• Welcome Visitor! Please take a few seconds and Register for our forum. Even if you don't want to post, you can still 'Like' the posts that you read.

New Ranger


Bill

Active member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
526
Reaction score
205
Points
43
Location
Sacramento, CA
Vehicle Year
2007
Make / Model
Ford Ranger
Engine Type
2.3 (4 Cylinder)
Transmission
Manual
2WD / 4WD
2WD
I bought a new Ranger last week

2007 XLT Standard Cab, 2.3L Duratec, Manual transmission.

The 4 cylinder's performance is damn near identical to the 3.0L V6. I've driven both engines in a Ranger. The only real difference I can feel between the two is the 3.0L is a little better with the air conditioner running, and the fuel economy of the 2.3L makes my wallet feel a little thicker.

I really wonder what is going on in the minds of the editors at Consumer's Reports and other magazines. CR has a long list of gripes about the Ranger starting with the seats being too low. The seats are fine. They compared it to the Tacoma's 2.7L I4, stating the Tacoma's 4 cylinder was peppy, but the Ranger's was only adequate. I've driven a friend's Tacoma as well. The mid-sizing of the Tacoma has resulted in a vehicle that is obviously too heavy for their engine.

Some of the reviews state the Ranger's interior is not put together well. It appears OK to me. However, I really think truck interiors peaked somewhere between 1991 and 1997. I tend to think the material in my 1995 Ranger is probably of higher quality than the 2007. I've also read several threads from other truck owners that feel the same way, and this isn't limited to Ford.

The other complaint I keep reading about is the "choppy" ride. Well, to start with, I have never driven a new truck that didn't have a rough ride. Being new the suspension is stiff. It is also a light (2910 lb) short-wheelbase truck. Yes, it is a little bumpy, but I think a lot of it has to do with the el cheapo Continental tires that come with it, one of which had to be replaced because it was visually out of round. Ford has had a TSB on this since 2005 and they still choose to put this tire on the Rangers and the Mazda trucks.

It was somewhat of a challenge to find what I wanted. which was a dark grey in a Mazda B2300 with the SE5 option package. Two of the local Mazda dealerships really made it clear that they really didn't give a damn that I wanted a truck. The third wanted full MSRP plus $500 to bring it to Sacramento. I gave up on a B2300 over the crap from the Mazda dealerships. The Ford dealerships weren't much better, with the exception of the one I purchased it from. One dealership harassed me with three sales people that wouldn't let me take the time to read the window stickers, then stood behind me when I was trying to back out. Another told me I was being cheap because I wasn't interested in their upselling (of a V6, automatic, etc). Another played up a pretend laughter thinking they would shame me into buying as F150. And yet another decided to insist I needed an F150, I wouldn't be happy with a Ranger, I would get more truck for my money, and they aren't going to talk to me any further about a Ranger because they want me to be happy, and they think happiness is an F150. I walked out of there quick. I went to a family owned dealership and told them I wanted a particular Ranger, and I bought it from them.

I only threw in the story to illustrate part of the reason so few Rangers are being sold. Anyway, I'm not going to bash the other dealerships, but if you are anywhere near driving distance to Sacramento, Harrold Ford is really good place to deal with. I highly recommend them.

Anyway, pictures of the Dark Shadow Grey Ranger. Unfortunately I didn't have a polarizing filter to get rid of the reflections, and it was a bad time of the day to take pictures under a canopy of trees.




I really hate the painted wheels on it. You used to get alloy wheels with an XLT. Not anymore. The Mazda SE5 wheels are available for about $90 each online. I may end up buying those. There are also 16" wheels available. I don't know if I want to go with 16" on this truck.



So far my only complaint is the location of the cupholders, which is under the dash. Anything taller than a 16oz cup will not fit there. Here is another bonehead award to Ford.



Anyway, the 2007 Rangers have about $2500 incentives. Mazda has $3000 off on their trucks. So if you are thinking about buying one, now would be a good time to consider before the selection is gone. Unless you want a plain white Ranger.
 
