Buying A Newer Ranger??

[Memphis]

I am contemplating getting a newer Ranger. Maybe something 1998-2001. Might even break down and get a 4x4..........maybe......... What has been found to be the most fuel efficient in these years? I would probably also go with an automatic this time. I am thinking a V6 might be better with an automatic. Let me know what you think. Thanks,Scott

 

[exbass94]

Duratec 4 cylinder is most fuel efficient and is livable with an automatic. Only available 2001+ though.

 

[hoosier1104]

I have an 05 that when I bought it had a 3.0 w/ auto. I got pretty good gas mileage.

 

[Muscleford]

I had and 08 3.0 auto and got avg 22 mpg

 

[dasfinc]

From what I'd read, the best MIXED mileage combo outside of the 4 banger is a 2wd with the 4.0 SOHC motor with either transmission, the best highway is 3.0 5 speed. the 4.0 SOHC didn't come out until like 2002 or 2003 IIRC though.

the 2.5 Lima/NON duratech motor found in the 98-00 rangers are DEAD reliable, but an absolute dog, no power.

 

[Memphis]

How can I tell the difference in Lima & Duratec? Or is the Duratec only a 2001 + engine? Also...........are these engines the sort of engine that if you don't change the Timing Belt at the right time they will destroy themselves? How much better would a 4x4 be then a 2wd? I've always been a 2wd guy, but if I'm going to get something newer and it's in the budget....... My BIG concern is MPG since I drive 140 miles a week round trip to work. My second BIG concern is being able to do the repairs myself.

 

[jcd302]

Only 140 a week? WOW! I drive about 300 a week, not counting other running around. My old 2.9 averages 16.5mpg.

Look into rear gear ratio as well, higher gears (lower numbers) give you better mpg's. A higher temp thermostat will as well. I had a 94 2wd auto 3.08gears and I got 20-22mpg.

 

[exbass94]

Duratecs don't have timing belts, they have timing chains. Limas have timing belts, but they're non-interference, so if it breaks, it won't damage the engine. The Duratec was introduced mid-year 2001, so some 2001s will be Lima and some are Duratec. 2002+ trucks are Duratec only.

 

[Mac]

The newer Rangers with the SOHC get better mileage and have more power. First couple of the years are the ones to avoid. I had no problem getting 20-22 mpg on the interstate with my '05' 4x4 ext cab, 4.0L manual and the 4.10 gears - in good weather. I get worse with my '03' 4x2 3.0L driving the same route and way. A 4x2 is not a good Winter option up here.
Dave of the Nord

 

[p38fln]

I had a 2003 Ranger with the 4.0 SOHC 5 speed AUTOMATIC and it got the worst fuel economy of anything I've ever driven. Was a 2003 4x4 SuperCab FX4 with the 4.10 rear end - got 16.5 MPG on the interstate (Which is within 0.5 MPG of its rating) and something like 9 MPG in the city. Fun vehicle though.
The F-150 I have now has fuel economy that's so much better it covers the difference in the monthly payment and insurance.

 

[FlyinRyan]

I've got a '98 B2500, manual, 2wd, with 14" alloys. I'm averaging about 10-9.6 L/100km... which is about 22-23 MPG for the imperial system users.

Thats mainly city, no more than 80 km/h (40-45 Mph?)

 

[Junkyardexpress]

I've got a 91 ranger reg cab long bed 4x4 5sp 2.9l with 4.10 gears i get 27-28 as long i stay between 55-60mph

 

[2timerangerfan]

my 07 4x4 auto 4.0 gets awful fuel mileage. My I've five trucks and my dually is the only thing with worse fuel mileage