 99 (57k miles) from my Grandfather and was curious if you're happy with your purchase!

beat88ls
12-02-2004, 02:48 AM
hell yes, without hesitation :grinyes:

EVH5150
12-02-2004, 06:20 PM
You Bet!!! My 92 Looks damn near good as new, and the rest of the truck has been good, with the exception of a few minor glitches. I plan on keeping this thing until the frame falls apart!!!

Sandkng2004
12-02-2004, 10:36 PM
Best damn truck i've owned so far

Snakeyboy
12-04-2004, 08:45 PM
Worst piece of junk i ever owned.....going back to MOPAR!!

Psychopete
12-07-2004, 11:47 AM
Mopar? Please. Slowest pieces of junk on the road today. The new hemis are weak. They fear my performance 2.9L will eat them alive! I've raced several, they're definately geared weird/wrong for going fast, that's for damn sure. The ride is awful. I'd rather push a broke down Ford than drive a Mopar. I'm sorry man, but Mopar is just junk.

Snakeyboy
12-07-2004, 11:54 AM
Sorry Petey but your name says it all(psycho.) Your dumb ass would sooner push than drive??.....I think that's why you bought your Phord. Maybe change the papers you have been using ......I think the glue is messin with your head. Throw it in the ashtray and walk away psycho!!!! :loser:

Psychopete
12-07-2004, 01:33 PM
Sorry Petey but your name says it all(psycho.) Your dumb ass would sooner push than drive??.....I think that's why you bought your Phord. Maybe change the papers you have been using ......I think the glue is messin with your head. Throw it in the ashtray and walk away psycho!!!! :loser:

It's a nick name that I can't seem to get rid of. I've done some crazy, outragous if you will, stuff in my life time.

I wouldn't call me a dumb ass, considering that you can't write a simple sentence that makes any sense.

Actually my Ford was given to me by my father. I drove it for 2 years then it got a bad lifter tick. I put 2,500 in it, and I don't regret it either. So far this has been the most dependable / reliable truck I've ever owned. If you think a Ranger is junk, you're even more Psycho than me. Even where I live, where Fords are hated severely, everyone tells me I have a nice truck. It might just be the performance mods or the fact that the paint is still near perfect, but who knows.

I'm sorry that you had a bad experience with a Ford Ranger. It just sounds like someone sold you a Ranger with problems. Is that the Ranger's fault that the previous owner didn't care for it?

It's just sad when a 2.9L V6 is stomping these so called 'fast' Dodges.

And yes, I would rather push a Ford than drive a Dodge. A guy has to have some self respect. There's a point where you just have to draw the line, you know? I'd rather drive a Honda... And that still would shit rice all over your 'Mopar'.

You're messing with the wrong guy, no one hates Mopar as much as me. I've owned 3. Every single one had some serious issues.

Snakeyboy
12-07-2004, 01:49 PM
I guess being from Indiana pretty much sums it all up Psycho......your posts and replies all make sense to me now!!! Is that 2.9L V-6 eatin up 2.2L Neons????( really impressive) In your mind , what do you define as so called "fast" mopar?? I appreciate comments from guy's like you as they make me look like a genius :screwy:


Massively
Over
Powered
And
Respected

Psychopete
12-07-2004, 01:56 PM
Haha, no I mean those barka barka hillbillies that drive the new Dodge's with the Hemis. SLOW! Can't forget about the Hemi Wagon.. SLOW!

You must like driving like a Grandma, huh?

probell
12-14-2004, 06:18 PM
I just recently bought my second Ranger. I also looked carefully at Toyotas. My main priority in a truck is reliability. My last Ranger, a 1986, had 205k miles on it and it only died because I was too lazy to maintain it well. I do not believe that modern Japanese vehicles are significantly more reliable than American vehicles, and since there are so many more Rangers on the road, they are less expensive than Toyotas, and when something inevitably goes wrong, there will be more Ranger parts avaialble and more Ranger drivers on automotiveforums.com to answer questions. That is why I chose a Ranger.

As for what kind of Ranger, I am again guided by reliability. Simpler is better. I have, for example:
- the 4 cylinder engine
- manual transmission
- no 4-wheel drive
- no air conditioning
- no power windows, locks, or mirrors

ranger5002
12-17-2004, 12:06 AM
dude do you really need to ask? we love our rangers,i've had two,and i love them both. they have never left me standed or limping home.i have run this one hot really hot and it has got me home without letting me down.that's just the tip have had many other fords always had good luck,maybe just me,just try your luck,i hope you'll be a fan too!!!!!!

ranger5002
12-17-2004, 12:11 AM
snakeyboy i've got a ford 2.3 that will blow hemi's away. WANNA TRY ME?

fordfishing17
12-19-2004, 03:58 PM
heck ya i'd buy mine again i have a 94 w/133,000,auto, still runs great

http://memimage.cardomain.net/member_images/7/web/511000-511999/511180_18.gif

dnewma04
12-22-2004, 08:02 AM
172k miles now on my 1994 Ranger XLT 4x4. Runs excellent but in need of a new trans/clutch, i believe. I would certainly buy again.

dnewma04
12-22-2004, 08:04 AM
Oh, and the current Hemi's are powerful engines, it's not even debatable. Overhyped, yes. Underpowered, not really.

Psychopete
12-23-2004, 10:14 AM
Oh, and the current Hemi's are powerful engines, it's not even debatable. Overhyped, yes. Underpowered, not really.

I imagine they do have power, almost any engine with that many cubic inches will. It's just funny how they make them look so fast. Their gearing is goofy. They shouldn't advertise the New Hemi Dodge as being fast. It's not. It's a work truck with crappy suspension.

My friend drives them for his parents body shop. He said they'll scream, but they just don't go. Much like the stock SOHC 4.6L.

I have a friend that has a 1993 T-Bird 4.6L SOHC. He was doing about 35 and just slammed the tranny shifter into first and went back into his seat like it was about to go somewhere. He looked like an idoit, I swear, stock is terrible. It didn't even push me back, it was like nothing happened. My 2.9L scares me more than that piece.

