4 cyl Ranger weaknesses?

Martinjmpr

Wiffleball Batter
I'm about to put the little Mazda up for sale. Nothing wrong with her, just decided I want something a little different.

I've always liked the basic, unadorned simplicity of a small, regular cab truck with a 4 cyl and a 5 speed MT. No CV joints (unless they have them in the driveshaft?), no transaxle, no T-case, no vacuum operated hubs, just engine, transmission, axle, like Henry Ford intended. :D

Anyway, having previously owned a Ranger (99 4x2 Ex cab, 3.0, 5 speed) and having ~$3500-$4k to spend, I'm thinking the best candidate would be a 94 -up Ranger or Mazda B2300/2500.

So are there any known weaknesses or possible problem areas? Any reason to prefer the 2.5l (1998 - up) to the 2.3 (94-97?) I know the biggest difference between the earlier and later ones is the suspension: Twin I beam on the early ones and double wishbone on the later. My 99 had the double wishbone and seemed to handle fine.

I have to say, I kind of prefer the Mazdas, they just look a little nicer and seem to be less abused than the Rangers.

My only "requirements" are that it has to have 4 cyl, manual and AC (sorry, I lived long enough without AC, I'm not going back!)

This will be my DD/around town vehicle and possibly a light or short-range camping vehicle. I assume I won't have any problems pulling a small (1,000lb loaded) trailer even with the 4 cyl?

Thanks in advance for any input! :ylsmoke:
 

Kaisen

Explorer
The 2001-up 2.3L Duratec was the best of those motors. All Aluminum, DOHC 16V. Smoother, better power curve, lots of Mazda engineering. Great motor, and a good compliment to the 5 speed in that little truck.
 

Plannerman

Wandering Explorer
I always has v6s in my Rangers. But, I preferred the handling (especially off pavement) of the twin I beam.
 

Scott B.

SE Expedition Society
If you are looking for a regular cab truck, the cab on the 98 up trucks is about 3" longer. Makes for a little more room in the cab.

I, too, prefer the TTB!
 

JohnsD90

New member
I'd try to get the newer motor, I know my 97 2.3 5 speed would tank the mpg if I drove like it quick, where the 4runner would get like 22mpg, the ranger got 18mpg. I could get 23 out of the ranger if I babied it, but then I would be late for work :D
 

E.Roy

Aspiring Explorer
^I could get 23mpg with my 2wd 96 explorer OHV 4.0 with 5spd 3.27 rear. I like that old tech boat anchor of an engine
 

Rust Bucket

New member
I have a base '02 with the 2.3. I like it a lot, just wish it was a 4x

I get almost 30 mpg on the highway, low/mid 20's in town.

I've put about 15000 miles on it since January (just turned 150k) and have had almost no issues. I don't really like the front suspension anywhere off pavement though, It feels like it really doesn't like bumps.

I've had almost 900 pounds in the bed and although it rode like a caddy I wouldn't want to hit the highway like that unless it's flat and there's a slow lane.

Hope this helps!
 

dddonkey

Adventurer
I too had a 4 banger Ranger and when I sold it it had 180K plus on it. It was not the most powerful truck but it always got me home no matter how hard I beat on it.
 

nb11

New member
I have exactly what you're looking for. It's a 2003 with the 2.3 Duratec, reg. cab, 5 speed, 2 wheel drive. I have some 235/75 Duratrac's on it, and it does really well. Going camping in the mountains, it gets me everywhere I need to go. Up and down the forest service roads is no problem, water crossings, etc. I Always have the bed full of gear when I go, about 800 lbs including me and my girlfriend. The suspension is stiff, but gets better when it has some weight in the bed.

The motor is a peppy little thing, and incredibly reliable. At 175,000 miles, my oil analysis looked great, and I haven't had any problems with it. Just watch the coolant lines. I've had two of the plastic couplings crack on me.

Its a great little truck!
IMG_1647.JPG
 

Forum statistics

Threads
185,538
Messages
2,875,653
Members
224,922
Latest member
Randy Towles
Top