Deciding What Configuration Ranger to Buy

[Ranger850]

(no offence if you own one, lol).

I had a 2nd gen '08... Had

 

[sgtsandman]

Brakes isn't a bad idea but I don't think they are required for the weights you are talking about. I believe, but I'm not sure, that 3,000 is the cut off for trailers being equipped with brakes as standard. Below that they aren't required. At that weight or above that weight, (again, I don't remember for sure) I believe they are required. Of course rules are going to vary by State as well. I remember there being something said about it in PA State law but it didn't apply to my situation, so I didn't look that hard at it.

 

[don4331]

There is required, and there is the safe thing to do:

High school Physics:
'08 Car & Driver test of Ranger had it stop from 100 km/h (~60mph) in 51m (~167')

Adding non-braked 1,500lb trailer and assuming Ranger brakes don't fade*, the stop from 100 km/h takes ~68.5m (~225'). That's more/less 60 additional feet to stop.

Adding brakes to trailer - I'll assume they are 80% as effective as Ranger's brakes (trailer tires tend to be harder, etc) would allow stop in ~54m (177')

My wife(fiance at time) and I had one extremely exciting stop on cold wet pavement - truck would have been close to GVWR, and with trailer, we were close to GCWR - where stopping distance turned out to be >140m (>450')! Luckily, I had started stopping ~150m (500'), but the 10+ seconds it took us to stop gave us time to think about what was happening... After which, the little enclosed trailer got surge brakes.

My personal rule of thumb is >40% of empty towing vehicle needs brakes on trailer - about 1,250lbs for Ranger whether it is required legally or not. A shorter vehicle, like my Explorer Sport, needs brakes sooner.

*In the '08 C & D test, Ranger brakes were fading during just empty truck stop from 100 km/h.

 

[sgtsandman]

Around here with all the hills, valleys, and blind turns on the way up and down said hills and valleys, trailer brakes isn’t a bad idea.

 

[Arolsma]

I have been thinking some about what mile to age ratio would be most reliable. Would something like a 2004-2006 with say 100 to 150K miles or an 07-11 with 150 to 190K miles be more reliable/last longer? I am referring to one with any of the engines, but I would only get an 07+ 2.3 (that is when the super cab became an option). In my limited experience, 18-25 year old vehicles with under 100K miles are much less reliable than 10-15 year old ones with 150K+ miles.

 

[Shran]

I think in your area, finding one with minimal rust is going to be more important than the model year and mileage. 98 and up are all really bad about frame rust.

I would agree with your other comment. "Grandpa only drove it to church" definitely means "it had ZERO maintenance." I have my grandpa's truck, I know all about that, lol

 

[RegularGuy]

Every ranger I've owned as been the extended cab, each automatic with the 4.10 rear. The 93' rwd 4.0 ohv was the funnest to drive (mostly attributed to the steering, less turns lock to lock), 98' rwd 3.0 drove like a minivan. The 07' 4x4 4.0 sohc meanwhile drives really nice with the 5 speed auto.

All in all, if I was to be getting another rwd I'd get anything but the 3.0, if you're concerned about costs and will be driving a lot I'd recommend calculating your yearly fuel costs. I'm getting about 16 mpg, at 15,000 miles a year if fuel stays at $2.15/gallon that's $2015 per year. Expect insurance to be higher as well, the larger you go.

My reasoning for going with the automatic, one of the only things a lazy owner can do to an auto is forego the maintenance schedule. You can find this out when you're doing the once over (or better yet have it inspected). A stick shift in my experience meanwhile, all you need is one idiot to come along to grind up your nice transmission. Lube guy, mechanic, previous owner.... If it's really bad you'd be able to tell, more often than not however it'll end up becoming a premature failure