Deciding What Configuration Ranger to Buy

[racsan]

2.3 manual isnt bad, Ive only ever had/drove one automatic ranger and it was a 3.0 with 3.45’s and no 1st gear so obviously that was not taking off from a stop with any quickness. 3 people up front in a ranger just aint going to work well, unless that middle person is little-like a 5 year old. you can put adults in the supercab but its not very comfortable, certainly better then trying to put 3 adults up front, but its a snug fit. Ive not been able to tell any difference with tire tread designs vs fuel economy, I run different tires in winter but many other variables affect mpg in winter (esp winter blend fuel here) so I dont give winter milage much thought.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Mine was a floor shift automatic, could seat three in a pinch but everybody has to hold their breath.

I have uh... filled out since then too, I consider it a two seater now.

 

[sheep herder]

Rangers (supercab or not) are 2 passenger vehicles unless your passengers are small children. Or midgets.

 

[don4331]

Shifting a RC Ranger with 3rd person in cab depends on how friendly/small the middle passenger is.

Remember the jump seat in a Super cab is about size of 8-1/2x11 sheet of paper - so you're only going to put some you don't like back there. And SuperCab is only 14" longer than RC - measure your shoulders and figure out how much the front seat will need to be moved forward for rear passenger to fit. Basically, SuperCab is good for storage inside/space for the dog.

You can't mount a car seat, so not good for child. And the center seat in SuperCab has zero upper back/head support for someone sitting there - very dangerous in event of being hit from behind. In RC, we could stack pillows again the rear glass and you had some support.​

​

For all intents and purposes a Ranger is a 2 passenger vehicle. If you want more passengers, get an Explorer/Bronco II/Escape/etc.

Rangers with 2.5/manual in SC had 1,400lb trailer capacity - that's almost splitting hairs difference to 1,500.

 

[scotts90ranger]

I would go manual versus auto if 4 cylinder, unless you get in a wreck the stated towing capacity doesn't matter for squat, get what you can get... I imagine the newer 5 speed autos are better, but from what I've heard the A4LD had some parasitic power loss that made it harder on a 4 cylinder...

Extended cab is nice, I haven't been in a 98+ regular cab but I imagine it helps with the extra 3", I'm 5' 11" with more torso than legs and my seat is all the way back in the '90 (but buckets, so I think 2" forward of a bench, same as a 60/40 though) although it is just right. My friend that's I think 6' 4" drove with me in the passenger seat the other day and he looked cramped... I got a '97 4x2 extended cab manual trans 2.3L Ranger for a daily driver last December and I'm liking the extra space, I'd say it's worth it...

 

[rubydist]

I would say the middle seat position on the manual trans Ranger is about as useable as the jump seats in the extended cab are - useful for little people or very short trips only.

 

[sgtsandman]

Three people in the front seat of a Ranger is no fun for anyone. Driver or passengers. As previously stated, the rear jump seats in the Super Cab are for small people only. Even then, it can be cramped. Rangers before 2019 are two people vehicles for all intents and purposes.

 

[Saddle Tramp]

Three of us crammed ourselves into my wife's single cab Ranger and drove from the east coast of Florida to the west.
It sucked.

I road in the jump seat of my extended cab (Letting the wife drive) across town.
It sucked... less.

Best answer I can give.

 

[1990RangerinSK]

I have a couple more questions (sorry, I know I have a lot). We know some people who had a stick regular cab ranger, and I heard that it was a pain to have three people in the cab because the third person's legs got in the way of shifting gears. Is this a legitimate problem? Is the middle seat even usable with an automatic? I want to be able to have more than two people in the cab from time to time. In a super cab, are the back jump seats or the middle front a better place for the third person? If the middle seat is not realistically usable in a stick, I will probably scratch a regular cab stick of my list.
Also, is the 2.3 auto completely underwhelming to drive? I figure I would be fine with a 2.3 if I can at least shift my own gears; but, as I mentioned earlier, I can only get a 2.3 super cab with an auto to reach my minimum towing capacity of 1,500 lbs. I would really like the fuel economy of the 2.3, but I may need to give it up and get one of the v6s.
I have thought of getting all-terrain tires if I end up wanting to go off road some. How many mpgs should I expect to lose with all-terrains?
Thanks for all your responses.

I've had three Rangers. The '85 was a regular cab, 5 speed stick. I had a person in the middle seat once, a small female child. Getting into second, fourth and reverse was a pain, if not impossible.