RangerMike1982
12-23-2004, 04:27 PM
I bought me a ford ranger about 5 months ago. It was a beat up P.O.S it didnt run, it smoked and it knocked. a 1986 ford ranger, 179k miles and it was white but got spray painted black. The clutch was slipping the throwout bearring was toast. My grandpa kept putting gas into the air intake hose forcing gas directly into it. the truck was running i paid 100.00$ for the truck. I bought it! it was sputtering, clutch was slipping and I BEAT A 1992 CHEVY CAVALIER. stupid girl still hates me. I also smoked a 86 chevy camaro, and a 88 ford escort (it only had a 1.9L) so wasnt much of a race except for the fact my clutch was STILL slipping LOL. then after i traded my computer for a clutch kit at autozone toa friend, replaced the clutch and everything else i smoked alot more vehicles. NOW DONT GET ME WRONG I lost some races to 6 and 8 cylinders and 2 4 cylinders. sorry about running on, to answer your question i would buy it again and i'd actually pay more if i knew the outcome of my truck. I love my truck I LOVE FORDS my ranger is the best vehicle i ever owned EXCEPT the fact that it HATES SNOW AND ICE. but i have alot of fun when there is snow and ice. so snakeboy you suck fords rule. my lil 2.3 would smoke you

ranger04
12-31-2004, 08:37 AM
I guess being from Indiana pretty much sums it all up Psycho......your posts and replies all make sense to me now!!! Is that 2.9L V-6 eatin up 2.2L Neons????( really impressive) In your mind , what do you define as so called "fast" mopar?? I appreciate comments from guy's like you as they make me look like a genius :screwy:


Massively
Over
Powered
And
Respected

You damn Canadians are soooo funny :lol2: Since Mopar is "massively overpowered", is that why no one can keep a tranny in them to save their ass? :flipa: ...........and yes, I'm from Indiana too. I will say, however, that older Mopars (1970's roadrunners, super-bees, etc) are fine machines, but today they have some major issues. Not to say Ford is perfect, but they are DEFINITELY more reliable.

Hurls
01-15-2005, 02:10 AM
I love Rangers! I purchased my first new one in 93. Nothing but problems. Tranny, PW, PL, 4X4, etc. I decided I just got a "lemon" and traded it in before the warranty ended and bought a new 95 Ranger. This one was loaded and I love it!

Only problem is... the 4X4 didn't work the first time in two feet of snow, dealer said the components weren't installed at the factory (ooops!). Second, I have had numerous electrical problems and continue to have them today. The wipers will just start running on their own, when the switch is off! 4X4 works 85% of the time when I need it. Factory installed alarm kept going off and dealer couldn't fix it after over $1200 in repair costs, finally a local guy that owns a shop fixed it for $8 damn bucks!!! 4X4 has come on occassionally when the switch is in 2 wheel drive. Auxillary power adapter only worked for the first 18 months. Interior fade out lights stay on for two hours and dealer can't find the problem. Check engine light keeps coming on and dealer can't find a problem. Heater blows cool air in winter and thermostats need to be replaced annually to keep it blowing hot/warm air (all other heating system components have been replaced and only new thermostats allow the system to blow warm/hot air). Tires fell apart at 20k in shreds and chunks (before Firestone recall) and Ford/Firestone refused to reimburse me for new tires. Auto Tranny gears down so hard when slowing down on freeway off-ramps, etc., it aggrivated my herniated disc!

Problem is... I love Rangers! Will I buy another one? No, I think I will give a different truck a try. Tundra, Titan, Tacoma, Ram 1500, Dakota, maybe, just maybe a F-250 PS!

PS. Wife's Explorer just rolled 189k and has had relatively few problems through out the history of this vehicle.

roadbum
01-15-2005, 08:43 PM
I just recently bought my second Ranger. I also looked carefully at Toyotas. My main priority in a truck is reliability. My last Ranger, a 1986, had 205k miles on it and it only died because I was too lazy to maintain it well. I do not believe that modern Japanese vehicles are significantly more reliable than American vehicles, and since there are so many more Rangers on the road, they are less expensive than Toyotas, and when something inevitably goes wrong, there will be more Ranger parts avaialble and more Ranger drivers on automotiveforums.com to answer questions. That is why I chose a Ranger.

As for what kind of Ranger, I am again guided by reliability. Simpler is better. I have, for example:
- the 4 cylinder engine
- manual transmission
- no 4-wheel drive
- no air conditioning
- no power windows, locks, or mirrors
You sound like a man after my own heart. I own three Rangers a 1987 96, and a 97. The 87 was my first NEW vehicle its got over 200,000 miles on it now (rebuilt engine and another transmission) but I'm like you my next new vehicle was the 96 I ordered it with no A/C standard stick, but since I planned to do a lot of trip driving with it I had tilt wheel and cruise control put in its now got over 100,000 miles on it other than some issues with the clutch and headlight switch I've got no complaints.

roadbum
01-15-2005, 09:20 PM
This is a hard question to answer. First of all, I own three, (87, 96, 97) The 87 was bought new off the lot, the 96 was custom ordered (I sat down with a salesman and ordered all the features I wanted) The 97 was purchased used off a lot. The 87 has one of the last carbs they put on rangers (2.0L) The truck now has over 200,000 miles on it. I had to replace the engine around 135,000 miles due to a severe oil blow-by problem (its now doing it again) The standard transmission was replaced about 180,000 miles with a used one from an 86. I had to put a block heater on it so it would start in the winter, even with that its an either eater, and uses about a quart of oil every three days (avg. 300 miles + per week) on top of that! the gas tank sending unit doesen't work. After all that, I think I'd still buy it all over again, its taken me a lot of miles been a lot of places, but it was my first brand-new vehicle so go figure. Another thing, my 97 is the same wheel base, and model, yet it has LESS interior room and storage space than the 87.
The 96 has also covered a lot of miles, its a step-side with a 2.3 L engine, again, standard trans. I've got some serious issues with the electrical system. I had the battery take a dump on me after it was a year old. Unlike older vehicles, that would still run if the battery was bad, I had the whole SYSTEM shut down on me. I had to have it towed, now I know why Ford provides road-aid to new vehicle owners. Also I've got a problem with the turn signal/ wiper control/ dimmer switch. If I bump it wrong, the headlights go out on me. I had to field strip the damn thing on a trip one time so I could drive at night. (No better idea here) With all this I would probably buy it again. The 97 has the same engine as the 96, again a stick, but A/C on this one except for no room and a bench seat I've got no real complaints here either. I think the point I'm trying to make is that with all the problems these trucks have given me they're still a little bit better than anything Dodge or G.M.C. is putting out. My brother works for Generious Motors in their Hydra-matic division so I've got an inside track to Chevy problems. Anyway, there it is for better or worse...Roadbum :2cents:

tasteph
01-16-2005, 03:58 PM
Well I had a 1989 Ford Ranger XLT that my brother bought brand new and drove for about 9 months before selling it to me. Here is a story that I posted a little time ago about the demise of my old friend.

