PDA

View Full Version : Bought a New Ford Ranger....



Larry Edgerton
04-11-2012, 7:46 AM
In my quest to cut fuel costs at work, I picked up 4cyl/stick 2wd cab and a half Ranger. Gave up on another old Volvo for now, and once set up I may be able to use the Ranger more days out of the week.

Sticker says 27MPG, but on the net the average seems to be that or a little higher. Less service problems than most small trucks, and a lot more comfortable than a Taco.

They are clearing out all the old ones as they stopped production, so there are some awesome deals on what is still on the lot. I had an X plan, and altogether got $6K off of sticker, about 26%.

Its old school, but I know they are reliable, get the best mileage of any small truck and reasonably comfortable. It'll have to do, I own it. And did I mention, it gets 27 MPG!

Larry

Jerome Stanek
04-11-2012, 8:51 AM
great little trucks I had one with 200,000 one it when I traded i in. I didn't want to trade it in but had to.

Joe Pelonio
04-11-2012, 8:56 AM
I love my 2007, it's the 4.0 V6 4wd and only gets 15-22mpg but I don't commute in it. Only 60,000 miles in over 5 years.
The only problem I ever had with it was a rattling seat that was repaired on warranty early on. You might consider the Extang full tilt tonneau cover, it's very convenient and removes in 1 minute.

Paul McGaha
04-11-2012, 9:31 AM
Congratulations Larry. I really like Fords myself. Especially the trucks.

PHM

Ryan Mooney
04-11-2012, 12:10 PM
Congrats!

I don't know what I'll end up with when mine finally dies. Its a 2004 and I only have 45k miles on it though so hopefully it will be a while :D

Bruce Page
04-11-2012, 1:28 PM
Congrats, my son's ranger has been bullet proof.

Dave Lehnert
04-11-2012, 1:55 PM
Is ford going to replace the Ranger with a new model?

Myk Rian
04-11-2012, 2:08 PM
Is ford going to replace the Ranger with a new model?
No. They figure people will go for the F150 instead. I question that decision. They say a fully loaded Ranger is close to the price of a F150.
I have a 1997 that I bought used. 4L 2wd extended cab. 83k miles on it. I love it.

Jeff Monson
04-11-2012, 2:46 PM
The ranger is a tough little truck to replace. Very reliable and proven.

Don Jarvie
04-11-2012, 3:16 PM
The Ranger is going bye bye. I think this is the last year according to Car and Driver. Your brave for getting a 2wd in Northern Michigan.

Dave Lehnert
04-11-2012, 4:48 PM
No. They figure people will go for the F150 instead. I question that decision. They say a fully loaded Ranger is close to the price of a F150.
I have a 1997 that I bought used. 4L 2wd extended cab. 83k miles on it. I love it.

Is that the 4.2 L 6cyl? If so, keep and eye on oil in the coolant or you will be replacing the engine. My 97 went at around 75K.

Google 1997 Ford F150 4.2 engine.

Matt Meiser
04-11-2012, 5:28 PM
Totally different engine.

Larry Edgerton
04-11-2012, 9:43 PM
I am taking it in to get it Zebarted before I start using it for work. Looking for a topper with side doors, but one that doesn't look commercial so it doesnt look like a target for tool thieves. [Sometimes I work close to Detroit] One with racks so I can pick it off with the tractor when I need an open truck. I think I am going to buy a 12'ish enclosed trailor for tools though. There is not much room back there compared to my van.

I'll get it worked out before I sell the van. So far I like it. Its just a plain old truck, but that is how I like them. It does have the XLT package, so has some stuff. not bad for $15,800 + the governors share.

Larry

Phil Thien
04-11-2012, 10:26 PM
I always thought the Ranger would have been a perfect PU for me. Too bad they're stopping production, as I'm about 2-3 years away from when I'd get one.

Joe Pelonio
04-11-2012, 10:35 PM
Ford was planning on a new F100 based on the Australian pickup, mid-sized more like the (also dead) Dakota and the
Tacoma. Unfortunately they couldn't match the gas mileage and tow capacity of the F150 so the canned it.

Larry Edgerton
04-12-2012, 7:43 AM
I thought about the V6 normally asperated F150, but at a best of 23MPG, it did not double the mileage that I am getting now, and that was my goal. Probably about 95% of my driving is basically empty, so I will keep the heavy rig back for those days when I need the capasity.