Last edited:


Rock Auto 5% Discount Code: 4FF3E9EEA14805 Expires: October 1st, 2020

06yellowranger

New member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
210
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
33
Location
Tamaqua, PA
Vehicle Year
2005
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Size
3.0
Transmission
Automatic
Nice truck, but I still like my gas-guzzling Sport 4X4 w/ 4.0L & auto tranny, your truck is definitely very nice, I bet you'll enjoy filling up at the pump more than I do as well, lol :D
 

Boomer

New member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
38
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Columbus, MS
What do you think of the radio? I was disappointed with the styling and lighting of the new style comapred to my 98...I like the green LED lighting vs the green on grey bacl lighting...not real thrilled with the layout of the controls.
 

Bill

Active member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
526
Reaction score
205
Points
43
Location
Sacramento, CA
Vehicle Year
2007
Make / Model
Ford Ranger
Engine Type
2.3 (4 Cylinder)
Transmission
Manual
2WD / 4WD
2WD
Yeah, well I also have a 1995 Ranger with a gas-guzzling 4.0L V6. Unfortunately no 4wd on it though.

If you are going to have a V6 in the Ranger, the 4.0 is the way to go. The 3.0 is kind of pointless given the performance of the Duratec and the negligible difference in fuel economy between the 3.0 and 4.0.
 

06yellowranger

New member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
210
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
33
Location
Tamaqua, PA
Vehicle Year
2005
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Size
3.0
Transmission
Automatic
I completely agree, I was a salesman for a ford dealer(for 3 days, lol, don't ask), but anyway, 2.3 - 147hp 3.0 - 153hp 4.0 - 207hp, you can see the difference for yourself, and there isn't much of one between the 2.3 and 3.0, so if you're going to pay more money just get the 4.0, considering it gets at worst 1.5 mpg less than the 3.0(on average)
 

Bill

Active member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
526
Reaction score
205
Points
43
Location
Sacramento, CA
Vehicle Year
2007
Make / Model
Ford Ranger
Engine Type
2.3 (4 Cylinder)
Transmission
Manual
2WD / 4WD
2WD
What do you think of the radio? I was disappointed with the styling and lighting of the new style comapred to my 98...I like the green LED lighting vs the green on grey bacl lighting...not real thrilled with the layout of the controls.
I'm not really thrilled about the layout of the controls, but I really don't like the layout of the aftermarket one-knob stereos with flashing crap on the faceplate either. Every once in a while the Pioneer in my 95 resets itself and it starts flashing with images of basketball players or dolphins swimming. It is annoying and distracting to the point I thought I was going to end up driving my truck into a wall out of frustration with it.

Sound is Ok. Certainly could be better, but it is the best I've had with a stock radio in a new vehicle. I just don't understand how they can't make them sound as least as good as a $78 Pioneer, considering they ding us somewhere around $300 for the stock unit.

It is very likely I will leave the stock stereo in there, at least until I move out of this neighbourhood. I'm not too worried about someone breaking in to steal a stock radio. I think everyone living in this neighbourhood has had their vehicles broken over an aftermarket stereo in the last several years.
 

bobbywalter

TRS Technical Staff
TRS Technical Advisor
TRS Banner 2012-2015
TRS 20th Anniversary
Joined
Aug 9, 2007
Messages
20,051
Reaction score
1,005
Points
113
Location
woodhaven mi
Vehicle Year
1988
Make / Model
FORD mostly
Engine Size
BIGGER
Transmission
Automatic
2WD / 4WD
4WD
Total Lift
sawzall?
Tire Size
33-44
My credo
it is easier to fix and understand than "her"
i have pounded on pretty much every model of rangers the last 3 years . test burns here and there along with customer/friend/family rides.



good trucks. the 2wd 4 wheexer is sweet....if you have the manual trans.


most dealer test rides were short, but consistant @ 30 miles.

the a/c thing with the napa parts haulers the local shops use really surprised me though. the 4 popper really takes a beating on mpg, actually gets the same as the 3.0 when the run the a/c all the time, they have 3 4 cyl and one 3.0. all 05's. cool thing is thats 20-21 mpg from what they say.....


outstanding for city driving and extended idling. better then my 8-10 mpg...
 