The '91 was a 5 speed supercab, with a split bench. Never had a person in the middle, I think I rode in the jump seat once. For me, 5'6 with a small body it was unpleasant, but doable.

The '90 was a automatic supercab. I rode in the jump seat of it, (every bit as uncomfortable as the '91, but doable). I also drove with somebody in the middle. It was doable, but she was an older female, and it took work to not put elbows you-know-where when I tried to turn.

 

[Arolsma]

Sounds like I won't be buying a regular cab stick and will only buy one with an automatic if it is too good a deal to pass up. Is the automatic transmission the same in all three engines from 04-11? Were any changes made to any of the transmissions for 2010 that would explain why Consumer Reports gives the 2010 one out of five for major transmission problems, but at least three out of five for surrounding years? Do you think I should avoid the 2010s because of this, or just say to heck with it? Thanks

 

[ericbphoto]

As far as tires and mpg go, tread design will have negligible effect on mpg. Tire diameter and width (contact patch size) and air pressure will change your rolling resistance and therefore mpg.

 

[Eddo Rogue]

I have a couple more questions (sorry, I know I have a lot). We know some people who had a stick regular cab ranger, and I heard that it was a pain to have three people in the cab because the third person's legs got in the way of shifting gears. Is this a legitimate problem? Is the middle seat even usable with an automatic? I want to be able to have more than two people in the cab from time to time. In a super cab, are the back jump seats or the middle front a better place for the third person? If the middle seat is not realistically usable in a stick, I will probably scratch a regular cab stick of my list.
Also, is the 2.3 auto completely underwhelming to drive? I figure I would be fine with a 2.3 if I can at least shift my own gears; but, as I mentioned earlier, I can only get a 2.3 super cab with an auto to reach my minimum towing capacity of 1,500 lbs. I would really like the fuel economy of the 2.3, but I may need to give it up and get one of the v6s.
I have thought of getting all-terrain tires if I end up wanting to go off road some. How many mpgs should I expect to lose with all-terrains?
Thanks for all your responses.

I have a '93 4wd super cab 4.0ohv manual trans. I had the same setup back in college, regret selling it, and bought this one 15 years later because it was the same setup, just different colors. still has less than 90k miles on it!

Anyways the cab is tiny! Middle seat is useless, especially trying to shift, which has a long throw. Unless its a small female, it will be very uncomfortable, its a narrow cab...The jumper seats of the super cab are actually useable, adults fit back there. You can fit 2 full size passengers back there if you scooch the driver seat up a bit for the seat behind you. The 4.0 is a torquey motor, is not that fast, but doesnt notice loads.

Mpg will be negligible based on tire choice. Off roading itself is not a fuel saving activity. Its splitting hairs. If you are concerned about range, add a jerry can rig...Anyways I say try to go super cab 4.0 if you wanna tow and not drive solo.

 

[PetroleumJunkie412]

I've driven auto and manual ranger.

I own three manual rangers.

The auto transmissions available for ranger leave a lot to be desired...

 

[Ranger850]

Maybe the OP should be looking at a 2wd Sport Trac. Definitely can fit more than 2 people in those.

 

[Arolsma]

Anyways I say try to go super cab 4.0 if you wanna tow and not drive solo.

The auto transmissions available for ranger leave a lot to be desired...

4.0 rwd stick super cab is definitely my ideal configuration, but they appear to be very rare; I have only found a couple and they were like $9-14K. That is why I am now considering a 3.0 rwd stick super cab which have a towing capacity of about 2,400 lbs vs about 1,400 for the 2.3 stick super cab. I haven't looked that much for them though, so they could be just as rare. It would be cool to get a rwd 4.0 automatic since those can tow close to 6K, but I will probably never tow close to that much. Who knows though, I may surprise myself.

Maybe the OP should be looking at a 2wd Sport Trac. Definitely can fit more than 2 people in those.

That thought has crossed my mind, but I could never bring myself to buy such an atrocious looking vehicle (no offence if you own one, lol). The rangers look about 100 times better imo. That and its great track record for reliability are what drew me to the Ranger.

Another question, at what point should you have (or is it a bad idea not to have) brakes on a trailer you're towing with a Ranger? I will probably be mostly towing a 5x8 utility trailer we have that has a gvwr just under 3,000 lbs and a dry weight of 825 lbs. Will a Ranger have trouble stopping a 1500-3000 trailer without additional brakes? Here in Wisconsin, brakes are only required for trailers weighing 3K+ or for ones weighing more than the dry weight of the tow vehicle.