Larry

Mac McQuinn
04-12-2012, 4:03 PM
Larry,
IMO,You might want to consider a place called Henderson Bros. in Midland, MI for rustproofing. They have been around forever and are one of those small town legends with a product that flat works. Anyone and everyone in Central, Mi knows about these guys. They're that good. Enjoy your new truck.
Mac


I am taking it in to get it Zebarted before I start using it for work.

Larry

Myk Rian
04-12-2012, 4:53 PM
Is that the 4.2 L 6cyl?
No. It's a 4.0 liter. The largest they put in the Ranger.

The Ranger is going bye bye. I think this is the last year according to Car and Driver.
Production was stopped the end of 2011.

Randal Stevenson
04-12-2012, 6:15 PM
My father asked me the other day about this as his transmission may be going out on his 93. Personally, I would replace the transmission on a truck that is paid for and drives ok. Ford, is supposedly going to be releasing the Ranger's replacement the F100 (bringing back another old name), that is 3/4 the size of the full size truck with the Ecoboost engines (same mileage as the Rangers). Personally I would start looking at the Mazda if they keep producing it (sister to the Ranger, don't think it will change right away), if he goes new. Parking the smaller trucks is a LOT easier and they still haul 90% of everything I need for the house. My other truck is larger and needed just because of work. (94 Ranger stick, dad can't drive a stick or he would be, and a 2001 Sierra XLT)

Joe Pelonio
04-12-2012, 9:06 PM
Randal, the Mazda Pickup went away after 2009.

Randal Stevenson
04-12-2012, 11:36 PM
Randal, the Mazda Pickup went away after 2009.

Shows how much I value a new vehicle, that I am behind the times.

Brian Elfert
04-13-2012, 5:39 AM
The reason the Ford Ranger went away was simply lack of sales. Some say the lack of sales was Ford's fault due to not redesigning the Ranger for a number of years. Ford originally planned to close the Ranger plant in 2009, but the closing was pushed back by two years as there was a surge in sales of the Ranger. Ford's labor costs also went way down as a lot of more expensive workers took buyouts and new workers got lower wages.

Ford isn't the only manufacturer to discontinue a small truck due to lack of sales. Dodge discontinued the Dakota. Truck buyers are still buying full size pickups even with gas prices as high as they are.

Curt Harms
04-13-2012, 10:40 AM
I think if Ford produced a small pickup with size and weight similar to the original but with a diesel engine and modern design that got 35 or so M.P.G. they might be surprised at how much demand there is. Of course that might cut into their F150 sales so they'll wait for Toyota or Kia or whoever to eat their lunch -- again.

Brian Elfert
04-13-2012, 11:03 AM
The EPA has kinda killed the diesel for less expensive vehicles. The pollution controls required really jack up the price of a diesel engine. The 2007 diesels really killed the fuel mileage advantage, but the 2010 diesels seem to be doing better. I would buy a diesel minivan if one was sold at a reasonable price. An extra $1000 or two to add pollution controls on a $50,000 F-350 isn't a big deal, but at the $20,000 mark that is a big deal.

Some of the mainstream manufacturers keep saying they will be bringing out sedans and/or hatchbacks with diesels in the future, but apparently the future isn't here yet. (A lot of the dates were 2011/2012 a few years back.)

Mac McQuinn
04-13-2012, 5:32 PM
A reasonably priced small diesel powered truck seems viable to me. If VW can sell a 42 MPG, 2012 Jetta TDI w/ 6 speed manual at MSRP $22,775, you should be able to do a small basic (Ranger size) truck for the same or less. Lots of good truck type torque and you can't tell it's a diesel by standing behind it while it's running. Market research on the demand for this type of vehicle would be interesting.
Mac

David Weaver
04-13-2012, 5:53 PM
I think if anything has killed ford with the ranger, it's been their unwillingness to put new powertrains in them.

I had an '87 supercab xlt 4x4 v6 back in the 90s as my second vehicle ever, and it set the bar so high that I haven't had a vehicle yet that's been as reliable. In 13 1/2 years, we had an alignment done on it and had the valvecover gasket replaced (my dad bought it new, and i "took it" from him, so between us, we had it for 13 years), and the muffler replaced. Other than that, oil, batteries and a headlamp bulb or 2.