March 7, 2004 the end of a 15 year relationship took place. For you see it was this day when my 1989 Ford Ranger pick-up truck became terminally ill.

On that morning, my wife had gotten up to go to the store to pick up a few things and the truck would not start. On the following day we had the truck towed to a shop to see what the problem was. We had discussed the possibilities that it might cost to much to have it repaired this time, but since it was our only vehicle at the time we had to see if it could be repaired for a reasonable price.

After a few more days we found out what was wrong and it was determined that it was going to cost way to much to have the truck repaired. We had been waiting for our income tax refund and were going to purchase a vehicle to replace our 1997 Plymouth Voyager that was totaled in an accident that my wife (who was 5 months pregnant at the time) and our four-year old were in June 2003.

There is a girl that I work with that had just bought herself a used Mustang and she had a 1993 Ford Taurus she said that we could borrow for as long as we needed it. She also said she would sell it to us for a reasonable price if we were interested. After we had found out how much it was going to cost to fix the truck, we decided to go ahead and purchase the car from this girl. At least we all can get in it and go some place as a family. Unlike trying to get four people into the cab of the old Ranger.

On Monday March 15, 2004 I went to the shop were the truck was and signed over the title to them and let them "junk" it for me. By doing this it covered the cost of our bill for them looking at the truck and it also took the problem away from us in trying to have to find any buyers for the truck for parts.

The old Ford Ranger fulIfilled it's duty faithfully and even though it had 140,000 miles and I had problems with it over the last several years of it's life it kept going and going until it just couldn't go any more. It was a hard thing to do by letting go of the old truck, but I knew that one day that this time would evetually arrive. It was a good truck and I will miss it!

When we did get our tax refund we bought a 1996 Ford Windstar from a dealership for over $1000 below on what they were asking and it has decent mileage for a vehicle of that year.

I loved that old truck and Id buy another Ranger one day Im sure.

XLT03
01-16-2005, 09:37 PM
I've got three of them! 97,99,04. All with the 4 cyl. w/ auto. They're great for my purposes.

handk0kw
01-17-2005, 07:47 AM
Yes

mikemc
01-19-2005, 01:07 AM
YES !!! I have owned three Rangers including my current '02 edge. All have been 3.0/manual. Not as powerful as some of the competition, but a bullet-proof, low maintenance drivetrain.

KALT
01-28-2005, 03:02 PM
I own a 94 Ranger XLT Supercab with the 3,0 liter motor, 5-speed trans,A/C added later, P/S, no power windows power locks or power mirrors. It has 165,000 miles on it. The only reason the clutch assembly was replaced was because the pressure plate springs were broken. the disc was still in good condition but had it replaced anyway along with the slave cylinder and thrust bearing. (No sense in doing a half-ass job when its apart anyway). Being the first owner of this then new truck, it has done more than I expected from it. I have regular maintenance done to it and I Keep both the interior and exterior clean. Friends that have driven it say it performs and runs well and I get good comments on how it looks. Would I buy another one? You bet!

sherm42
02-17-2005, 12:10 AM
I have a 95 Ranger , 4cyl., manual tran. which I bought new and now has 131k miles on it. Has never failed to start, drives great, and so forth. I have had problems in electrical area - door open chime/dome light staying on. WD 40 in door handles takes care of that. The wipers also come on without being turned on and washer fluid sometimes will spray at same time! This happens every once in a while but may go months and it won't happen. Simply turn on switch and back off and they quit .Door chime/ dome light is every once in a while since new, more often in hot weather than cold. Dealer fixed this once but is recurring problem (WD 40)Overall I am pleased with it and would buy another, although items mentioned are a nuisance. Has been low cost transportation.

uummm
02-25-2005, 06:31 PM
all i got to say is that my truck is a piece, but we got our moneys worth out of it, my complaint doesnt lie with the motor (2.3 runs strong as an ox) but instead with the body, all of the mounts to the frame are rusting out and if i dont do something soon, its just gonna fall apart.

AlThums
03-12-2005, 07:46 AM
Without hesitation I would buy another. I've had my '93 for almost 12 years and put 148k on it (it had 4 miles before my test drive). I wish I had a dollar for every load I've taken to the dump - I'd hire someone else to go to the dump. I don't think anyone has much to teach Ford about building trucks. - Al

89AccordHatch
03-14-2005, 09:07 PM
maybe..only if i found a v8 4x4 for a descent price..thats why im getting rid of mine. someone buy it!

Psychopete
03-21-2005, 08:44 AM
maybe..only if i found a v8 4x4 for a descent price..thats why im getting rid of mine. someone buy it!

With the money you're using to buy a new truck, why don't you just drop a v8 in it?!

rpmglide
03-21-2005, 09:32 PM
Yup, I'd buy another. 120K, 4.0L V-6, 2WD, loaded. Only fuel cell and u-joints been replaced. Other problems- no.5 cylinder burns the spark plug electrode away, and the fuel filler neck always overflows (I think someone siphoned gas and f'd up the check valve inside). Front end always stays aligned, fires up and runs good (yes, temp gauge starting to wacky, maybe tmep sensor is bad).

