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

What do you hate about your Ranger?

Eddo Rogue

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 18, 2020
Messages
3,344
Reaction score
1,770
Points
113
Location
Burbank,CA
Vehicle Year
1993
Make / Model
Ranger 4x4
Engine Type
4.0 V6
Engine Size
OHV
Transmission
Manual
2WD / 4WD
4WD
Total Lift
skyjacker front leveling kit
Tire Size
31-10.50R15
My credo
Crossed threads are tight threads.
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.
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!
 


Eddo Rogue

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 18, 2020
Messages
3,344
Reaction score
1,770
Points
113
Location
Burbank,CA
Vehicle Year
1993
Make / Model
Ranger 4x4
Engine Type
4.0 V6
Engine Size
OHV
Transmission
Manual
2WD / 4WD
4WD
Total Lift
skyjacker front leveling kit
Tire Size
31-10.50R15
My credo
Crossed threads are tight threads.
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

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 18, 2020
Messages
3,344
Reaction score
1,770
Points
113
Location
Burbank,CA
Vehicle Year
1993
Make / Model
Ranger 4x4
Engine Type
4.0 V6
Engine Size
OHV
Transmission
Manual
2WD / 4WD
4WD
Total Lift
skyjacker front leveling kit
Tire Size
31-10.50R15
My credo
Crossed threads are tight threads.
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

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 18, 2020
Messages
3,344
Reaction score
1,770
Points
113
Location
Burbank,CA
Vehicle Year
1993
Make / Model
Ranger 4x4
Engine Type
4.0 V6
Engine Size
OHV
Transmission
Manual
2WD / 4WD
4WD
Total Lift
skyjacker front leveling kit
Tire Size
31-10.50R15
My credo
Crossed threads are tight threads.

scotts90ranger

Well-Known Member
RBV's on Boost
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
6,661
Reaction score
2,152
Points
113
Location
Dayton Oregon
Vehicle Year
1990, 1997
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Type
2.3 (4 Cylinder)
Engine Size
2.3 Turbo
Transmission
Manual
2WD / 4WD
4WD
Total Lift
6
Tire Size
35"
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

Active Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2011
Messages
225
Reaction score
209
Points
43
Location
NewBrunswick Canada
Vehicle Year
2011
Make / Model
Ford Ranger
Engine Type
4.0 V6
Engine Size
ReMan 4.0 SOHC
Transmission
Manual
2WD / 4WD
2WD
Tire Size
235/75/15
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
 

mtnrgr

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2007
Messages
449
Reaction score
556
Points
93
Location
California
Vehicle Year
1994
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Size
3.0
Transmission
Manual
2WD / 4WD
2WD
Total Lift
6" Skyjacker, with 1.5" coil spacers, custom radius arms, custom traction bars
Tire Size
31x10.50
My credo
Lord God is my guardian
The shift points for the 3.0 auto in the ranger are to soon, the engine is not able to reach its full potential in the rpms. Since there were more autos than standard transmissions with the 3.0 that's why people gave it the 3.slow name. Ford should have made more standard trans with this engine. Ford have done better with the computer tuning for higher shift points to allow the proper rpm...it would not be gutless. I have a standard trans in my ranger with the 3.0, and it's great. I have modified my ranger alot thru the years. When it was stock and using 345 gears...even then it was good. Aerostar and Taurus the 3.0 auto allow the engine to max the rpm, in the ranger, yeah it sucked. In the ranger the 3.0 is only best with a standard trans.
 

sgtsandman

Aircraft Fuel Tank Diver
Forum Moderator
Supporting Member
U.S. Military - Active
TRS 20th Anniversary
TRS Event Participant
Ham Radio Operator
GMRS Radio License
Joined
Mar 11, 2017
Messages
9,635
Reaction score
7,772
Points
113
Location
Aliquippa, PA
Vehicle Year
2011
Make / Model
Ford Ranger XLT
Engine Type
4.0 V6
Engine Size
4.0 SOHC
Transmission
Manual
2WD / 4WD
4WD
Total Lift
Pre-2008 lift
Tire Size
31X10.5R15
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

Aircraft Fuel Tank Diver
Forum Moderator
Supporting Member
U.S. Military - Active
TRS 20th Anniversary
TRS Event Participant
Ham Radio Operator
GMRS Radio License
Joined
Mar 11, 2017
Messages
9,635
Reaction score
7,772
Points
113
Location
Aliquippa, PA
Vehicle Year
2011
Make / Model
Ford Ranger XLT
Engine Type
4.0 V6
Engine Size
4.0 SOHC
Transmission
Manual
2WD / 4WD
4WD
Total Lift
Pre-2008 lift
Tire Size
31X10.5R15
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

Im a Jeep guy now.
Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2007
Messages
9,860
Reaction score
4,833
Points
113
Location
Michigan
Vehicle Year
1987
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Type
2.9 V6
Engine Size
177 CID
Transmission
Manual
2WD / 4WD
2WD
My credo
A legend to the old man, a hero to the child...
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

Well-Known Member
TRS Event Participant
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Messages
2,073
Reaction score
222
Points
63
Location
Middle Tennessee
Vehicle Year
1988
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Type
4.0 V6
Engine Size
4.0
Transmission
Manual
2WD / 4WD
4WD
Total Lift
1.5" Front + 4" Rear
Tire Size
245-70-R16
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

Aircraft Fuel Tank Diver
Forum Moderator
Supporting Member
U.S. Military - Active
TRS 20th Anniversary
TRS Event Participant
Ham Radio Operator
GMRS Radio License
Joined
Mar 11, 2017
Messages
9,635
Reaction score
7,772
Points
113
Location
Aliquippa, PA
Vehicle Year
2011
Make / Model
Ford Ranger XLT
Engine Type
4.0 V6
Engine Size
4.0 SOHC
Transmission
Manual
2WD / 4WD
4WD
Total Lift
Pre-2008 lift
Tire Size
31X10.5R15
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

Im a Jeep guy now.
Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2007
Messages
9,860
Reaction score
4,833
Points
113
Location
Michigan
Vehicle Year
1987
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Type
2.9 V6
Engine Size
177 CID
Transmission
Manual
2WD / 4WD
2WD
My credo
A legend to the old man, a hero to the child...
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

Banned... except Florida... and here soon
Supporting Member
TRS 20th Anniversary
Joined
Jan 24, 2018
Messages
8,011
Reaction score
4,297
Points
113
Location
Tallahassee Florida
Vehicle Year
2001
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Size
Born with a 3.0, looking for a donor V8
Transmission
Manual
2WD / 4WD
2WD
Total Lift
Stock 2"
Tire Size
Stock
My credo
Doing things wrong, until I get it right.
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.
 

Sponsored Ad


Sponsored Ad

Top