Bill

Active member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
526
Reaction score
205
Points
43
Location
Sacramento, CA
Vehicle Year
2007
Make / Model
Ford Ranger
Engine Type
2.3 (4 Cylinder)
Transmission
Manual
2WD / 4WD
2WD
Running the air conditioner in almost exclusive city traffic and freeway gridlock (moving 5 miles in 15 minutes) yielded 23.4 mpg. The 3.0 might get that on the highway on a good day.

Comparing the Napa couriers to anything means nothing. From they way I've seen them drive around here I'm surprised those trucks still run at all after 15,000 miles of squeeling tires, hopping curbs, racing from stoplight to stoplight, and passing everyone on the right when freeway traffic is too slow for them. If they do get stuck in traffic and can't move they rev the engines up and down constantly.

Under those conditions I think 21mpg is very likely, and it has little to do with the air conditioner.
 

Seabiscuit

New member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
211
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Vehicle Year
2001
Make / Model
Ford
Transmission
Automatic
What material is used on the mazda rims?
 

RobbieD

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
1,781
Reaction score
333
Points
83
Location
Georgia
Vehicle Year
1984,1990,1994
Make / Model
Ford
Transmission
Automatic
My credo
Toonces drives a Ranger . . . . just not very well.
Congrats on the new truck, Bill. I hope that she serves you well.
 

philS

New member
Joined
Aug 8, 2007
Messages
96
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Central MA
Vehicle Year
87
Make / Model
Ford
Transmission
Manual
That is sharp! What are you getting for mileage?

I'm getting 28mpg in my 87 v-6 Ranger (2wd, no A/C). I looked in the bed of an '07 the other day, and I'm surprised that the inside of the bed hasn't changed in over 20 years!
 

Bill

Active member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
526
Reaction score
205
Points
43
Location
Sacramento, CA
Vehicle Year
2007
Make / Model
Ford Ranger
Engine Type
2.3 (4 Cylinder)
Transmission
Manual
2WD / 4WD
2WD
That is sharp! What are you getting for mileage?

I'm getting 28mpg in my 87 v-6 Ranger (2wd, no A/C). I looked in the bed of an '07 the other day, and I'm surprised that the inside of the bed hasn't changed in over 20 years!
I haven't had the opportunity to check out the highway mileage. So far under the worst city driving conditions with the air conditioner on, 23.4 mpg.

What material is used on the mazda rims?
Aluminium alloy.
The same wheels have been available on several Rangers, but Ford wants about $177 for them.
 

WhiteRanger4x4

New member
Joined
Aug 8, 2007
Messages
79
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
PERRY,Ga.
Vehicle Year
1996
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Size
4.0
Transmission
Automatic
Nice Ranger. I like that color to.
 

JohnnyO

Moderator Emeritus
Forum Staff - Retired
Joined
Jan 6, 2002
Messages
4,556
Reaction score
548
Points
113
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Vehicle Year
2008
Make / Model
Sport Trac
Engine Type
4.0 V6
Engine Size
4.0
Transmission
Automatic
2WD / 4WD
4WD
Total Lift
2.5''
Tire Size
245/70-17
My credo
"I'm not Mr. Lebowski, YOU'RE Mr. Lebowski. I'm The Dude."
I'm kicking around going 4-banger/stick/2wd next time myself.
 

Sevensecondsuv

New member
RBV's on Boost
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
1,140
Reaction score
7
Points
0
Location
Northern IL
Vehicle Year
Many
Make / Model
All Fords!
Engine Size
Many
Transmission
Manual
Nice ranger!!

I've been very temped to get that same truck with the current incentives they've got going. If I wasn't investing every last penny to my name in an engineering degree I'd probably go buy one. I really have no need though, my 1990 runs like a new one and gets 25-30 MPG average. It's just that it doesn't have air and looks like a rusty old dumpster. :)
 


Top