89AccordHatch
03-22-2005, 06:08 PM
Psychopete...dont want a ford anymore.

theFREAKnasty82
03-30-2005, 02:01 AM
I used to own an '89 Ranger long bed, biggest piece of crap on the road. Rust on the tailgate, door handle fell of, passenger window regulator is all out of whack, when it rains, I couldn't drive through the slightest amount of water b/c if I did, my alternator would crap out and not charge and also with it raining, water would somehow manage to get on my ass when there was no hole in the floor board. I agree with snakeyboy, Mopar is much better. Ford, I used to own 2 and my '85 t-bird caught on fire, thus living up to the acronym for Ford:
Found
On
Road
Dead
The new Hemi's are awesome, power is available whenever you need it. I work for a Dodge dealer and part of my job is to do a PDI (pre-delivery inspection). I love to rag the hell out of Hemi's b/c they can go, I know, I've driven one. For those of you who say a 2.9 liter V6 is a match for a 345 HP 5.7 liter V8, I laugh. You OBVIOUSLY haven't driven one. I wouldn't drive anything else other than Mopar, my dad's 88 Jeep, though it was partly owned by American Motors, best damn truck on the road. Rebuilt engine and that's it, we've driven that truck into a tree and it still keeps on going. Mopars transmissions may have some issues but at least it won't catch on fire and risk your life!
F***er
Only
Rolls
Downhill

beat88ls
03-30-2005, 03:05 AM
I used to own an '89 Ranger long bed, biggest piece of crap on the road. Rust on the tailgate, door handle fell of, passenger window regulator is all out of whack, when it rains, I couldn't drive through the slightest amount of water b/c if I did, my alternator would crap out and not charge and also with it raining, water would somehow manage to get on my ass when there was no hole in the floor board. I agree with snakeyboy, Mopar is much better. Ford, I used to own 2 and my '85 t-bird caught on fire, thus living up to the acronym for Ford:
Found
On
Road
Dead
The new Hemi's are awesome, power is available whenever you need it. I work for a Dodge dealer and part of my job is to do a PDI (pre-delivery inspection). I love to rag the hell out of Hemi's b/c they can go, I know, I've driven one. For those of you who say a 2.9 liter V6 is a match for a 345 HP 5.7 liter V8, I laugh. You OBVIOUSLY haven't driven one. I wouldn't drive anything else other than Mopar, my dad's 88 Jeep, though it was partly owned by American Motors, best damn truck on the road. Rebuilt engine and that's it, we've driven that truck into a tree and it still keeps on going. Mopars transmissions may have some issues but at least it won't catch on fire and risk your life!
F***er
Only
Rolls
Downhill


The only reason the jeep was dependable is because it was designed by amc.

And lets not forget

Drips
Oil
Drops
Grease
Everywhere
:biggrin: :p

theFREAKnasty82
03-30-2005, 04:00 AM
good one, I'll have to remember that!

Underground_Killah
04-06-2005, 10:06 PM
i'm considering buying a 00-01 v4 or v6 auto in the future, and i was hoping this would give me some insite on my consideration but it quickly became a "i hate ford, i hate dodge" flame war. Please, if you actually have one and can talk about it, do so. if not, please don't start stupid flame wars.

Has anyone heard anything about the 00-01's?

Psychopete
04-07-2005, 08:24 AM
I love to rag the hell out of Hemi's b/c they can go, I know, I've driven one.

I bet your customers just love that. Generally, fresh engines shouldn't be beaten on. I don't care what engine either, it needs time to get broken in or else it won't last as long as it should. You can argue about this all day, I've heard of people getting FIRED over that that work at an automall.

For those of you who say a 2.9 liter V6 is a match for a 345 HP 5.7 liter V8, I laugh. You OBVIOUSLY haven't driven one.

Nope, haven't driven one, only raced a few. They're geared for towing. They're not as fast because 2.9L is geared more sportier. You have to think about the mass vs. power. A Ranger is much lighter, thus needed less power to move. You put a performance cam and mass air flow with bigger injectors and that thing is going to move, quickly. My friend raced a Ram with his Chevy 2.2L S-10 and won. I think I need to video tape this. It only feels like you're going fast because the amount of power it's taking your engine to move that big heavy piece.

They're made for towing stuff, so of coarse they're not going to match me. A Ranger is a light truck, for moving light things. A light engine that puts a good amount of power in a light truck is a very good mix.

You're just mad because for work for a Mopar dealership and you think you know it all. You think Mopar is the best, because that's all you deal with. I felt the same when I worked for a John Deere dealership a few years ago. Overall, I'm sure it's a good truck if you've got 15,000 pounds to move. I won't put any money on it on a race though.

Pete

theFREAKnasty82
04-07-2005, 10:37 PM
I agree w/ you that a Ranger weighs less than a Ram, obviously, but let's even the score a little, place a Dakota w/ the 4.7 V8, will for sure stomp a ranger, pull more and will run just as long as a Ranger will.

Psychopete
04-08-2005, 08:14 AM
I agree w/ you that a Ranger weighs less than a Ram, obviously, but let's even the score a little, place a Dakota w/ the 4.7 V8, will for sure stomp a ranger, pull more and will run just as long as a Ranger will.

That's not very fair. We've falling off the subject of the stock truck. Lets put a 5.0L in a Ranger and see who wins. :)

Pete

theFREAKnasty82
04-09-2005, 09:03 PM
go ahead and put a 5.0 in a ranger, and I'll drop in a 360 crate motor in a Dakota, you WILL NOT win, not from a motor pumping out 265 HP stock, w/ some mods as high as 340 HP w/o turbo or super, no 5.0 will take that period.

Psychopete
04-10-2005, 02:20 PM
go ahead and put a 5.0 in a ranger, and I'll drop in a 360 crate motor in a Dakota, you WILL NOT win, not from a motor pumping out 265 HP stock, w/ some mods as high as 340 HP w/o turbo or super, no 5.0 will take that period.

