New Ranger Devotee: deciding on older 4cyl/5sp - unsure about year's details/modables

[rangeflex]

Hey! about a year of study and it's a RANGER for me. Thing is I'm unsure on a few things:

Basing my first (earlier model) Ranger purchase on price and fuel economy.
Basically, I like vehicles as simple as possible (READ: older maybe better?)

While looking for a used Ranger I see 'em from mid-80's to around 2000 at good prices.

Basically looking for ANY info that makes one older year/model better than the rest.
For example: a 1988 is the best year for me (price and gas economy, and?)
BECAUSE: ??

Gotta be a 4 cyl and 5 speed. Also, Gotta be a long box. [EDIT: extended/shortbox now just as interesting]
I've read and reread wikipedia's break-down on 1983-2000ish

LINK TO WIKI should work:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Ranger_%28North_America%29



Q: the 4cyl 2.0L does NOT get as good mileage as the 2.3L ??

Q: a fuel injected engine will get better gas mileage supposedly?

Q: guessing that there are not any older long box models that also have extended cab.
It's either extended cab OR long box option? kinda sure that's accurate though not certain.

Q: guessing that a manual trans isn't a drop-in replacement for an automatic.
Chassis different? Housing different of course etc.

Q: guessing that of the various manual trans in the earlier Rangers they aren't drop-in
replacements for each other. So I couldn't buy a Ranger with a 4 speed trans and find a 5sp
and drop it in at a later date with no modifications.

Q: Like to know which 5sp trans is most flexible/best/swappable etc.


Yeah, ton of stuff I'm hopin' to find out.
Huge thanks for therangerstation.com being here.


UPDATE: finding some awesome posts like this one:
still tryin' to put it all together and find the best year for 4cyl/5sp long box.
http://www.therangerstation.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9

 

[country0001]

I've had a 93 2.3/5 spd and drove a 99 2.5/5 spd and prefered the 99 with a 2.5. More pep and better mileage. Then again it might of nbeen geared differently.

 

[strvger]

very true, it is more than just the engine and transmission. a 4cyl with a 5 speed and 3.08 gears (yes, they did make them that way) and you think great gas mileage. the little 4 won't have the power to get out of it's way in city driving. you'll have your foot in the throttle so much you'll be using more gas than if you had 3.73 gears for example. and getting it up to speed on the freeway won't be much better. and if you even think about getting anything larger than the 195/75x14 or 15 inch tires it came with, then you've just compounded your problem. i'd read some more of the threads here as well check out the tech library here before making your final choice.
just a thought.

 

[fordmandan87]

i get 20-22 mpg out of my 3.45:1 gear ratio 2.3 m5od powered 96 ford ranger with 225/75/15 tires while driving like an a$$hole

 

[strvger]

question: why do you need a long box? if you'll be hauling big, heavy loads, then you'll probably need to re-gear for that 4 cyl... imho.

 

[rangeflex]

all great! tons to dovetail into my knowledge/studies. thanks.

So: for me, uhh, and my dad, it's basically never needing to get out of anyone's way or boot it generally. We do the wave 'em on, slow-drive, lookin' around for distracted drivers thing. (gotta be a imagery joke in there though can't think of one)

Unless I've missed it that would mean a gutless low gear rear-end ratio and 4cyl engine would still be sensible? So, 2.3 is better than 2.0 I've heard. (?)

The vibe is up to 1000 mile trips every handful of weeks with a full yet light load, hence long-box. P.A system, music gear and all. Now, yeah, I've seen some sweet deals on extended cab oldies (89 and earlier) so I guess? they're ALL short boxes with an extended cab?

Hey, I'd like to be ok with a short box. Gotta think that one through. good question as I don't know for sure at all. Could put stuff in the extended cab which may be really wise actually.

Also, way interested in whatever is a straight swap-out mod.
Rear-ends, trannies, engine parts. (cool sticky post in the engines forum)

The thinking is, for example, that I'll get a deal on a V6 that's beat and I'd wanna put a 2.3 in it... do-able? 'Cause price and mileage are the biggies I wouldn't likely be able to pass up on a great deal whatever it was. and as ya pay for what ya don't know I figure, find out what's swap-able and best before I find a deal I can't pass up.

Don't imagine I can easily put any of the 5speed trans in place of an auto if the automatic burnt out.

Stuff like that! woohoo... diggin' it. thanks again. Awesome forums, obviously.

