Newb considering buying a Ranger

[a2thy]

In that case I'm definitely going with a 4 cylinder. Speaking of tires, how much (if any at all) would factory size all terrain tires decrease fuel economy? How much louder would they be on the highway?

 

[Original_Ranger84]

Well the factory size is is somewhere around a 205 65 14 or something like that. An all terrain tire is hard to find in that size. If you upgrade to 15" rims and get a set of... wait nevermind I guess BFG does offer a 14" A/T, but going with 15" rims and a 215 75 15 will fill out the tire wells a little bit and look good.

How much it affects mpg's I don't know, it depends on the gearing. if you have thestock sized all terrains I would expect it to drop MAYBE .5mpg's at most if at all just because of it being a little heavier. If you go bigger it could increase or decrease your mileage depending on what gearing you have.

 

[Spitfire1975]

I msy be wrong on this, but I will give it a shot. Find a gearing calculator online. I think TRS has one somewhere. If you have 3.45 gears on stock tires and you want the benefits of 3.45 (if any) with larger tires, you would have to figure out what size tire with which set of gears would achieve that (235/75/15's on 3.73's I think get you closer to a 3.45 gear ratio and it's mileage). 31's on 4.10's would equal the 3.73(?) ratio etc.
Does this make sense? You basically need to use shorter gears to compensate for taller tires to keep your stock performance and mileage.

If I am talking out my ass let me know, I'll delete the post.

 

[a2thy]

I want to avoid buying new rims if I can, and I don't think I'd want to buy new gears either. All this is starting to sound expensive, although if I see a truck for sale that already has these mods, I would consider that to be a good selling point. I really just want to give this truck the occasional mild offroad capability while spending as little money as possible. I want to treat my truck right, but my Audi is where all my money goes. Is it possible to improve the fuel economy by changing the wheel/tire size and gearing? If so, could it eventually pay for itself in fuel savings?

 

[Original_Ranger84]

Its possible but you would have to do a bit o research into it. You can learn alot just by asking what others get with their setups. and then look accordingly. Or find something clean and cheap (like something that needs new tires and talk them down.) and get the rims and tires you want there are TONS of rims that fit that can be had cheap! I regualrly come across jeep rims on CL for 50 bucks or so..

 

[Will]

This winter is kicking my ass a little bit. Don't buy a 2wd pickup and expect it to do as well as a car in the snow. My crewcab diesel pickup has a locking rear axle and is helpless without a ton of skid loader in the back to give it weight. I have a mild slope to the front driveway and the standard proceedure is for my 9 year-old son to steer the pickup while I drag it up the driveway with my 4x4 Bronco II.

I bought this pickup because it fit my needs, was old, in great shape, low mileage, wonderful, and it was summertime and the warm sun was shining on my back and the furthest thing from my mind was 14" of powder and a hard-packed white glaze of driveway.

My little Honda car doesn't have a problem and it is light enough that I can pick the back end up. But the heavier goods are over the drive tires--and that is what counts on the slick roads. A pickup is very light in the rear, and the engine and cab are in the front. I need my pickup to haul stuff with. I can't leave 500# of tube sand in the bed all winter. I can't leave my skid loader in the bed all winter. So I have to go up the drive with an empty bed a couple times a week. Today after I went down the drive and pulled onto the road, I couldn't move. The rear tires were both turning but there wasn't enough forward push to get me moving. I had to rock it back and forth--no snow, just white packed ice--to get it moving enough to push off. I seriously miss the days when my family would fit in one of my 4x4 vehicles.

As to mileage, any Ranger is going to stink compared to a little car. It sticks up into the wind more. Hold a piece of plywood out of your car window and feel the effects of frontal area. It takes energy to push air out of the way. The tires are nominal in comparison. Fuel injected engines do a good enough job of mixing fuel and air that no gear change is going to yield substantial gains. You have to put an odd load on the fuel system controller to get it to suck--like 33" tires on 2.73 gears and drive it in 5th all the time. Going to all-terrains (I would go with mud terrains because anytime you NEED traction, the ATs are packed with whatever you are trying to get through) won't matter that much.

I think a 4-cylinder will get you 5 mpg maybe. It's only because it won't burn fuel fast enough to match the acceleration rate of the V6, not that it's more efficient. If you drive a 4.0 and pretend it's a 2.3, you do amazingly well. You have to let everyone beat you at every light, let the cruise kick you off on any substantial hill, and then you can pretty nearly keep up in mileage. It's not an efficiency problem at all. It's impossible to drive a 4.0 easily enough. If you follow an identical 2.3 equipped vehicle around all week, you will both need fuel at the same time. The 4.0 burns more fuel because it can, not because it has to. It can get much, much worse mileage because it can make almost twice the torque at any given rpm. But I want the damn torque. I'll suffer the few mpg because when I want to use my truck, it needs a little grunt. A 4.0 can do full-size jobs. It actually isn't heavier or larger than a 2.3 in physical size. It's a very compact engine for its displacement. You couldn't give me a 2.3--I wouldn't take it. You can get 20mpg with a 4x4 Ranger and 25mpg with a 4.0 2wd Ranger on a trip with the cruise on. I did a 720-mile round trip with a guy and that's what we got. He never seemed to need fuel when I did. He followed me and I went 65mph with the cruise.

