Ranger or S10...Tough Decision

[The_Jeff]

Being 2wd trucks it's entirely plausible a low mileage one had a previous owner who drove something else except when they needed to haul something. (how I treated my trucks) Being underpowered even a quick trip to the dump would warm them up fully.

I would personally go for the s10 based on its mileage... I would shop the sellers against each other and see who'll dicker more, maybe.

In the 90s all Ford and GM cared about was making decent trucks so either will show lots of helpful R&D.

 

[demarpaint]

I'd jump on the Ford over the Chevy in the blink of an eye. I do tend to shy away from anything in the used market with 100K on the clock. So in this instance I would look for a Ranger with lower miles, but that's another one of my hang-ups.

 

[GMGuy]

As a Chevy guy primarily, I tend to favor the Ranger.

Alex.

 

[xlt4me]

LOL, I guess at this point your almost sorry you asked.

My vote goes for the Ranger. When I researched them back in 04, I came to the conclusion that a 4-banger Ranger was the best bang for the buck and with good maintenance, would last forever.

That's when I ordered my 04 XLT Ranger... and hence the in a moment lacking any creativity I came up with my handle... xlt4me.

 

[lancerplayer]

I went with the Ranger. Thanks for your input!

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: eljefino
Being 2wd trucks it's entirely plausible a low mileage one had a previous owner who drove something else except when they needed to haul something.


Yep, my '99 S-10, owned since new, only has 38K miles on it. It has only been used like a little truck around the farm, fishing, hauling firewood, going to the dump and home center.

Other than fluids and filters, I have replaced a set of tires for dry rot, and one tailgate cable that snapped. It's configured exactly as the OP was looking at - a/c and 5 speed, a plain jane work truck.

I think the S-10 bed holds a bit more firewood than the Ranger, based on what I've seen when I'm picking up firewood. The Ranger drivers just can't load as much. The bed looks to have a smaller volume.

I had a 90's vintage Explorer with that Mazda 5 speed and it is a frail clutch / transmission combo IMO. It greatly detracted from what was otherwise a good vehicle. The slave cylinder leaked pretty early in life, and finally blew out the release bearing backing out of my driveway one morning.

 

[DragRace]

Originally Posted By: lancerplayer
I went with the Ranger. Thanks for your input!


Good job

 

[wander2039]

Originally Posted By: lancerplayer
I went with the Ranger. Thanks for your input!


Excellent choice.

 

[GMGuy]

We wan^D^D^D demand a review of your new purchase.

Alex.

 

[Steve S]

Fords are better by far. Talk to any fleet users.

 

[Johnny]

Originally Posted By: GMGuy
We wan^D^D^D demand a review of your new purchase.

Alex.


Yes, give us a review of your new purchase. Share a photo or two. You are among friends, can't you tell.

 

[cousincletus]

Originally Posted By: Steve S
Fords are better by far. Talk to any fleet users.


I disagree with that. It's hard to beat the Chevy W/T 4.3 for fuel mileage and overall durability. I had 2 S-10s and one Ranger in my younger days, and the S-10s were better trucks in every way than the Ranger. They could haul more, got better mileage, held up better. Is Ford still using that junk Mazda 5 speed? That's one weak transmission.

 

[01rangerxl]

Originally Posted By: cousincletus
Originally Posted By: Steve S
Fords are better by far. Talk to any fleet users.


I disagree with that. It's hard to beat the Chevy W/T 4.3 for fuel mileage and overall durability. I had 2 S-10s and one Ranger in my younger days, and the S-10s were better trucks in every way than the Ranger. They could haul more, got better mileage, held up better. Is Ford still using that junk Mazda 5 speed? That's one weak transmission.


The 4.3 is a durable motor, but I don't consider fuel economy to be a strong point for it...maybe with a manual trans and high gears (3.08s-3.55s).

Payload is about the same, depending on the configuration. My 3.0 gets 21 MPG in Charlotte with me behind the wheel, which I consider pretty good for a V6, automatic, Super Cab truck.

What do you consider weak about the M5OD? The only real issue with them is the internal slave cylinder which sometimes leaks. The one in my 2001 never did though...the only thing I ever did to the transmission in that truck was change the fluid and replace the shift rail plugs as preventive maintenance (a $5, 10 minute job). Lots of M5ODs have 200K+ miles on them with nothing more than a clutch and slave cylinder replacement.

In my experience, Rangers hold up better. My cousin had a 1998 S-10 Blazer. The power windows and radio worked when they wanted to, the glove box wouldn't stay closed, the door panels rattled from being removed multiple times to fix the power windows, and various odds and ends such as the alternator needed to be replaced before 100K. It wasn't a bad truck considering the way it was used, but it had its share of issues.

 

[cousincletus]

^^^The box didn't seem to hold as much in the Ranger, and it squatted badly with weight on it. On paper the ratings were probably the same. I've seen shifting forks go bad on the Mazda transmission. For sure it's not a transmission for the F-150. It may do OK in a Ranger, though. The ones I saw go bad were all in F-150s. The worst vehicle I ever owned was a 1987 Ranger 2.3 5 speed. Nothing but trouble.

 

[ffracer]

Originally Posted By: cousincletus
^^^The box didn't seem to hold as much in the Ranger, and it squatted badly with weight on it. On paper the ratings were probably the same. I've seen shifting forks go bad on the Mazda transmission. For sure it's not a transmission for the F-150. It may do OK in a Ranger, though. The ones I saw go bad were all in F-150s. The worst vehicle I ever owned was a 1987 Ranger 2.3 5 speed. Nothing but trouble.


Not because I own a '95 Ranger, because I will buy what works, but uphere in salt, there are virtually no S-10s/Sonomas that aren't rusted out badly.

The Mazda gearbox works fine, if you change the fluid (I use Mobil 1 ATF and it is like butter) and flush the hydraulic fluid out every 3 years. I've done road racing (track), towing (VW GTI, and Formula Ford) on a double axle trailer, plus full bed of logs. original clutch at 170k.

With the S-10's NPG 5-speed taken care of, it could do the same no problem. All in how you take care of it.

 

[01rangerxl]

Originally Posted By: cousincletus
^^^The box didn't seem to hold as much in the Ranger, and it squatted badly with weight on it. On paper the ratings were probably the same. I've seen shifting forks go bad on the Mazda transmission. For sure it's not a transmission for the F-150. It may do OK in a Ranger, though. The ones I saw go bad were all in F-150s. The worst vehicle I ever owned was a 1987 Ranger 2.3 5 speed. Nothing but trouble.


It is a light duty transmission, but it holds up well in Rangers. Usually as long as they don't have gear oil put in them and the shift rail plugs are replaced when they start to leak, they will last pretty much forever in a Ranger. I know some people with F-150s swap to a ZF transmission instead though.

Ford uses different rear springs in different configurations of the Ranger. My 2001 Ranger had what Ford calls "payload package 2," and it handled heavy loads very well. I loaded 1300 lbs. of Quikrete in it once and it did great.

 

[cousincletus]

OK, that clears it up a little. BTW I have known people with Rangers (later models) with high mileage and no major problems. I just felt more confident in my S-10s. It's pretty subjective I guess. I did give Ford another chance. I looked at a Ranger Supercab before I bought my new Colorado. I think it's the best rated truck for gas mileage. The Colorado was a little bigger and I fit in it better (I'm 6'5" though).