Four Wheeler Magazine...M50D Sucks?

[4x4junkie]

I wrote them awhile back as well. Agreed, the M5OD isn't a ZF or anything, but it IS a decent transmission to be paired with any RBV engine, unlike pretty much all the others that came in RBVs.

 

[88_Eddie]

y'all have to remember that these 4 wheeling mags (petersens, 4 wheeler, jp, etc.) are almost always geared towards jeeps no matter what they're called or what the editors say. they almost always rip out all the jeep stuff, throw a chevy 350 and a turbo 350 tranny along with a np205-208 (or an atlas) t-case in there and run 44 inch tires. so to them, a tranny (or drivetrain for that matter) that cant handle gobs of horsepower and torque is a POS to them.

on top of all that, they're gonna write whatever is gonna sell the most mags, whether its talking about the moon landing being faked or that there was a 2nd gunman on the grassy knoll.....just do what i do, flip through the mags, laugh, maybe throw in a few WTF's and then move on with your life

 

[country0001]

I thought the whole article was funny. The B2 is the only 4wd truck I've found under a thousand bucks that was decent.

Try finding a scout for the same price as a B2.

 

[adsm08]

Each model (Ranger, F-150, F-250...) fill a obvious slot. Since the Ranger is in the "small truck" slot, it only makes sense to have it set up as a "small truck"... not a mini one ton. It fills its slot nicely as it sits.

I have found that in many cases the Ranger, with the right mods, mostly a trailer brake controller, is more than capable of doing things that most people would say is better left to a 150.

I have towed loads with my truck that I've seen full size trucks struggle with in one aspect or another, and it has come out the other side none the worse for wear (except for the time I destroyed the FM145, but that was gonna happen eventually anyway). I have since done the same haul that blew up the FM and another heavier one with the M5 installed in the same truck and had no problems.

I had a few control issues when I towed my tool box, but that was more aerodynamics and leverage (and people riding my butt) than issues with the truck's ability to do it's job. (900 lb, 5.5" tall, 5" wide tool box at the back of a 14" trailer (bed and tongue) hooked to the back of a Ranger, with another vehicle 5" behind the trailer at 45 MPH = lots of drag and rear end sway).

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

I have found that in many cases the Ranger, with the right mods, mostly a trailer brake controller, is more than capable of doing things that most people would say is better left to a 150.

I have towed loads with my truck that I've seen full size trucks struggle with in one aspect or another, and it has come out the other side none the worse for wear (except for the time I destroyed the FM145, but that was gonna happen eventually anyway). I have since done the same haul that blew up the FM and another heavier one with the M5 installed in the same truck and had no problems.

I had a few control issues when I towed my tool box, but that was more aerodynamics and leverage (and people riding my butt) than issues with the truck's ability to do it's job. (900 lb, 5.5" tall, 5" wide tool box at the back of a 14" trailer (bed and tongue) hooked to the back of a Ranger, with another vehicle 5" behind the trailer at 45 MPH = lots of drag and rear end sway).

In what case is a Ranger better than a F-150?

The only thing I have found between my two is moving a light trailer around because with the standard cab I can see better out of it. It has to be light or the weight will mush down the rear of the Ranger and I will drag the jack. Even then it is second rate and I only use it if I can't find a loose ball to put on a tractor (I can stack trailers like a mad monkey with my C)

My brother hauls his box (that sounds about like yours) in the back of his F-150... no trailer required. It ran down the interstate just fine right below 80mph with the cruise on.

I have towed loads that I know a Ranger downright couldn't do. I can run down the highway at the speedlimit just fine with my tractor on the trailer... yeah it isn't a big one but at 5k with some weights it isn't much to laugh at with a pickup.

http://memimage.cardomain.com/ride_images/1/1167/301/2915150056_large.jpg

 

[ozziemo27]

I thought the whole article was funny. The B2 is the only 4wd truck I've found under a thousand bucks that was decent.

Try finding a scout for the same price as a B2.

lol, forgetting another 4wd truck?

 

[country0001]

Ok, The B2 is the ONLY 4wd truck I've found under a thousand dollars worth doing anything too.

My dad bought a 71 3/4 ton Chevy 4wd for 1500, and its floorboard was full of rust and the body was beat to hell.