As a resort, you always want to go with the bigger engine. You know a 5.0L will rip the crap out of 4.7L. We all know that. No matter what I say, you'll end up saying you'll put the biggest block that Dodge makes. Put a 360 in a small truck. That's a big mistake. You don't need a boat anchor to go fast. Look at a motor cycle for example. Way smaller engine than a car, but much faster. You need to think about the mass to power ratio. To me, horse power is not the important aspect of power/speed. Just look at the OHC vs. the OHV. The OHV puts out more torque, but the OHC puts out more H.P. The OHV is faster in bigger things because they need more power to push the mass. The OHC is better for 4cyl. because they're so light and don't need all the torque. Plus the i-4 doesn't have the extra overhead of an extra timing chain/belt. There's a lot more to going fast than just the size of the engine.

es3153
04-10-2005, 07:23 PM
I have a 1989 Ford Ranger XLT 4X4 that has 274K miles on it and will just not die. I rear ended some Chevy in the rain and thought it was finally toast. I got out and realized the radiator was not damaged. I cut the fan shroud off, removing the lower portion and keeping the top for safety. I pryed the fender out of the tire and then welded an UGLY ass bumper onto the front, since the entire frame was tweaked and bent beyond fixing (at an affordable price). I know call it the UBT (Ugly BLue Truck), and it takes me to the beach every weekend and to the mountains in the winter. It runs like it ain't gonna quit, but if you ever hear taps one late night, then you'll know my UBT has finally gone to the big parts yard in the sky..........

theFREAKnasty82
04-11-2005, 12:11 AM
You need to think about the mass to power ratio. To me, horse power is not the important aspect of power/speed. Just look at the OHC vs. the OHV. The OHV puts out more torque, but the OHC puts out more H.P. The OHV is faster in bigger things because they need more power to push the mass. The OHC is better for 4cyl. because they're so light and don't need all the torque. Plus the i-4 doesn't have the extra overhead of an extra timing chain/belt. There's a lot more to going fast than just the size of the engine.

Now that I agree w/ you. In addition to OHC, the way the runners are setup in the intake manifold and exhaust manifold will make the difference in how much power you can push out of that engine. As I read the posts in this forum, I know I've knocked Ford Rangers, but I guess it's because I had a bad streak w/ Fords catching on fire on me and spending countless dollars fixing it; I bought my Ranger second hand from a "Christian" who took excellent care of it, though it turned out to be the truck from hell for me. Every manufacturer has their high points and low points. If I had a much better experience with my Ranger, I might be persuaded otherwise. To all the rest of you loyal Ranger owners who have been much more luckier than I was, I applaud you; wish I could've been as lucky as you all were with your trucks.

theFREAKnasty82
04-12-2005, 08:01 AM
[QUOTE=Psychopete]As a resort, you always want to go with the bigger engine. You know a 5.0L will rip the crap out of 4.7L. We all know that. No matter what I say, you'll end up saying you'll put the biggest block that Dodge makes. Put a 360 in a small truck. That's a big mistake. You don't need a boat anchor to go fast.

Just another thing I neglected to mention, the 360 motor was STOCK in the Dodge Dakota R/T from 2000-2003 and it wasn't a mistake by Chrysler, it kicked the ass of most cars on the road. It came with an automatic (huge mistake) or a monster NV4550 transmission w/3.73 gearing

Psychopete
04-12-2005, 04:51 PM
Just another thing I neglected to mention, the 360 motor was STOCK in the Dodge Dakota R/T from 2000-2003 and it wasn't a mistake by Chrysler, it kicked the ass of most cars on the road. It came with an automatic (huge mistake) or a monster NV4550 transmission w/3.73 gearing

Don't get me started on the 351 :).

I am not sure what the deal with Dodge trannys are. You'd think they'd having something good and just stick with it. Ford Taurus transmissions are not any better though. Same with the newer Lumina's. The 80's A4LD is pretty bad, but has had good results as far as me owning one and beating the crap out of it. I hear the standards are junk and break easily. My parents had a New Yorker a while back and once the tranny went out, it never worked right after many rebuilds. My friend is trying to get his Dodge going again. It's a 91' and he's been messing around with 2 different shops for 3 months trying to get it fixed. He tried to get one from every junk yard in town, nothing. He wanted to replace it with one from a 94', because that's all he could find. Someone explained to him in 93' they came out with 3 different trannys. Oppss.. Now everytime I see him he tells me something else and to never buy a Dodge. I might buy an older Dodge, 60's 70's, I am just afraid of the newer stuff. So many problems with the new cars today. I think they need to take a step back and fix all their problems before creating new ones.

Here's where I like Ford. You can take an AOD from a 93' and put it in an 87'. They have something good, so they're not going to change it and screw people over. Most of the newer Ford stuff I am sort of afraid of. But I am afriad of newer Chevy stuff, generally anything new. Someone I know has had a crap load of issues with their LS-1. The people who develop this stuff have their head up their ass. They need to stop reinventing the wheel. They need to take older mechanical designs and implement the newer electronics in them. The older stuff was made to last. Like an inline 6 200 or a slant 6. I think those were taken off because they never died. If everyone had an engine like the old 200, repair shops would go out of business.

Pete

theFREAKnasty82
04-13-2005, 12:06 AM
If it was a 3 speed unit from Chrysler, it's bullet proof and never dies, I had a '92 Dodge Spirit w/ over 200,000 miles on it and the original tranny, ran like a champ until I wrecked it. Tell your friends the secret to Chrysler transmissions is using the right fluid. IF they use anything else other than Mopar ATF+4, they will ALWAYS have problems, these transmissions are especially sensitive to the type of fluid you run in them. No matter what manufacturer you go w/ all of them have their high points and their low points. Another thing you mentioned that you can take the tranny out of a '93 AOD and put it into an '87, sorry, that's not possible. In 1993, Ford redesigned the AOD transmission to use electronic controls, so unless you want to put a new PCM in that '87, a '93 transmission will not work. The reason why Ford did away w/ the 302 is because the ineffieciency of the motor and b/c it wasn't enviromentally friendly. The combustion chamber was designed in a wedge form that would develop a pocket of unburned fuel that would eventually get pushed out of the tailpipe. My point is that old technology has to sometimes go away b/c it's ineffiecient and can no longer meat the high CAFE standards and EPA standards that are now out, and are stricter now than they were 10 years ago. The 5.0 was replaced by the 4.6. The Chrysler 318 replaced by the 4.7. The GM 350 replaced by the 5.3. Newer engines are more powerful and more efficient.

