Why isn't the Ford Ranger a popular expedition vehicle?

[Gaidheal]

We have an '08 as my wife's truck.

Apart from nothing in the aftermarket for it for suspension etc, the only real down side is the &^%$&% fuel consumption.

I think full-size trucks get better mileage...

Jamie

[Owyhee H]

^^^^ 2nd that. I had a 2005 4.0L Auto and it was a great truck but 15MPG got old fast. The ranger is comfortable, powerful, and reliable, but I couldn't get past the horrible mileage. Mine also ate brake pads WAY too fast. As far as loading it up and taking it to SA or RTW I think it would be just fine.

[Bigfoot1963]

I have a '98 Mazda B4000 4x4 auto, which is just a rebadged Ranger with th 4.0, Its very cabable with 31 inch tires. The factory tires were between a 30 and 31. There is a lack of aftermarket accessories, However after 140,000 miles It still runs strong and gets about 19mpg combined hwy/city driving.

[Martinjmpr]

^^^^ 2nd that. I had a 2005 4.0L Auto and it was a great truck but 15MPG got old fast. The ranger is comfortable, powerful, and reliable, but I couldn't get past the horrible mileage. Mine also ate brake pads WAY too fast. As far as loading it up and taking it to SA or RTW I think it would be just fine.

Well, I'm not sure this is the reason you don't see many Rangers on this forum, but I'll make a few points:

1. Yes, the Ranger is very common, but it's most common use seems to me to be as a light commercial vehicle.

2. AFAIK the 4 cyl was not offered with 4wd after about 1994 or so. I know that when I got my 2wd Ranger in 1999 the smallest engine on the 4x4 was the 3.0l V-6.

3. Ford never quite seemed to be able to combine a reasonably powerful engine with decent MPG. You could get one or the other but you couldn't get both. When I had my Ranger I was on a couple of Ranger message boards (which I think are now gone) and the single biggest complaint people with 4x4's had was the poor MPG. Even the 3.0l 5 speed combo struggled to get 18mpg which almost any Toyota or Nissan V6 can get with ease. Most of the guys with the 4.0's were getting in the 12 - 15mpg range, especially if they ran bigger than stock tires or a lift.

4. For me, one of the "deal breakers" was the electric-shift T-case that Ford adopted in the 1990's. IMO it was a mistake to do this as it created a "single point of failure" without giving any corresponding benefit in return (I think the only benefit is to the vehicle designers who don't have to figure out how to put in a mechanical linkage.) When I lived in Laramie, WY, which has extremely cold winters, a buddy of mine with a 4wd Ranger had quite a few problems with his electric T-case not wanting to switch into 4wd when it was cold. He even had some warranty work done but it never really was reliable for him.

I really liked my Ranger, and I think it's a shame that Ford is dropping it from their lineup. The Ranger is really a nice size for a truck, big enough to be useful but not so big that it's hard to maneuver. If we could get a Ranger with a small turbo diesel, I think it would be a perfect vehicle for a lot of us.

I also think the Ranger has always been one of the best looking small trucks out there.

My 2wd Ranger was absolutely the best "road trip" vehicle I ever owned. The only thing it lacked was cruise control and I guess if I'd wanted it bad enough I could have added that myself. With a 5 speed and the 3.0l Flex-fuel V6 I could get 23+ MPG on the highway and with the 19.5 gallon tank I had over 400 miles of range. Pretty impressive considering it was an extended cab truck with a high-rise shell and a full carpet kit in the back!

I still miss it sometimes!

[Quill]

As a big Ranger fan, they are fine. I don't care for their auto transmissions. Also Ford treats them as a bit of an after thought. That is why they are being eliminated in favor of the F-150. The manual gear box is much better and gives you better mileage. I have a small slide in camper for Rangers. It fits the older Dakotas, Toys and S-10s. I have two rangers now and 3 in the past along with a Bronco II. Check this page for all you can do with one.

http://www.therangerstation.com/tech_library/index.php

[DaJudge]

I have owned 4 Rangers in the past. They were excellent trucks. Never let me down. My last one was an '01 4x4 with the 4.0 and it got 21-22 on the hwy and usually around 17 in town. Much better than my Cherokee. I often regret getting rid of it and have been thinking about selling the Cherokee and buying another Ranger and putting a Flip-Pac on it.

[Jeff@QuadShop]

I don't have any numbers but I think I see more Rangers on the road than any other small pickup

I agree, they are are tons around here. There is a delivery company here called Zip Express. They have a fleet of 4 cyl Rangers many with 300-500k miles on the origional motors.

[3Deserts]

My 1990 Ranger with the manual transmission has given more than I've ever had a right to ask of it, and it's pretty much never failed. It's ratty, sees more use as a work truck, is RWD, and lightly built more in a desert pre-runner style (with 33" tires, regeared LSD in the rear, Camburg front arms, Swayaways, Bilsteins and Deavers, and glass front fenders), but when my Jeep has been down, it's done well.



That's coming out of Saline Valley less than two months ago, on a road that's rough even without snow. I was followed by a guy in a 4WD Tacoma, and once we got back to the pavement an hour and a half later, he told me that as far as he could tell, I never put a wheel wrong the whole way; never lost traction, never slid, never skidded. Don't know how I did it that well, but it was an old beat up 2WD Ranger with a 2.9L V6 that did it.

I should also note that there is no lack of aftermarket support for Rangers. It's just that a lot of those companies may not be as familiar to the typical Expo or crawler type driver. Pretty much the sky is the limit with Rangers, from six figure multi link race trucks, down to a simple gear swap. Camburg is one of the better known ones; there are many more. I'm kind of removed from that world so I don't remember who's doing what, but the stuff is out there, and a lot of it is extremely high quality, with Baja racing pedigrees.

As for MPG? Ermmm...I'm SOL on that count!

[milowag]

I had an '86 Ranger 4X4 with the 2.9 L and manual as my only farm truck from new til 1999. I got about 22mpg here in the mountains, and 27 on the interstate. I sold it with 176000 miles on it, and wish I hadn't - the guy who bought it still runs it.

The '99 model I replaced it with was terrible in comparison--only 14-15 mpg, weaker metal, etc. I figured if the milage was going to be that bad, I may as well go full sized, so I traded it.

But I loved the first one.

[Squatchout]

I bought a Ranger as my 1st new Vehicle in the mid to late '80s. It was one of the rare 4cyl turbo diesels. Very powerful and 30-36 mog on the highway. Great drivetrain but it was like a cartoon truck with the body and interior. I drove down the street and parts fell off. Yes it was that bad. The warranty work and and dealer attitude was so bad I've not owned a Ford since. Don't intend to again. I knew a few other folks that had similar experiences with them back then. We used to joke. Have you driven a Ford lately? No mine's in the shop again/still. I have a friend with a newer one now. They are a Ford fanatic but constantly complain about the mileage. They claim their f250 7.3 diesel gets better mileage than the Ranger. Shame it seems like a nice platform.