What do you hate about your Ranger?

[Eddo Rogue]

My '98 is running great overall with a replacement 4.0, new Cooling, Exhaust, AC, and Brake Systems/components, shackles, tires, battery, seats, bluetooth stereo, blah blah blah. Eventually I'd like to put new rims and slightly larger tires on as well as heavier leaf springs.

But what I hate is the body: Sun-faded chalky red with mild hail-damage and the beginnings of rust on the cab corners. I've done all the previous mechanical work with some help on the engine swap from a buddy who has since moved to Florida. But I haven't the first idea about how to get started with body work. And I hate the red. I used to own a red car and I've had enough of red vehicles for one lifetime. Would really like to get it a nice midnight blue.

Start with primer lol. Primered trucks are look beast.

 

[Eddo Rogue]

That might actually fix my door problem.

 

[Eddo Rogue]

The fact its nutless lol. Other then that its not bad. But it does get 30mpg so that kinda cancels it out. Its just a base 4 dr, even has manual windows and locks and no abs.

The SS ones do run pretty good from what ive read.

To be fair i think somethings going on with it. It runs good but when you stand on it to pass about 5000rpm it falls on its face and wont shift till you lay off it. Its throwing a cam sensor code but it has no cam sensor.

I've ran into a couple of guys on jobs that had the SS, they're great sleepers IMO. Only the SS though. Big difference.

 

[Eddo Rogue]

Sounds like most of your problems could be solved with one simple fix.

A Tesla?

 

[scotts90ranger]

The 3.0 has to be reved up to a higher RPM to get a similar power to the other engines. A lot of people are uncomfortable with doing that. I ran into similar with my Honda CR-Vs. People always thought I was over reving the engine when I was driving it exactly how the manufacturer recommended it be driven (about 2,000 - 3,000 for the standard power band instead 1,000 - 2,000 rpm). As a result, the 3.0 has a reputation for being weak and sluggish.

The main problem with the 3.0L auto's is Ford's shift points I'm pretty sure, I don't think they change the shift points to go with the engines power band... but then again I haven't dealt with a 3.0L...

My '97 is pretty much what I expected when I got it, I don't hate anything about it, sure it's gutless but it does have 4.10's so that helps but I expected it, it's peppier than my '90 was with 3.08's and 25" tires! The '90 tractored around better at lower rpm for whatever reason though... I kinda wish it had A/C but maybe I can add that? Cruise control would be nice, but that's just $300 apparently... it's paid for itself a couple times over in fuel savings over my '00 Explorer so it doesn't owe me anything...

I'd kinda like something newer and better but I have a hard time justifying things, sure I could save $1000 a year in fuel but at the cost of say $300 a month plus more expensive insurance? At the rate the '97's rusting it'll live until it's 132, my '90 isn't even rusty...

Everything I'm not a fan of I've just changed on my Rangers, didn't like the AWD transfer case on the '00 Explorer so went manual, there's several problems with the sploders that I don't like like the PATS, I think the '98 has a bad GEM causing a battery drain and issues with the auto headlights but I haven't looked into it. The '00 doesn't have working cruise control from a bad clock spring I think and between the two none of the 6 air shocks are sealed...

 

[Vindictus]

I drove a 96 3.0 auto for 11 years. was a gutless truck
pro's: never left me stranded
no matter how hard I drove it i got 450km a tank ( i get 550-600 with 4.0 ) whether doing the speed limit or bounce it off the speed limiter

 

[sgtsandman]

The main problem with the 3.0L auto's is Ford's shift points I'm pretty sure, I don't think they change the shift points to go with the engines power band... but then again I haven't dealt with a 3.0L...

My '97 is pretty much what I expected when I got it, I don't hate anything about it, sure it's gutless but it does have 4.10's so that helps but I expected it, it's peppier than my '90 was with 3.08's and 25" tires! The '90 tractored around better at lower rpm for whatever reason though... I kinda wish it had A/C but maybe I can add that? Cruise control would be nice, but that's just $300 apparently... it's paid for itself a couple times over in fuel savings over my '00 Explorer so it doesn't owe me anything...

I'd kinda like something newer and better but I have a hard time justifying things, sure I could save $1000 a year in fuel but at the cost of say $300 a month plus more expensive insurance? At the rate the '97's rusting it'll live until it's 132, my '90 isn't even rusty...

Everything I'm not a fan of I've just changed on my Rangers, didn't like the AWD transfer case on the '00 Explorer so went manual, there's several problems with the sploders that I don't like like the PATS, I think the '98 has a bad GEM causing a battery drain and issues with the auto headlights but I haven't looked into it. The '00 doesn't have working cruise control from a bad clock spring I think and between the two none of the 6 air shocks are sealed...

A/C shouldn’t be a problem. I don’t think there is a difference in models when it comes to the equipment other than the bracket needed to mount the conpressor.

I looked into cruise control and decided I didn’t want it bad enough to change out the steering wheel and add the other equipment.

 

[sgtsandman]

Yes very true, and maybe just not good motors for the Ranger because of this. I don't think they got the gearing or something right either, perhaps trying to accommodate lower rpm driving. I remember flying in a 3.0 Aerostar as a kid, those minivans hauled ass!

It was a bad match for sure. As others mentioned, the shift points in the automatics are too soon.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

The 3.0 has to be reved up to a higher RPM to get a similar power to the other engines.

Not to start a war but this is exactly why despite having similar numbers the 2.9 will beat up a 3.0 then bang its GF afterwards.

 

[SenorNoob]

I would guess 98+, the f-150 went to that style in '99.

I'm gonna say it Supercab vs regular. Cause I know my old 88 rear was bolted in. It had an S10 or Luv or ? window in it when I bought it... Could see light around the upper curves.

 

[sgtsandman]

Not to start a war but this is exactly why despite having similar numbers the 2.9 will beat up a 3.0 then bang its GF afterwards.

I have no dog in the fight since I never owned either. I had a 2.5 and moved up to a 4.0 SOHC and a 2.3 Ecoboost. The only engine that would have been more of a dog than the 2.5 Lima would have been the 2.3 Lima. Well, maybe one of the diesels but those weren’t exactly common.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

I have no dog in the fight since I never owned either. I had a 2.5 and moved up to a 4.0 SOHC and a 2.3 Ecoboost. The only engine that would have been more of a dog than the 2.5 Lima would have been the 2.3 Lima. Well, maybe one of the diesels but those weren’t exactly common.

The 2.0 was a joke too.

 

[Ranger850]

I hate that I've let it sit for a few years without wrenching on it. I even told myself THIS is the year to get to work on it. So far, all I've done is put it up on jack stands on every corner. Getting tires will have to be my first move , so I can actually move it to a better location in the yard to work on it.

 

[BiggSherm1988]

Only thing is the fact that Ford did absolutely nothing to stop or even slow the effects of rust.

 

[sgtsandman]

The 2.0 was a joke too.

I forgot about that one.