 

[a2thy]

Good thinking Original_Ranger84, I'll keep that in mind when looking through the classifieds.

If the roads are slippery enough I'll drive my Audi instead. It has all wheel drive and I'll be getting some new deep tread snow/ice tires for it before next winter. I want my truck to be offroad capable and be able to climb steep hills, but I don't need it to do that in the winter.

It's primary purpose is going to be a commuter, something that can cheaply rack up the miles. I know a small car would get better gas mileage, but I can't see myself owning more than two vehicles. I already have a car that I'd like to keep for as long as possible as a project car/leisure vehicle. I've been needing a truck more and more as time goes on, and I'd like to use it as a daily driver to keep the miles off my Audi. I'm thinking that the only option I'm left with is to get a fuel efficient truck that has a low overall cost to own. If this wasn't going to be a daily driver I wouldn't hesitate to get the largest engine available, but I just don't trust my lead foot enough with all that torque at my disposal. With less power I think I'd be less tempted to drive it like I stole it. Although if I do find an incredible deal on a larger engine Ranger, I may be tempted to settle for it.

Would I need to lift or modify the truck to use mud terrains? They wouldn't noticeably decrease my fuel economy? How noisy would they be at highway speeds?

 

[a2thy]

I heard that some of the 90's model Rangers offer an extended bed as a factory option. Is this true? If so, do they offer the extended bed with an extended cab? How hard are they to find? and how hard is it to find the extended bed with just a standard cab? and most importantly do they offer these with the 4 cylinder manual transmission?

 

[clark89]

I say go for a ranger, mine has over 300,000kms and it still runs like new. Plus doesnt matter if you get a 4x4 or a 2wd there is so much you can do with them. You wont be disappointed.

 

[Coyote]

92 and under is older more boxy body style loved by classicists.
93 and up is newer more rounded style
98 major upgrade: cab and wheelbase was extended to fit real American bodies (eg six-footers.) But still, the 93 to 97 short box trucks are very cute and the sport models are very affordable!
98 The twin I-beam front suspension was replaced by a wishbone-style system and the front half of the frame was of "boxed", rather than C-channel construction. Rack and pinion steering was also added.
2002 and newer have higher horsepower dual overhead cam 4 cylinder engine.
I would buy a 2002 or newer 4 cylinder 5-speed with low mileage. Impossible to find this in an extended cab or box. Shift at 4000RPM and you will be happy with performance and gas mileage.

As truck ages and engine tires, keep an eye out for a newer higher horsepower overhead cam 4.0 V6 to soup up the old truck. Get it with the heavier duty 5spd as a matched pair.

The 4 cylinder 5 speed makes a good economical and dependable daily driver. Good luck.

(proposal: extended cab on shortbox frame

 

[a2thy]

Great advice guys. Thanks!

 

[john112deere]

I own a '97 extended cab Ranger, 4-cyl, 2wd, 5-speed stick.

I absolutely love that truck. Dead reliable, terrific mileage for what it is (high 20s, if I cruised slow), comfortable to drive all day.

Had it for the four years I lived in Maine, with studded snow tires on the back during the winter months. Went where I needed to go, but not what you'd call great in the snow.

FWIW...in the four years I lived in Maine (I was in Orono), I got stuck hard enough to require a tow exactly twice. Both times near Farmington...and both in July.

 

[a2thy]

Wow, sounds like my kind of truck.

Funny, I was just in Farmington today. It was on my way back from enjoying the 64 inches of snow at Sugarloaf.

 

[Coyote]

Happy shopping! The extended cab is rare with the 4cly in my area. Too many rich folks? The secret to winter driving is weight. The Ranger back end is much too light and needs a minimum of 4 sandbags in the winter. I have filled the box with snow as I was snow-blowing the drive AS WELL as the sandbags which worked very well for serious winter roads.

Depending on your winter needs, high end winters with soft rubber compound is usually better than studded tires. Studs give better traction ONLY on ice, and degrade traction in all other conditions.

I use a med. grade rubber compound winter tire and drive with that all year, as the softer rubber makes for low cost sticky summer performance. I am city only winter drive use, so that works well for me.

Wrap your sandbags in dark garbage bags to keep the sun from degrading the plastic of the sandbag so you do not need to buy them every year. The clear plastic allows sunlight to pass through which degrades the plastic.

 

[a2thy]

Sorry it's been so long since my last post. I had some financial difficulties, so I decided against buying the truck then. I recently crashed my Audi so I need my truck now, regardless of the little money I have saved up.

I found what seems to me like an amazing deal on a '97 Mazda B2300. Please don't flame me for this as I realize I'm a newb, but are they not nearly identical to a Ranger? Either way, should I post my questions about it elsewhere?