Psychopete
04-13-2005, 08:46 AM
Another thing you mentioned that you can take the tranny out of a '93 AOD and put it into an '87, sorry, that's not possible.

It's been done! My girlfriend brought home a 5.0L Marquis with a bad tranny. Stuck one from a 93' in and didn't have any issues.

Me and my friend put a 5.0L HO in a 1979 Ford Fairmont from a 1993 T-Bird and the transmission was identical to the one we had put in the 87'. Only difference the 87 was a column shift and the 93 was a floor, so I had to flip the shifter lever 180 degrees and it worked fine. The 87 also had a mechanical speed sensor and the newer tranny had an electronic. So I had to swap that. Even my 88 Ranger has electronic controlled overdrive, although it's not a Ford transmission.

Dude, I doubt transmission fluid is going to save that transmission in that Dodge. Dodge is known for bad transmissions, nothing the owner can do about it except take spending a crap load of money of a piece of junk.

Ford made the 4.6L to get into the OHC market. The 4.6L sucks and should not be referenced to ever again, less it's the DOHC. My friend has one (SOHC) and it's a SLUG. The 5.0L gets decent gas milage for being a V8. Depends on the application though.

The older stuff can be changed to meet all the standards. Like I said before, put the newer electronics on the older stuff. The main problem was the inefficient carberators. I am sure any older engine with MAF and a cat will pass any emissions. That's why they stuck with the 5.0L. Newer engines more powerful? I don't believe it because they've got so many emissions on them. From the problems I read, they're a lot less dependable, more major things go wrong. They're trying to make everything lighter, that means weaker parts...

theFREAKnasty82
04-13-2005, 03:22 PM
I don't know how that's possible, are you sure b/c I know for sure that in 1993, the AOD was changed from hydraulic controls to electronic controls, it must be a '92 model; this I am certain, I worked for an independent tranny shop for 2 years and have a buddy who works for Ford and said in September 1992, all Crown Vics, Grand Marquis, Town Cars, Thunderbirds, Cougars, etc. used the new AOD-E aka 4R70W. As far as the Chrysler tranny, this is a fact, I rebuild them everyday and if my customers use anything else other than Mopar ATF+4, they WILL have problems, it's a common fact and there was a TSB for it a few years ago on that. That's the main reason why Chrysler tranny's had problems, wasn't b/c of poor craftsmanship, it was that it took Chrysler 8 years to develop the right fluid that's compatible with these transmissions.

Engines nowadays have to be lighter b/c like I said b4, the high emisson standards in place, and fuel economy numbers that not only the Feds have put in place, but also what manufacturers have established for themselves. It looks real good for Ford if their trucks and SUVs get the best fuel economy of all others and they get an incentive from the Feds for having "Enviromentally Friendly" vehicles. The 5.0 was a powerful engine,I agree, but it would not pass tough emissions standards and fuel economy numbers in place, I used to own an '85 Ford T-Bird 5.0 and when I lived in Jacksonville, FL, where there was standardized emissions testing, I failed and I kept that engine in tune. Plus, the 5.0 used a smog pump to dump air into the exhaust gas so it could dillute the raw HCs being spit out into the atmosphere.

Psychopete
04-13-2005, 04:55 PM
I don't know how that's possible, are you sure b/c I know for sure that in 1993, the AOD was changed from hydraulic controls to electronic controls, it must be a '92 model;

It could have been mistaken. I didn't pull the tranny. We got it delivered from a junk yard, and that's what they said it was. Reguardless, all S/Bs have the same bell housing. Same with the 2.6/2.8/2.9/4.0. That might even include the 2.3 I4. I am not certain, but I will be finding out soon when I measure a 2.3L T5 from a Turbo Mutang to put into my truck.


That's the main reason why Chrysler tranny's had problems, wasn't b/c of poor craftsmanship, it was that it took Chrysler 8 years to develop the right fluid that's compatible with these transmissions.


Why should they develop the fluid to work with the transmission? It makes sense to make the transmission work with the fluid. Ford, Honda, Chevy, Volvo, Toyota, Suzuki, Nissan, Mazda, Mitsubishi and etc can build a transmission to work aftermarket fluids, but why can't Dodge?

No one should have to go through what my friend did. That's just B/S. We've got some HUGE junk yards too. Full of Dodge Lancers and Sundances. Hahahaha.


Engines nowadays have to be lighter b/c like I said b4, the high emisson standards in place, and fuel economy numbers that not only the Feds have put in place, but also what manufacturers have established for themselves. It looks real good for Ford if their trucks and SUVs get the best fuel economy of all others and they get an incentive from the Feds for having "Enviromentally Friendly" vehicles.


Please explain to me why using lighter metals will create less emissions?
To me it's a scam. It's cheaper on their part, plus they have the insurance of knowing that their customer will have to get replacement parts frequently. Air/Fuel combusting is the same no matter what engine. It's about the air/fuel mixture that the engine gets and the type of cat on the exhaust. It also depends on how well the engine burns the fuel and the octane being used. I can see a smaller engine putting off less emissions because of less displacement. But any big engine can be modified to meet any EPA standards. I think it just gets to the point where they have to regulate the emission so much, it just kills the overall output of the motor.

theFREAKnasty82
04-13-2005, 10:26 PM
Why should they develop the fluid to work with the transmission? It makes sense to make the transmission work with the fluid. Ford, Honda, Chevy, Volvo, Toyota, Suzuki, Nissan, Mazda, Mitsubishi and etc can build a transmission to work aftermarket fluids, but why can't Dodge?

No one should have to go through what my friend did. That's just B/S. We've got some HUGE junk yards too. Full of Dodge Lancers and Sundances. Hahahaha.

