Looking at a 1999 Ranger - anything I should know?

[cadfaeltex]

There's a 1999 Ford Ranger on the corner that has me curious as a weekend pickup and winter beater. It looks like a stripped model. No badging to say what engine so I'm assuming it's a four banger. Vinyl interior and rubber and no carpet on the floors. It's an automatic and (again based on lack of badging) a rwd.

So, if I decided to look further at it -- any particular things to look at? from what I've seen they're pretty durable little trucks. Idea on price beyond what I saw on KBB?

TIA

 

[wallyuwl]

KBB isn't accurate for price. Check Edmunds. Other than that, I don't know a lot about these trucks to give specifics on things to be aware of regarding the vehicle itself.

 

[exranger06]

99 means it has either a 2.5 4 cylinder, 3.0 v6, or a 4.0 OHV v6. All very reliable and long-lasting engines. Transmission would be a 4r44e or 4r55e depending on engine, which will last a long time if maintained properly. There aren't that many common problems with them, they're very durable trucks as you said.

 

[Johnny248]

They are painfully slow and have horrible handling. Other than that, they are decent little trucks lol

 

[exranger06]

Originally Posted By: Johnny248
They are painfully slow and have horrible handling. Other than that, they are decent little trucks lol

Strongly disagree on both counts. Painfully slow, well depends on the engine, but mine goes 0-60 in about 8 or 9 seconds. Not exactly "fast" but definitely not "painfully slow." And horrible handling? I'm not afraid to throw it into the curve on highway onramps and it handles it beautifully without any drama.

 

[meangreen01]

Make sure that model will fit your intended use. Nothing wrong with a 4cyl, 2wd stripper model, but don't expect to tow/haul much, nor perform very well in the snow. If those are important criteria for you seek out a 4.0L with 4wd.

 

[zyxelenator]

I've driven work truck Ranger(around those years), with 4 liter--not slow at all.

 

[cadfaeltex]

called to check the price and dangit if it must have had a good one because it had sold today.

 

[MrCritical]

The 4 banger has a timing belt, otherwise standard maintenance.

 

[A_A_G]

Had a 99 with the 3.0, what a turd (although very reliable). Almost as slow as the the 4 cylinder and gas mileage was terrible.

 

[MONKEYMAN]

Originally Posted By: Johnny248
They are painfully slow and have horrible handling. Other than that, they are decent little trucks lol


That was my 94 B2300 Ranger clone. It had a whopping 98 hp. It rode OK, but was not so easy to make tight turns. I think they corrected some of those shortcomings in later models.

 

[Spazdog]

In comparison to a 4cyl S10? Everything except the interior is better on the Ranger.

We had both for delivery trucks when I was at O'Reilly. The Ranger's interior came up short even against a base model plain white vanilla S10. But ride, handling, brakes, reliability, even gas mileage (different drivers so

but the Rangers usually beat the smaller engined S10s) were in the Rangers' favor.

The only problem with the Rangers was that we also had an older Toyota. It was dinged up, the driver's seat was ripped and sagged, the stereo sounded like a 9v transistor radio....and it drove better than the newer Rangers and S10s. Unless it was raining. It was terrible in the rain.

My pick is still a Dakota with the AMC 2.5 among the domestic 4 cyl trucks. It's slower than Christmas and doesn't get close to the OHC 2.5-2.5 Ford or 2.2 Chevy's MPG but it's more comfortable and roomier.

 

[jeepman3071]

get a Ranger with the 4.0 SOHC V6. My friend had a 2001 and he tortured that thing. Sold it with over 200k miles and it still ran great. The 4.0L SOHC has ~205 hp and even with 31" tires managed to get up to speed pretty good. It rode nice on the highway as well.

 

[addyguy]

Wife's grandpa has a 2003(?) Ranger 4.0L 4WD. Very solid and capable little truck, but rough-riding on the road. Seems to give him very little trouble.