02 Fx4

[bshull2]

Hey everyone, I'm trying to buy my first ranger and I'm kinda wondering if the 02 style rangers are as reliable as the older ones. I've found an 02 FX4 with 98000 miles for under $8000. I'm not really gonna off road the hell out of if, nothing more than mudding down some back roads. There's also a 98 3.0 4X4 with 113000 miles for $7000, what are the pros and cons? THanks

 

[4x4RangerGuy]

Are they automatics or standards?

The 98 will have the vacuum hubs which are troublesome, however AVM makes manual locking hubs that will bolt in place of the vacuum disconnects.

The FX4 has bigger, beefier rear axle as well. It's a 31 spline 8.8. The 98 will most likely have a 28 spline 7.5. The FX4 should also come with a Torsen gear limited slip, at most the 98 will come with a Ford clutch style limited slip. The FX4 will also have the 4.0, as you probably already know.

Other than that, there aren't too many differences. See which one you like. The automatic behind a 4.0 is much better than the one behind a 3.0, but I don't like autos anyway so I can't help you much there.

 

[Shotokan1509]

Out of those two, FX4 no doubt. Better motor, 4x4 drivetrain, less miles, newer truck, etc.

 

[c_note]

well i was looking for 8 months to find my 02 Fx4. maybe that will tell u something.

 

[JohnnyO]

The FX4 will be built a little stouter, the 4.0 will have better power but use more gas. The 3.0 will run forever and use less much gas but is slow as molasses.

 

[atvoutlaw]

The 3.0 gets horid gas milage, I personaly got with my 3.0 about 18mpg, i kno others that get as low as 15mpg, stock truck. and 4.0 is faster FX4 no doubt

 

[bandit]

Fx4 hands down, besides the 3.0s are junk

 

[Tribefan]

What do you guys with the FX4's average in MPG? Mine is an automatic (5 spd) and I seem to be averaging around 16 MPG, mostly highway driving, no hotrodding. Just curious.

 

[gw33gp]

Besides having beefier rear axles and the Torsen differential, the 02 FX4 will also have a stiffer front torsion bar. You may not need the stiffer torsion bar but it will be less prone to sagging as it gets older. The 02 FX4 should have more and better factory skid plates, not that they are all that great, but they do provide decent protection. The stainless steel front tow hooks are a nice feature also.

 

[kenneth074]

Just beware of ther rear differential on the '02. If it is a manual transmission, make sure the rear end has been replaced by Ford as their was a recall on the Toren LSD. Even beware if it is an automatic transmission because there are vehicles had the recalled Torsen LSD but Ford did not recall those vehicles like mine which exploded recently. Just my $.02

 

[almostclueless]

Fx4 hands down, besides the 3.0s are junk

I couldnt have said it better myself......


especially for 7K.....the 98 3.0 4X4 I'm driving cost me 3K and I'm still not sure it was worth that LOL

 

[4x4RangerGuy]

Why is there so much 3.0 hate?

The 3.0 is the best motor in the Ranger. It is no speed demon, but damn, do people drag race or something with these trucks? It's a truck, it just needs to haul crap. I have never had a problem doing that in the 130k miles I've driven my 3.0 Ranger. Iron block and iron heads make it indestructible. I get about 18-21 mpg on my 3.0. Not bad for a V6.

A 3.0 will outlast any other motor in the Ranger lineup easily. For me, that's what I look for in a truck. I need reliability, not speed. Hell, the 3.0 saved Ford in the 80s when they put it in the Taurus.

If the 3.0 is junk, why are there still so many of them on the road? I have late 80s Taurus' coming into my shop for regular maintenance (such as ball joints, struts, oil changes, etc.) with the original 3.0, original head gasket, and they run like top.

If I ever get another Ranger, it must be a 3.0. The mileage sucks on the 4.0 and it doesn't have the reliability the 3.0 has.

 

[mdmarble]

Why is there so much 3.0 hate?

The 3.0 is the best motor in the Ranger. It is no speed demon, but damn, do people drag race or something with these trucks? It's a truck, it just needs to haul crap. I have never had a problem doing that in the 130k miles I've driven my 3.0 Ranger. Iron block and iron heads make it indestructible. I get about 18-21 mpg on my 3.0. Not bad for a V6.

A 3.0 will outlast any other motor in the Ranger lineup easily. For me, that's what I look for in a truck. I need reliability, not speed. Hell, the 3.0 saved Ford in the 80s when they put it in the Taurus.

If the 3.0 is junk, why are there still so many of them on the road? I have late 80s Taurus' coming into my shop for regular maintenance (such as ball joints, struts, oil changes, etc.) with the original 3.0, original head gasket, and they run like top.

If I ever get another Ranger, it must be a 3.0. The mileage sucks on the 4.0 and it doesn't have the reliability the 3.0 has.

You are right as far as it being a truck, not a car. Trucks dont need to go fast, they need to haul your things. But for me, I dont use my truck to haul things. Its just the fact of having a bed that I can throw crap into without having to open any doors. Take my wetsuit off in the back and get water and sand everywhere and not worry about it. Its so practical. The thing that sucks is when I do want to go fast. The 3.0 is a fine engine, and from what I've heard from more than one person, it'll last for ever. It's just frkn slow.

You do have your points and I'm not bagging on you, but for people in my situation, the 4.0 would be so much nicer.

As for you with your 3.0, you say your getting 18-21 mpg. What are the stats on your truck. What year, cab style, transmission, 4WD?? My 02 supercab automatic 2WD is only getting roughly 15-16.

 

[4x4RangerGuy]

My truck is a 98 SuperCab, 5 speed manual transmission, 4WD Off Road.

I don't beat on the fast pedal, and I drive a mix of highway and in town roads. I use 89 every other fill up.

 

[almostclueless]

Why is there so much 3.0 hate?

The 3.0 is the best motor in the Ranger. It is no speed demon, but damn, do people drag race or something with these trucks? It's a truck, it just needs to haul crap. I have never had a problem doing that in the 130k miles I've driven my 3.0 Ranger. Iron block and iron heads make it indestructible. I get about 18-21 mpg on my 3.0. Not bad for a V6.

A 3.0 will outlast any other motor in the Ranger lineup easily. For me, that's what I look for in a truck. I need reliability, not speed. Hell, the 3.0 saved Ford in the 80s when they put it in the Taurus.

If the 3.0 is junk, why are there still so many of them on the road? I have late 80s Taurus' coming into my shop for regular maintenance (such as ball joints, struts, oil changes, etc.) with the original 3.0, original head gasket, and they run like top.

If I ever get another Ranger, it must be a 3.0. The mileage sucks on the 4.0 and it doesn't have the reliability the 3.0 has.

I'd rather not have to slip the clutch for the next 20 minutes just to get the gutless POS to pull the vehicle.

Trucks need LOW SPEED TORQUE. I can't say it any clearer.


There are tons of yokels who post here who babble endlessly about wanting a diesel ranger. So what's so great about a diesel?

Low RPM torque.