Please explain to me why using lighter metals will create less emissions?
To me it's a scam. It's cheaper on their part, plus they have the insurance of knowing that their customer will have to get replacement parts frequently. Air/Fuel combusting is the same no matter what engine. It's about the air/fuel mixture that the engine gets and the type of cat on the exhaust. It also depends on how well the engine burns the fuel and the octane being used. I can see a smaller engine putting off less emissions because of less displacement. But any big engine can be modified to meet any EPA standards. I think it just gets to the point where they have to regulate the emission so much, it just kills the overall output of the motor.
The reason why no other transmission fluid will work in Chrysler transmissions, namely the Ultradrive transmissions used in every Dodge Caravan/Plymouth Voyager, Dodge Stratus/Chrysler Sebring, etc., is because these transmissions are not like others. What I mean by that without getting into transmissions 101, most transmissions use clutches, bands, and overrunning clutches and shift valves inside of the valve body to control all shifting in most transmissions. Chrysler Ultradrive doesn't use any of those except for all clutch packs to control gear operations and a solenoid pack to shift the transmission. Mopar ATF+4 has friction modifiers to reduce heat in the transmission, reduce unnecessary friction, and provide smoother shifting. It's formulated to work w/ those intricate passages inside of the solenoid pack to prevent blockage and breakdown, i.e. transmission failure which is why most early model tranny's failed b/c of the wrong fluid. Dexron/Mercon doesn't have those additives and detergents that Chrysler transmissions so desperately need and if anything else is used in their transmissions, failure WILL result and/or irregularities w/ transmission controls. The fact that he bought a junkyard tranny, scares me. My experience w/ junkyard tranny's are that they are more of a hassle than just rebuilding or buying a new unit.

Let me illustrate to you, what burns more efficiently, a fire burning off of coal or wood? Coal runs hotter, but leaves a dark, sooty ash. Wood burns cleaner w/ less ash. The same principle applies with today's engines. An engine that's all cast iron (heads and block) and with a steel crank, rods & pistons is more mass in motion and to get that mass in motion, takes a lot of fuel. Today's engines are now running all aluminum w/ forged bottom ends. It's lighter, makes for a more efficient engine b/c it's less mass in motion. All engines run off of air,fuel and igniton to run, but if you lessen parts, you also don't have to run as many emissions-control devices. On some Mopar V8s, they don't run an EGR b/c of the valve timing called scavenging. That is when the intake valve opens at the same time as the exhaust valve is still open during the exhaust stroke on a normal four-stroke engine. It allows any unburned fuel to stay right inside the engine it's burned properly. Nissan runs titanium valves instead of steel b/c it's stronger, takes heat better and wears much less than normal steel valves. Another thing that older engines used to do that drained power is that when it's trying to lubricate the engine, the crankshaft used to "bathe" in oil and splash around the journals to lubricate the lower parts of the motor. That's a big frictional horsepower loss; in addition to that, the intake manifold technology and exhaust manifold technology has made tremendous leaps thus increase power output of the modern engine while increasing efficiency.

theFREAKnasty82
04-13-2005, 11:37 PM
Just as more verifiable evidence why your buddy needs to use Mopar ATF+4, just read this TSB:

NUMBER: 21-006-01

GROUP: Transmission

DATE: Jun. 29, 2001

THIS BULLETIN SUPERSEDES TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLETIN 21-16-99, DATED OCTOBER 22, 1999, WHICH SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM YOUR FILES AND NOTED IN THE 1999 TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLETIN MANUAL (PUBLICATION NO. 81-699-00004). THIS IS A COMPLETE REVISION AND NO ASTERISKS HAVE BEEN ADDED TO HIGHLIGHT REVISIONS.
SUBJECT:
Automatic Transmission Fluid Usage ATF+4 (Type 9602)

MODELS:

1989 - 1995 (AA) Spirit/Acclaim/Lebaron Sedan

1989 - 2002 (AB) Ram Van/Wagon

1989 - 1993 (AC) Dynasty/New Yorker/New Yorker Salon

1989 - 1993 (AD) Ram Truck

1989 - 1994 (AG) Daytona

1989 (AH) Lancer/Lebaron GTS

1989 - 1995 (AJ) Lebaron Coupe/Lebaron Convertible

1989 - 1990 (AK) Aries/Reliant

1989 - 1990 (AL) Horizon/Omni

1989 (AM) Diplomat/Gran Fury/New Yorker Fifth Avenue

1989 - 2002 (AN) Dakota

1989 - 1994 (AP) Shadow/Sundance

1990 - 1991 (AQ) Maserati

1990 - 1993 (AY) Imperial/New Yorker Fifth Avenue

1994 - 2002 (BR/BE) Ram Truck

1998 - 2002 (DN) Durango

2002 (DR) Ram Truck

1995 - 2000 (FJ) Sebring/Avenger/Talon

2000 (GS) Chrysler Voyager (International Market)

1995 - 2000 (JA) Cirrus/Stratus/Breeze

2001 - 2002 (JR) Sebring Sedan & Convertible/Stratus Sedan

1996 - 2000 (JX) Sebring Convertible

2002 (KJ) Liberty

1993 - 2002 (LH) Concorde/Intrepid/Vision/LHS/New
Yorker/300M

1989 - 1992 (MJ) Commanche

2000 (NS) Town & Country/Caravan/Voyager

1995 - 2002 (PL) Neon

2002 (PG) PT Cruiser (International Markets)

2001 - 2002 (PT) PT Cruiser

1997 - 2002 (PR) Prowler

2001 - 2002 (RG) Chrysler Voyager (International Markets)

2001 - 2002 (RS) Town & Country/Caravan/Voyager

1997 - 2002 (TJ) Wrangler

2001 - 2002 (WG) Grand Cherokee (International Markets)

1999 - 2002 (WJ) Grand Cherokee

1989 - 1995 (YJ) Wrangler

1996 - 1998 (ZG) Grand Cherokee (International Markets)

1993 - 1998 (ZJ) Grand Cherokee/Grand Wagoneer

NOTE :THIS BULLETIN APPLIES TO ALL VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH CHRYSLER AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSIONS EXCEPT 1999 AND EARLIER MINIVANS.

DISCUSSION:

A new transmission fluid (ATF+4(R) - Type 9602) has been developed and is being used as factory fill for all vehicles with Chrysler automatic transmissions. Until now, vehicles originally filled with ATF+2 or ATF+3 were to be serviced with ATF+3. Effective immediately, it is recommended that all vehicles with Chrysler automatic transmissions except for 1999 and earlier minivans be serviced with ATF+4(R). ATF+3 should continue to be used for 1999 and earlier minivans because of the potential for torque converter shudder during break in. For all other applications the ATF+4(R) fluid offers significant benefits as outlined below.
NOTE :ATF+4(R) MUST ALWAYS BE USED IN VEHICLES THAT WERE ORIGINALLY FILLED WITH ATF+4(R).

