Few specific questions to help me decide which engine/trans to go with in new Ranger

[starquestbd22]

Hello all. I'm looking to buy a new to me Ranger. Prefer the look of the 01-up trucks but would consider a 98-00 if it was the right one. The truck will be used as a commuter (about 60 miles per day) so fuel economy is a factor. Other than that, just garbage and light duty around the house. I drove a 2003 with the 3.0 and auto trans and I wasn't pleased. In fact, the transmission scared me a little. After reading about some of the problems that the auto trans has, I was pretty convinced that I didn't want an auto. For the sake of reliability, MPG, and some semblance of enough power to get out of it's own way, I have been looking primarily at 4cyl 5spd trucks. But they are relatively hard to come by, especially in the newer trucks.

I am running across a lot of fairly new (2006-2011) XL trucks that I happen to like but almost all of them have the auto trans. My question is, has the auto trans gotten any more reliable in those newer years? Also, who can chime in about living with a 4cyl auto truck? Is the newer 2.3L peppy enough to make it livable or is it miserable?

Thanks in advance!

 

[XLTsplash]

The 2001 and newer 2.3L do have more power and better MPG. I would keep looking for a 01 and newer 2.3L & 5 speed if you want the best low cost, trouble free combination.

 

[stmitch]

As the Ranger got older, they sold fewer and fewer with a manual trans. Most of the 4 cylinder trucks late in the Rangers life cycle were fleet vehicles, hence the abundance of auto trans equipped trucks.

The duratec 2.3 is great. It's lighter, more fuel efficient and more powerful than the previous 4 cylinders, and the peak hp isn't far off from the numbers produced by your previous 3.0.

I'd definitely hold out for a truck with a manual. The transmissions didn't change much from your previous experience. The auto isn't terrible, but the manual is more durable, and will return much better fuel economy in a commuter. With the duratec and auto trans, most guys see fuel economy numbers in the mid 20s. With the manual, that number goes up to the upper 20s or even lower 30s.

I have an 01 2.3 5 spd truck that I use to commute 50 miles per day.( 50% interstate, 25% divided highway, and 25% city) I get 27-28 mpg in the cold winter months, and 31-31 when it's warmer.

 

[RonD]

Automatics got cheaper to make.

People that drive manuals can drive automatics without a problem, but the reverse is often untrue, manuals scare them.
So........more automatics

I read somewhere that newer Ford truck buyers have to pay extra, $600-$700, to get a manual trans now, stock is an automatic, "things change, they always do"

Yes you would want the 2.3l duratec, 2002 and up Rangers, for best MPG.
But don't think that came in extended cab or 4x4 models

 

[adsm08]

The very idea of a 4-cyl engine in a truck is absurd. 4-cyls are for commuting, not working. Trucks are for working, not for good gas mileage. If you want good gas mileage to commute buy a car. If you want to do work buy a truck. If you need to commute and do work but can only afford one vehicle, buy a truck and live with the gas mileage.

 

[stmitch]

The very idea of a 4-cyl engine in a truck is absurd. 4-cyls are for commuting, not working. Trucks are for working, not for good gas mileage. If you want good gas mileage to commute buy a car. If you want to do work buy a truck. If you need to commute and do work but can only afford one vehicle, buy a truck and live with the gas mileage.

I have to disagree with this. Trucks may be designed for work, but the fact is that most truck owners never even tickle the working capabilities of their trucks. All of these people with full size trucks typically use them for little more than runs to The hardware store on weekends, or occasionally helping a buddy move something that's too big to fit in a car. They spend the majority of their time unloaded. If that's all you need a truck for, why not get the drivetrain that's cheapest to operate on a day-to-day basis?

Obviously, if you need to tow 5000lbs, don't get a 4 cylinder Ranger. If you would never ever use the bed, and you only want high mpgs, there are better candidates. The 4 cyl truck is a compromise, but for many people, it makes a ton of sense.Show me another vehicle that can achieve 30+mpg, can haul plywood home on the weekends, or help my brother move to and from college, all while having the advantages of being front engine/RWD, having a manual trans, while having enough ground clearance to avoid getting stuck in an average Midwestern snow storm.

 

[starquestbd22]

Thanks for the replies everyone. Seems the consensus is to hold out for the 01-up manual. Everyone is correct about what I'm finding. Lots of auto fleet trucks especially in the 08-up years. I don't particularly mind a fleet truck depending on what it was used for. There is one close to me that was an Advance Auto truck....09 with 116k for $6k. Another that was an Orkin truck....11 with 132k for $7k. But both are autos.

To the person that is anti-4cyl truck, let me tell you more about my situation. I had a pristine Ram quad cab Hemi 4x4. But I have a 60 mile daily commute and the Ram got 13.5mpg. So I bought a 4cyl car to commute and the Ram sat there. It got used maybe once a week to take the garbage off or make a run to Lowes. As much as I loved my Ram, I got tired of making a payment on it and me driving my Mazda Protege 95% of the time. So I sold them both and am looking for a 4cyl Ranger. Makes sense to me.

 

[Keith44]

Don't pass up a 4.0 with a manual. My '03 XLT 4x4 with 4.0 and a 5 speed manual gets 21 mpg when I keep my foot out of it, and has the power to work way beyond what should be expected from a truck this size.

 

[RonD]

Yes a 4cyl normally aspirated gas engine in a full size truck would not be a good pairing.
In a smaller truck it is a good specific use pairing.

2005 ranger 2.3l ratings are: automatic 21MPG combined, 23MPG with manual.
Automatics do have less trouble than 15 years ago BUT(big but)......when there is a problem the shop bill can get over $2,000 pretty quickly.
Manuals have better MPG but are not without their MUST DO clutch replacement, this can run $1,000 at a shop, clutch replacement time frame depends on the driver, so when buying used you never know if it will be sooner or later unless the seller has replaced it and has receipt for the work.
Rangers have self-adjusting pressure plate so pedal engage/disengage point in the travel doesn't help to know clutch disc wear.

Ford Dealers offer a used vehicle inspection, around $150 I think, can be worth the money to have this done, even help you get a better price if brakes or other parts are due for replacement.
And just suggesting a vehicle inspection to the seller can tell you alot, if they refuse, just back away with your hand on your wallet, you dodged a bullet, lol, if they say "sure no problem", then up to you to have it inspected(I would) or to make an offer as is, knowing the seller probably isn't hiding a major problem.........probably.

 

[Andy D]

My Datsun had a 1.6L carbed 4 banger. More than once I carried a load of stone even with the bed rail. It was small but it was a real 1/2 ton truck. It's a matter of gearing and suspension. It was a great commuter too, except it rode like a rock. I would use a 2.3 Ranger for a commuter. If you can find a 5 spd , then good luck to you. Eventually it will need a clutch or something. I like the Rat's 4.0 but it isn't my daily driver.

 

[Dune Runner]

I have a 4.0 in my 99 and pull down around 20mpg. It's the auto trans with 155k miles on it. The auto is tons better after replacing the valve body. Plenty of power.

 

[starquestbd22]

Patience paid off. Bought a 2006 XL 4cyl 5spd with 111K miles yesterday.

Thanks for the input everyone!