Back then, they had a 2.9 in them, I got good mileage - about 21 or 22 no matter how I drove it, which isn't bad for an extended cab 4x4 truck.

The engine that came out of the explorer that presumably is the one that's in the vehicle now is how old...25 years old? You can't convince someone to buy a small truck that gets the mileage of a big truck when the big truck is the same price.

If they had a decent modernized v6, and a 4 cylinder that'd be a little more appropriately sized (it's OK for the 2wds but in the 4wds, it needs more poop), people would still buy them.

I've been through 6 cars now and I would not be surprised if that ranger was still out there running somewhere. I never once even had the notion that it could possibly let me sit anywhere, and it never did.

Kevin W Johnson
04-13-2012, 11:43 PM
The EPA has kinda killed the diesel for less expensive vehicles. The pollution controls required really jack up the price of a diesel engine. The 2007 diesels really killed the fuel mileage advantage, but the 2010 diesels seem to be doing better. I would buy a diesel minivan if one was sold at a reasonable price. An extra $1000 or two to add pollution controls on a $50,000 F-350 isn't a big deal, but at the $20,000 mark that is a big deal.

Some of the mainstream manufacturers keep saying they will be bringing out sedans and/or hatchbacks with diesels in the future, but apparently the future isn't here yet. (A lot of the dates were 2011/2012 a few years back.)

Can't have everyone driving diesels, for what would the ethanol producers do then?

If 42mpg is the top of diesels in small cars, may as well just keep a gas engine unless you just love diesels. And yeah, a few are making their own cheap bio-diesel, but that will be short lived. I'm bettin' that a lot of the "free" used cooking oil will disappear as companies and businesses realize there is a market for it, and they can sell it instead.

Joe Pelonio
04-14-2012, 12:18 AM
And yeah, a few are making their own cheap bio-diesel, but that will be short lived. I'm bettin' that a lot of the "free" used cooking oil will disappear as companies and businesses realize there is a market for it, and they can sell it instead.

That has already happened. Recently a local restaurant filed a complaint that someone had stolen their used cooking oil they left out for the guy that buys it from them.

Jim Underwood
04-14-2012, 12:27 AM
I would think the thing that killed the sales of the Ranger is their poor gas mileage. I've loved both of mine, but the mileage of the 3.0 liter sucks. I've thought many a time that I should have just bought a full size truck- it gets nearly the same dang mileage... I see no reason they couldn't have gotten better mileage with their v-6...

Larry Edgerton
04-14-2012, 9:09 AM
One thing you do have to factor in to diesel engines is the cost of repairs. I drove full size diesels until this recession, and in the end they are not cheaper to run/maintain. 12 quart oil changes, expensive filters, and upsized parts [brakes etc.]on the rest of the truck. One major breakdown and your savings are gone. My Cummins/Dodge needed a fuel injection pump @ $2800.00 at 140K, and all my savings went right out the window.

The EPA regs have forced manufacturers to boost fuel pressure at the injector so far that I would be afraid to buy one of the new trucks. Like anything else that is pushed to the limit, failures are more likely. And repair costs will be higher.

That being said, I would love to have small/midsized van/truck that got mileage in the mid thirtys. Like I said before, I think our EPA is out of control. They are now dictating where the market goes, not necessarily the consumer.

Oh well, I am almost ready to hang it up so will be wearing out a lot less trucks. I hope this one will be around for about ten years.

Larry

Jerome Stanek
04-14-2012, 10:43 AM
When I was looking into a new 97 truck I ran the numbers and the break even point for the extra cost of a diesel was about 100,000 miles without any repairs and just normal maintenance. That was to long for me so I ended up with a gas engine truck. That was when diesel was about the same as gas.

David Weaver
04-14-2012, 11:03 AM
Larry beat me to it. 12 quarts of synthetic 5w-40 and very expensive filters, and then quadruple expensive repairs makes diesels no longer the same kind of proposition it was back when you could get a 12v cummins that got good mileage. Even at that, anything with the injection pump is high dollars.

I remember folks who were getting 25-27 miles per gallon with the old 195 horsepower 12v cummins.

I think diesel pickups these days are probably only sensible if you need the horsepower and towing. If the truck is empty 95% of the time, then they'll cost more in the end, and you have a big risk that if you get a year that something is bad (like the old 6.0 fords or the cummins that had lift pumps), you take a risk of really expensive repairs - and you pay more at the outset to get it, too.