In general, how easy/inexpensive are Rangers to work on?

[Dirtman]

Duratec/extended cab trucks are super rare, and I think they're all automatics. You don't want a Duratec with an Auto trans if you've got a choice. They came with different rear gears that kill fuel economy. The auto trans is less reliable than the manual too.
A duratec/manual combo in a regular cab can tickle 30mpg. A duratec/auto trans combo is usually stuck in the 23-25mpg range. Add a few hundred extra lbs for an extended cab, and you've got a 4cyl truck that gets fuel economy in the low 20s.

The 3.0 is a boat anchor, and it's thirsty. But they are hard to kill and parts are cheap. If you want an extended cab truck, they're far more common than the 4 cylinders.

Both engines are pretty reliable and cheap to maintain. Both engines were used in multiple vehicles for many years so parts are easy to find. I've owned both and would probably choose the Duratec if all else is the same, but you can't always get exactly what you want

 

[Roert42]

Honestly, even low 20’s is good for driving around in a 20 year old brick.

 

[stmitch]

Honestly, even low 20’s is good for driving around in a 20 year old brick.

I guess it's relative. Some of those bricks cost a whole lot less than others to operate. If You're worried about running costs as much as the OP claims to be, then there's a noticeable difference in $$$ between a truck that gets 20mpg vs one that gets 25 vs one that gets 30mpg.
If you only drive 10k miles per year (which is below average) a 20 mpg vehicle uses 500 gallons of fuel, while a 25mpg vehicle uses 400 gallons and the 30mpg option uses 333 gallons. If the fuel is just $2/gal, the 20mpg vehicle costs $1000, the 25mpg vehicle costs $800 and the 30mpg truck costs $666. So you'd save nearly $350/yr with the most fuel efficient option over the 20mpg option. If the miles driven and/or the price per gallon of fuel go up that spread only increases. If gas is a more realistic $2.50/gal, and you drive 12k miles per year then the numbers are $1500, 1200, and 1000 respectively.

If OP has gone so far as to compare replacement costs of alternators and a difference of $150 or so factors into their decision making, then fuel efficiency should really matter. Alternators last 100k miles pretty easily. So a $200 alternator every 100k miles, but a 5mpg difference could realistically be $2400 over that same mileage, while a 10mpg difference is $4000. I'd prioritize fuel efficiency.

 

[Arolsma]

Duratec/extended cab trucks are super rare, and I think they're all automatics. You don't want a Duratec with an Auto trans if you've got a choice. They came with different rear gears that kill fuel economy. The auto trans is less reliable than the manual too.
A duratec/manual combo in a regular cab can tickle 30mpg. A duratec/auto trans combo is usually stuck in the 23-25mpg range. Add a few hundred extra lbs for an extended cab, and you've got a 4cyl truck that gets fuel economy in the low 20s.

The 3.0 is a boat anchor, and it's thirsty. But they are hard to kill and parts are cheap. If you want an extended cab truck, they're far more common than the 4 cylinders.

Both engines are pretty reliable and cheap to maintain. Both engines were used in multiple vehicles for many years so parts are easy to find. I've owned both and would probably choose the Duratec if all else is the same, but you can't always get exactly what you want

According to fueleconomy.gov, the 2.3 stick gets 21 city and 26 hwy. The 2.3 auto gets 19 city and 24 hwy. That is not all that big of a difference. I am predicting I will average 12,000 miles per year over five years. The auto costs about $100 more per year for gas for a total of $500 more spent on gas. The 3.0 auto costs about $400 more per year for gas than the 2.3 auto. I would love to have a stick, but with the super cab they only tow about 1,400 lbs. The bare minimum I want is 1,500, preferably more. The auto super cab has a towing capacity of about 2,000 lbs. The 3.0 only tows about 2,300 to 2,500, not all that much more than the 2.3. It also gets the same fuel economy as the 4.0.
As for the 2.3 super cabs not being very common, I have already found dozens. They are especially common from 09-11 since the 3.0 finally was removed from the lineup. I don't know why anyone bought the 3.0 in a new Ranger; it makes very little sense. However, I would consider a 3.0 stick since the 4.0 sticks with rwd are practically nonexistent, and the 3.0 stick tows about 1,000 lbs more than the 2.3 stick.

 

[stmitch]

According to fueleconomy.gov, the 2.3 stick gets 21 city and 26 hwy. The 2.3 auto gets 19 city and 24 hwy. That is not all that big of a difference. I am predicting I will average 12,000 miles per year over five years. The auto costs about $100 more per year for gas for a total of $500 more spent on gas. The 3.0 auto costs about $400 more per year for gas than the 2.3 auto.

It doesn't really matter if it won't meet your needs, but I got 30mpg in warmer months with my 01 2.3/manual, and 28mpg in winter during my 5 years/90k miles of ownership. You can look around the Internet and find plenty of other examples too. I've been on various Ranger forums for over 15 years now and can tell you that the manual trucks are capable of outperforming their EPA ratings while the Auto trucks really can't.