Under 1000 around here means 4wd doesn't work, engine blown, or tranny gone

 

[gribly]

The M5OD actually IS better than many trannies offered in similar sized pickups. The one in the Nissan runs through bearings unless you run a quart over the specified amount of fluid, and you have to add that extra quart at the shifter. Nissan doesn't tell you that, and silently raised the fill plug on later years (1998+) without mentioning it, or even having a service bulletin to dealers to add extra lube to the trucks that were still under warranty at the time. As a result, if you don't know this, and you run a lot of steep hills with a load, you'll kill the tranny within a very short time. One trip fully loaded up a mountain will do it. We all know jeeps come with weak (relatively speaking) axles so what good is a strong tranny if your axles snap? And what about most of them only having a 3 speed auto!? Rangers have the most durable drivetrain overall, because all the other vehicles have a significant weak point. Chevies - Engine and Suspension, Nissan - Tranny, Jeep - Axles and Electronics, Toyota - Frame and the 2.7l 4-cyl in them has lots of issues.

Yes, I know this from personal experience. I've owned just about every Ranger sized truck/SUV or something on the same chassis (or a roommate did and I had to fix it every time), and the Rangers are the only ones I'll keep around. I went through manifold studs and engine electronics in my 2.5 Wrangler like candy but the 4 popper didn't have the nuggets to break an axle at least, the Toyota has a ridiculous engine design which made me have to do cold oil changes if I wanted to get the filter off and the starters don't last and are a pain to change and THEN my truck broke in two - before the recall, don't get me started on my '96 s-10 - that would take too long, my Nissan Hardbody had PLASTIC DAMNED TIMING CHAIN GUIDES THAT WORE OUT AT 40k MILES and the tranny oil issue - and it got 16mpg from a 2.4. Yeah, some of these seem like small issues, especially on the Nissan, but they are a huge pain in the butt to deal with.

I will admit I did a budget build on a '97 Hardbody for my old roommate and fixed the mentioned issues, lifted it, added a header and full exhaust, ect. and it's still a great little wheeler, but it's easier to do with a Ranger and the Ranger will get better fuel mileage and have what feels like twice the power every time, which doesn't make a lick of sense. I still won't recommend one to anyone.

Oh, I forgot to mention, the whole time I had all these other trucks with issues - I still kept my first vehicle ever kicking around and road legal, a '90 Ranger 4x4, and ended up driving it most of the time simply because I was always repairing my main daily driver, and the old beater Ranger was as reliable as the tide. Only parts I ever replaced was parts I bent from doing absolutely retarded, retarded mean things to that truck - like snagging brake lines on the trail, hitting a rock with the tranny crossmember at 30mph (drove home with the rear driveshaft chewing a hole in the cab), snapping a leaf spring because I loaded the bed to the brim with rock and hit a nasty pothole (truck STILL made it back on it's own on the overloads with just the main leaf left) and a few bent shocks here and there. Fords are the only trucks that don't seem... fragile.

 

[feellnfroggy]

I doubt the author of that had intimate knowledge of Rangers. He probably went around the office asking opinions. You don't have to be right to write.

This is exaclty the problem. The editors of these mags stick with the common vehicle used by the most people. Their comparisons are setting a ranger beside and Fj or jeep of some sort. They dont wheel the uniwue stuff and therefore know nothing about it other than general mechanics. Whens the last time 4wheeler or petersons did a ranger buildup? Seriously..... The Mustang magazines do the same thing too, all the editors knock the 3.8 and say there is no market for them and no mods avail other than minimals. But I can point out to you over 100 3.8l pushing over 600 HP. Between teh 4.2 upgrades and supersixmotorsports, the website 3.8mustang and v6power.net there are more than a markets worth of mass produced and custom one off mods for the smaller 6. These opitions are avail for the ranger engines and trans too. BUt since the editors stick with the popular stuff they no nothing about what they dont drive and knock it because of their ignorance. They get reports from people who have swapped to jeeps or whatever and have no interest in seeing the full story. Neither do they investigate. Its a bunch of old men sitting on a porch cussing the newfangled fuel injection because its beyond their comprehension. So to speak. And whoever writes the magazine editor can quote me on this. Ill pit any one of our budget fabricators up against the tech guys at petersons or 4wheeler in a budget ranger build anyday. We'd straight whip them. Our two fellows in the ultimate adventure proved that.