 

[strvger]

the re-gear just isn't so you'll go quicker, the re-gear to the correct ratio will save lots of wear and tear on your motor, clutch, transmission. the gears will be taking on more of the work of making your truck move, thus prolonging the life of all those other components. honestly, you'd probably do better with a later model that has the 2.5. probably the same mileage as the2.3, with just a little more torque and hp to haul your loads and the weight of the truck itself up and down hills, into strong headwinds, etc.
just my $.02.

 

[Shran]

Q: the 4cyl 2.0L does NOT get as good mileage as the 2.3L ??

Q: a fuel injected engine will get better gas mileage supposedly?

Q: guessing that there are not any older long box models that also have extended cab.
It's either extended cab OR long box option? kinda sure that's accurate though not certain.

Q: guessing that a manual trans isn't a drop-in replacement for an automatic.
Chassis different? Housing different of course etc.

Q: guessing that of the various manual trans in the earlier Rangers they aren't drop-in
replacements for each other. So I couldn't buy a Ranger with a 4 speed trans and find a 5sp
and drop it in at a later date with no modifications.

Q: Like to know which 5sp trans is most flexible/best/swappable etc.

1. Probably not going to be a whole lot of difference. Depends how you drive it.

2. Not necessarily, again depends on how you drive it, and engine condition.

3. There are no factory long box/extended cab trucks.

4. It is definitely possible, you just have to have all the pieces necessary. Complete donor truck would be nice.

5. Define modifications - almost every transmission is a different length so you may or may not have to modify the driveline length. Slave cylinders are also different, as are the clutch hydraulic hoses.

6. Mazda M5OD.

My personal opinion - any Ranger with a 4 cylinder is easy to work on. Any RBV is easy to work on, for that matter. "Ease" of working on something is dependent on your skills and tools. Changing a tire is hard for some people, I thought my V8 swap was pretty easy.

 

[Mike Tonon]

There are some modified rangers with the supercab and long bed, but they are very rare. I found one for sale once, it was already sold though. Ask yourself which you would rather have and look for that. Going with a long bed regular cab will probably give you higher mpg's than a supercab short bed also.

 

[rangeflex]

great/interesting.

My thinking was flexibility (on top of the purchase price/mileage/best years thoughts) though don't yet the overview and how everything fits together in the areas of interest.

-- camper/rv option
very into a camper/rv addon that I could leave on it's poles when not using. Couldn't likely afford many of the pricey ones new or used (might find one affordable though) ... so thought that a long box would be needed? or at least fit best for what's out there for camper/rv type addons.

The extended cab would be good to keep more delicate gear in the extended area. So whatever I find extended or not I'd now consider!

What I don't know is how a short box may limit the camper addon idea. I guess a camper that was designed to work with a Ranger longbox still might fit in a shortbox with a 14 or so inch overhang.

Basically a whole lotta useful thoughts happening since reading here. big thanks.

 

[strvger]

just as important as the length is the weight of the camper. many go 2000# and more. lotta weight on a little ranger... imho.
but there are some new models that weigh as little as 450# empty.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

5. Define modifications - almost every transmission is a different length so you may or may not have to modify the driveline length. Slave cylinders are also different, as are the clutch hydraulic hoses.

M5OD and A4LD (two most common trannys) are the same length.

For a 4 cyl 2wd Ranger or even a V6 practically, forget the pickup box camper. I think a small popup might be a better choice.

 

[Ruffinit]

I know you're talking the older models, but just wanted you to consider that the 2.3 DOHC (DuraTec) is rated at 148hp and puts all the others to shame as far as fuel efficiency. I picked up my 2003 Ranger 2 1/2 years ago with only 10K miles on it. I commute 140 mile/day and normally get 32mpg day in and day out. I now have 98K on it and just got back from a 2700 mile run from Iowa to Utah and back getting over 30mpg except in the two mountain passes where it dropped to 25 (Colorado) and 27 (Wyoming). I've pulled a Grand Cherokee at highway speeds which is the only time it's dropped below 20mpg. I pull a 12 foot cargo trailer at times and run 265/60-15s.

 

[Shran]

M5OD and A4LD (two most common trannys) are the same length.

For a 4 cyl 2wd Ranger or even a V6 practically, forget the pickup box camper. I think a small popup might be a better choice.

The older 4 and 5 speeds aren't the same length though.

I agree with the second part for sure, a small Ranger size pickup would be the last vehicle I'd think about putting a slide in camper in.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

The older 4 and 5 speeds aren't the same length though.

I agree with the second part for sure, a small Ranger size pickup would be the last vehicle I'd think about putting a slide in camper in.

But if you get a 85+ truck with the A4LD it is the same length as a M5OD, which is probably the best tranny put in a RBV.