As for the 2.3 super cabs not being very common, I have already found dozens. They are especially common from 09-11 since the 3.0 finally was removed from the lineup. I don't know why anyone bought the 3.0 in a new Ranger; it makes very little sense. However, I would consider a 3.0 stick since the 4.0 sticks with rwd are practically nonexistent, and the 3.0 stick tows about 1,000 lbs more than the 2.3 stick.

It's semantics, but I'm ok considering "dozens" to be pretty rare when there are thousands of total Rangers of that vintage for sale.
While the HP numbers may be similar between the two, the 3.0 has a better torque curve than the 2.3 which might be appreciated if you're planning on towing

 

[Arolsma]

It doesn't really matter if it won't meet your needs, but I got 30mpg in warmer months with my 01 2.3/manual, and 28mpg in winter during my 5 years/90k miles of ownership. You can look around the Internet and find plenty of other examples too. I've been on various Ranger forums for over 15 years now and can tell you that the manual trucks are capable of outperforming their EPA ratings while the Auto trucks really can't.



It's semantics, but I'm ok considering "dozens" to be pretty rare when there are thousands of total Rangers of that vintage for sale.
While the HP numbers may be similar between the two, the 3.0 has a better torque curve than the 2.3 which might be appreciated if you're planning on towing

I am just saying I have found more 2.3 super cabs than 3.0 super cabs in the year range I am interested in (03-11). The thing with the 3.0 is that it gets same mpg as the 4.0, and the 4.0 has way more power and torque. The EPA ratings for the 3.0 and 4.0 automatic are the same. Does the 3.0 get a little better real world mpg than the 4.0? Another thing that draws me to the 2.3 auto is that I can get one that is a few years newer than either v6 for the same price. I don't plan on towing that much, but do want to be able to tow a decent amount (1500 to 2000lbs) when I need to. It is just going to be a versatile daily driver for me. It will get the most use commuting to work during the summer as I am still in high school. Right now I am basically looking for a 2.3, but am open to other options that become available. I am not too picky about the engine I get; my main concern is the condition of the truck, especially rust.

 

[Dirtman]

If you go with the 2.3 try to look at 04+ trucks. 2002-2003 2.3's had a stupid intake runner control system that was found to be totally useless and somewhat problematic (the flaps could stick or actually break off and shoot through the engine). It was deleted from 2004 and on.

 

[MikeG]

4.0 gets pretty crappy mileage. Window sticker on mine said 16/20 with an automatic. If it's ever gotten 20, even on the highway, I don't remember that happening. So, if you're gonna drive a LOT, that's probably not the engine for you, at least the ancient OHVs. Surely the SOHC engines do better.

Strangely enough my 96 Exploder with the same engine, auto, and about 500-700 pound heavier, got better mileage. Not by a lot, but at least some. And it had lower gears. Go figure.

But it is a pretty durable engine if taken care of.

 

[Dirtman]

Lower gears usually increase fuel mileage in city driving. The engine doesn't have to work as hard taking off from lights and maintaining lower speeds.

 

[MikeG]

It got better mileage on the highway, too. Low 20s if you kept speeds at least somewhat sane. Same tire size for both. Dunno. 4 speed auto / 3.73 in the Exploder, 5 speed auto and 3.55 in the truck.

 

[Dirtman]

The difference on the highway probably came down to the exploder being more aerodynamic. Yea I know an exploder is far from being a bullet, but its alot better than a ranger.

 

[MikeG]

I'm sure that's a big part of it.

Driving them alternately, it seemed that the Exploder was always more 'peppy' and in the back of my mind, I always wondered if Ford de-tuned the Mazda version a tad vs. the Ranger. Never had a Ranger of the same era to compare to, so guess we'll never know.

 

[Dirtman]

FWIW my 2.3 auto with 4.10s gets right around 25mpg all highway in the summer with a couple hundred pounds of gear in the bed if I stick to around 65mph and use good gas (93 octane non ethanol).

In the winter, around town, lots of idling to warm up, with crap e10 gas... I'm closer to 15mpg.

 

[19Walt93]

I'm sure that's a big part of it.

Driving them alternately, it seemed that the Exploder was always more 'peppy' and in the back of my mind, I always wondered if Ford de-tuned the Mazda version a tad vs. the Ranger. Never had a Ranger of the same era to compare to, so guess we'll never know.

The truck isn't "detuned" it has 3.55's vs 3.73's in the Explorer. 3.55 gears yield an effective 2.485 final drive ratio in overdrive, the poor engine is getting lugged to death. Be thankful you drive in flat country, you'd have burned up the transmission by now from constant downshifting.

 

[adsm08]

View attachment 55510

Hey, I know what that's from.