NOTE :SERVICE INTERVALS DO NOT CHANGE. THE SERVICE INTERVAL CURRENTLY IN EFFECT FOR A GIVEN VEHICLE SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE FOLLOWED.

NOTE :ATF+4(R) IS COMPATIBLE WITH ATF+3 AND CAN BE USED TO TOP OFF VEHICLES THAT CURRENTLY HAVE ATF+2 OR ATF+3. DO NOT USE ATF+2 OR ATF+3 TO TOP OFF VEHICLES THAT HAVE ATF+4(R) FLUID.

BENEFITS
^ Better anti-wear properties

^ Improved rust/corrosion prevention

^ Controls oxidation

^ Eliminates deposits

^ Controls friction

^ Retains anti-foaming properties

^ Superior properties for low temperature operation

FLUID COLOR

Mopar ATF+4(R) is a World Class Fluid having exceptional durability. However, the red dye used in ATF+4R is not permanent; as the fluid ages it may become darker or appear brown in color. ATF+4(R) also has a unique odor that may change with age. With ATF+4(R) fluid, color and odor are no longer indicators of fluid condition and do not support a fluid change.

andrewb87
04-20-2005, 07:26 PM
I own an 88 with a 2.0. It's only a 2WD truck, but I have taken it off road countless times, and have actually had a better time than I did with a 4x4. Only got stuck one time, and that was pulling a blazer out of the tree line. We realized the ranger could pull him... once we gut the stump out from his bumper. I have even been able to pull another ranger that had a 2.9 in it during a contest. Surprised everyone. Now I can't even get the darn thing to start. To answer the question, yes I would buy another one, as long as it was newer. Downside, I'm ready to sell my current ranger and buy a Chevy pickup, even though I despise Chevy.

lericha
04-23-2005, 03:00 PM
I am on my third Ranger, 1989, 1994, 2000. I think you'll have to go a long way to beat any of the three. You can get a bad one of any make but I love the Rangers. My brother feels the same about S-10s but I'd still rather have my Ranger.

Fir Las
04-25-2005, 07:43 PM
Hi, I'm new to this forum. Lot's of good information here.

I drive a 2000 Mazda B3000 (just a Ford Ranger re-badged & with slight cosmetic differences) w/4 spd automatic, V6, AC, radio and bedliner. It's got wind-up windows, manual door locks & no power anything. Very basic truck.

I bought it at auction in 2001 with 13K miles -- like new.

Now has 45K and still like new. It's a gorgeous red and I love driving this truck!

Needed an O2 sensor at 28K -- replaced on warranty. Needed a new speedometer sender at 40K -- $21 and my friend put it on for me in 20 minutes.

Otherwise, no trouble at all. Runs and looks like new. A pleasure to drive.


I used to drive only Japanese vehicles because of their higher quality. I was looking for a Toyota truck when this one came through the line.

After owning this one for 6 months or so, I test-drove a new Toyota Tacoma off the dealer's lot (coupon for free dinner at Long-Horn and free something else or other -- I forgot).

This is what surprised me on that test drive: Even though the Tacoma was brand new, I liked the way my Mazda ran better. The Mazda was just a little bit roomier inside, just a little bit heavier so it felt smoother on the road {the Tacome seemed to "bobble" over the slight dips and bumps in the road}, the Mazda had a bit more power and just all around was more enjoyable to drive. And this was a basic "stripper" Mazda compared to a brand-new, fancier Tacoma.


So, to anwer the question: would I buy another? Absolutely!

Mine has been dead reliable, comfortable and smooth and still runs like a new truck.

fir

azdesert rat
04-26-2005, 07:14 PM
In 89 I bought a '88 XLT, 2.3 EFI, W/AC, PS. 4spd AT w/OD.

During the week I work Construction out of it, On most weekends, I either tow my 14' ski boat a couple of hundred miles to Lake Mead... Or a trip to Flagstaff on a hunting trip.....
Some times I'm lucky to be able to go the speed limit with that little 4 cyl with, all that 98 Hp that it has.. but, we always get there and back home.. Slowly, but surly.

From day one, I have never babied it... I do a lot of driving on dirt roads... where I tend to drive way to fast!. I have been stuck many times in sandy washes that are all over my area (My truck refuses to believe it's not a 4wd) But, being a life long desert rat, I always have my trusty little GI shovel, for digging myself out, and, I have never had to be pulled out.

I have replaced a water pump, master cyl., a starter or two.. a few other little things. a while back, while making my daily drive from Az to Vegas, the overdrive went out in the tranny.. After getting a few prices to get the tranny rebuilt (1600.00!) I figured I would drive it until it wouldn't move.... That was about, 5 years and 170k miles ago!.. same tranny, same everything.

It has over 250k miles on it, and sometimes it doesn't like going into reverse... it is still my daily driver, It has never left me walking....yet!.


So... YEAH!, I wouldn't have to think twice about buying another one.

tjr1000
05-23-2005, 10:27 AM
I had a 95 Mazda with the 4.0 engine and was satisfied enough to buy a 2004 Ranger. But made the mistake of buying the 3.0 engine. This truck is fine around town but a dog on the highway. Over 65 miles an hour it gets noisy, because the engine runs about 10% faster than the 4.0 at the same speed. I don't expect I'll be buying another one.

redhoss
05-23-2005, 04:21 PM
you bet my ranger has 295,000miles on the original motor and transmission. Still runs great and looks great too.

RickWP
05-25-2005, 03:18 PM
My 2000 Ranger has been a very reliable truck, but the milage sucks,with no get up and go power, (3.0)
My Dad has a 2004 F150 with V8....Power and speed with about the same milage as my 3.0. But the ranger is much smaller, more room in the garage, So I wish I had at least gotten the 4.0 instead,about the same milage but with more power.

Add your comment to this topic!