Sports car to ranger?

[kyguylal]

Hey everyone. Im I'm college right now. I do some work out I the field and I'm finding that my convertible sports car isn't cutting it when I have to throw sand bags or wet equipment in th back. Not only that, but I'm not comfortable climbing some of the dirt roads that I take when I go fly fishing.

I plan on selling my car and picking up a small truck, so instantly I thought of a ranger. I looked at the s10 and the Tacoma, but it looks like the rangers the way to go.

I live in Massachusetts so there is snow on the ground four months out of the year.

My questions are...

Will I be able to somehow fit an 8 foot kayak in the bed?
Would an older ranger do me well? Ill only have around 5k to spend...would it be worth it at that point? I don't want to be plauged with problems...

If all goes well, I'll get married shortly after school, so I want the truck to last me.

Last question...

What is the real life mpg (I know it varies on how you drive) of the ranger? I'm contemplating the v6 vs the 4 cylinder. Im thinking the v6 because I might have to have some weight in the bed once in a while and because I will be going down some tricky dirt roads once in a while. Would you guys suggest the v6 over the 4 banger? I'm all for fuel economy, but I'm thinking the v6 is the way to go...the fuel economy of the v6 is what really turning me off of the ranger...I am light n the gas by th way...removing the spare tire and will be driving a 5 speed stick

 

[88SXT]

yes a ranger will suit your needs quite nicely. for $5K you should have no problems getting a used one in decent shape.
yes you can put an 8' kayak in the bed, its going to hang over a little bit, but a little rope or some decent bungee cords and you'll be fine, I've hauled a 12' canoe in mine w no problems.

as for the gas mileage, that all depends on how well the motor was maintained, size, how you drive, what tires/gear ratio you are running. i only get ~15mpg, but i drive an '88 with a poorly maintained 2.9L v-6, with 250K+ miles on it, riding on 33" tires with horrible gears.

i would advise against removing the spare tire, its just asking for problems. The 20-30 pounds you'd be removing wont get you any where near enough extra mileage to outweigh the possibility of being stuck in the middle of no where with a flat. Just don't drive like a dick head and keep up on your maintainance and you'll be fine

 

[kyguylal]

Ok thanks a lot!

I'm used to getting 27 mpg, so the ranger seems like a guzzler to me...Im hoping to set something up with a bed cover and a small brush guard. I drive like an 80 year old man, so I'm hoping that I'll be able to squeeze a few extra miles out per gallon.

 

[mattpresley]

With a 4 banger 5 speed you can get around 25 mpg. Buy a set of ratchet straps and you can haul that kayak or pretty much whatever you want with a little roof contact

 

[Ormachek]

My first ranger was a brand new 07 4 cylinder 5 speed, I was able to get 30mpg (I'm pretty easy on the gas) regularly. Today I drive a 93 ranger 4.0 4x4 5 speed. It is every bit as reliable as the 07 was, mileage is significantly worse(I haven't actually gotten a number yet....2 years of driving, maybe I should get around to it) however it is a lot better than my 09 jeep wrangler was.

My truck cost me $2700 2 years ago in almost mint condition, I'd say dollar for dollar, it's the best I've owned.

 

[kyguylal]

I'm really looking at the v6 now. I figure, working outside and such, the extra power might be worth it. What should I be able to expect for 4-5 thousand dollars? I figure that I'll be able to find a 2000 or so ranger with under 100k on it for that price?

 

[getrdone52]

I'm really looking at the v6 now. I figure, working outside and such, the extra power might be worth it. What should I be able to expect for 4-5 thousand dollars? I figure that I'll be able to find a 2000 or so ranger with under 100k on it for that price?

You might be able too, depending where you live and how many Rangers are around. 1998-2000 Rangers are famous for 4x4 problems, but there is TONS of info on how to fix it. 2001-2002 4.0 Rangers have engine problems, timing chains break or something, I don't really know. I think the most reliable years are 93-97 and 03-current.

 

[Captain Ledd]

I can pull high 20's in my 1997 2.3L.

4-5K should get you a really nice Ranger. Be sure to get the stick and not the auto. much better.

Don't bother removing anything for weight, it won't matter.

 

[kyguylal]

I'm in school, so I really don't have the time or money to have to repair much. So my best bets would be to find something post 2003? Im iffy on buying an older car...(pre 2000)

 

[Brandon Nootenboom]

I have a 97 4.0 4x4 Ranger 5spd, I've rang 23mpg out of mine and it's been extremely reliable. I put almost 40k on it in one year, only thing I replaced was the original clutch that had 215k on it at the time, along with routine maintenance. I haven't had much problems with my automatic 4x4 but my friends 2000 Ranger had this ubnoctious habbit of the 4x4 randomly coming out then not going back in. In fact when I was driving it down a hill in snow it did that and I ended up rolling it because the transmission (it was auto) wouldn't down shift when I put I tried to go down gears. 5 k will get you a pretty nice Ranger, my dad's got a 91 with the 2.9 V6 I believe, it's an auto and he gets around 18 mpg and it's well maintained

 

[koda6966]

Slapped a 10' canoe in the back of one once. Just dropped the tailgate and leaned it in against the roof. If you tie it down right you can fit anything in there.

By the way, pool noodles are your roofs best friend in that kind of situation.

 

[Captain Ledd]

I'm in school, so I really don't have the time or money to have to repair much. So my best bets would be to find something post 2003? Im iffy on buying an older car...(pre 2000)

I really don't understand this mentality. It's a used vehicle, it'll need parts. If it doesn't look beat on, it probably wasn't. It's called a thorough check of the vehicle you're about to purchase. Even at 2003 you're looking at a 10 year old truck. At some point you WILL need to maintain the vehicle.

98-02 had some hickups because they changed the front suspension/hubs all around. Most of the issues around those years revolve around this. Otherwise there are few problems

As for pre 1997, that chassis ran for 13 years with next to no changes. Things don't last that long in the very cut-throat automotive world if they don't work. Overall they are pretty simple to fix and reliable. Parts spanned a number of years, and carried over from different models, meaning they're easy to come by and not that expensive.

Now if it's getting into the 93 and earlier, you're probably going to spend 2K on a niceish bone stock one. 1K for one that's been used a bit harder. I'm figuring 4x4 prices here. If it's a few hundred dollars, well, it's a few hundred dollar truck, and you have money left over.

Your chances of finding a 4 cyl, 4wd Ranger get better the older you go. Newer than 1997, they basically didn't make one. 95-97 you'll need to set out for one, it will not find you.

 

[koda6966]

I spent less keeping my 93 ranger in shape than any of my 2000 and newer vehicles.

Only real money I sunk into it was when I decided to mod it.

 

[trevor20]

I drive a 92 4.0L V6. I can tell you that when I'm driving conservatively, I can get around 16 MPG, but that's with a 4" lift and 31" tires. I don't think its that bad compared to the v10 excursion we have in our family, but its not 27 mpg. As for reliability, it's great. The guy i bought if from 2 years ago, did the basic maintenance, as do i, when its needed. But that is the only work I ever need to do on it. With 5k you will be able to get a great truck, that does everything you need it to.