I don't know too much about these little trucks but my son wants to buy one for a daily driver.I talked to a guy who works here at the Ford engine plant.He said the 3.0L or the 4 banger is best for a daily driver due to the fact the 4.0L engine (which he said was a good motor but) is more complicated to repair due to the rubber timing belt and it's partners involved to get at it.Also (since I have any/all Ford Ranger guys here) what years are the better ones to purchase and why?What about the 2 plugs per cylinder I'm reading about on certain models!Thanks!
Used Ford Ranger which motor?
- Thread starter Greaser
- Start date
- Status
3.0s are excellent engines. They are not the most powerful V6 ever made, but they are durable. The only weak link is the cam synchronizer on 1995+ models. If it fails completely, the oil pump stops. Usually you will get plenty of advanced warning though (chirping noise), and it's easy to replace.
The 2.3 and 2.5 Lima I4s are excellent as well. Those are the ones with eight spark plugs. Changing the plugs on the intake side of the head is a bit of a challenge. Also, these engines use a timing belt, but they are non-interference. Lima I4s are very durable as well.
The Duratec 2.3 is the current I4 and is pretty good. There are many high mileage ones and it seems to be very reliable.
The SOHC 4.0 isn't a bad engine, but ones built before 2004 are known for timing chain noise. Ford has revised parts to fix it. Also, the SOHC 4.0 is more prone to head gasket leaks than other Ranger engines. I'd rather have the pushrod 4.0 personally.
The SOHC 4.0 has been used since 2001. The pushrod 4.0 was used from 1990 to 2000. The 3.0 was used from 1990 to 2008. The Lima I4s were used from 1983 until 2001.5, and the Duratec I4 has been used since 2001.5.
If your son is looking at automatics, 1995+ trucks will be the best. They have stronger automatics than older ones. Also, the 5R55E 5-speed auto became available in 1997 behind the 4.0. All engines got 5-speed autos in 2001.
The 2.3 and 2.5 Lima I4s are excellent as well. Those are the ones with eight spark plugs. Changing the plugs on the intake side of the head is a bit of a challenge. Also, these engines use a timing belt, but they are non-interference. Lima I4s are very durable as well.
The Duratec 2.3 is the current I4 and is pretty good. There are many high mileage ones and it seems to be very reliable.
The SOHC 4.0 isn't a bad engine, but ones built before 2004 are known for timing chain noise. Ford has revised parts to fix it. Also, the SOHC 4.0 is more prone to head gasket leaks than other Ranger engines. I'd rather have the pushrod 4.0 personally.
The SOHC 4.0 has been used since 2001. The pushrod 4.0 was used from 1990 to 2000. The 3.0 was used from 1990 to 2008. The Lima I4s were used from 1983 until 2001.5, and the Duratec I4 has been used since 2001.5.
If your son is looking at automatics, 1995+ trucks will be the best. They have stronger automatics than older ones. Also, the 5R55E 5-speed auto became available in 1997 behind the 4.0. All engines got 5-speed autos in 2001.
This is last year for the Ranger/Bx00 series, so snap one up.
If you want economical transportation, stick with a 2WD 4cyl.
I have pulled 31+ mp(us)g with a 5sp MT and cautious driving in my Mazda.
If you want economical transportation, stick with a 2WD 4cyl.
I have pulled 31+ mp(us)g with a 5sp MT and cautious driving in my Mazda.
How's the Ranger with the 3.0L 4x4? I'm a big fan of the little 3.0L, and I'm thinking about getting a Ranger to replace the 93 Aerostar at some point.
I had a 97 super cab 4.0 for about 10 years, hauling drums of oil all over. Sold it with about 250,000 miles on it and I see the "new" owner every couple of months when he comes in for an oil change. Still going strong, still running on 5W-30, and still not down 1/4 inch between 4000 mile oil changes.
Not sure if this really is the last year for the Ranger, since Ford postponed the closure of the only plant that makes them until 2011. (They are made right here in Saint Paul, Minnesota - the only plant left making the Ranger).
The SOHC 4.0 has been used in the Explorer since the '97 model year, so it has been around longer than just its use in the Ranger. I've got one in my '97 Explorer and enjoy it, though as noted there are timing chain noises! (Not sure where the comment on the timing belt is coming from - certainly not the SOHC motor which is well known for its timing chain noise concerns!). My only complaint with the 4.0 is fuel mileage is not as good as one would hope. Having driven both the old 4.0 OHV and the SOHC, I'd take the SOHC any day of the week. Just my driving preference.
If I were to procure one now, I'd be on the lookout for a 3.0 V6 4x4 with an auto tranny. Just my choice!
The SOHC 4.0 has been used in the Explorer since the '97 model year, so it has been around longer than just its use in the Ranger. I've got one in my '97 Explorer and enjoy it, though as noted there are timing chain noises! (Not sure where the comment on the timing belt is coming from - certainly not the SOHC motor which is well known for its timing chain noise concerns!). My only complaint with the 4.0 is fuel mileage is not as good as one would hope. Having driven both the old 4.0 OHV and the SOHC, I'd take the SOHC any day of the week. Just my driving preference.
If I were to procure one now, I'd be on the lookout for a 3.0 V6 4x4 with an auto tranny. Just my choice!
Originally Posted By: MNgopher
If I were to procure one now, I'd be on the lookout for a 3.0 V6 4x4 with an auto tranny. Just my choice!
That's my goal when it comes time to replace the Aerostar. Hopefully someone who owns a 3.0L 4x4 A/T will chime in with some feedback.
If I were to procure one now, I'd be on the lookout for a 3.0 V6 4x4 with an auto tranny. Just my choice!
That's my goal when it comes time to replace the Aerostar. Hopefully someone who owns a 3.0L 4x4 A/T will chime in with some feedback.
Think about the price of gas it will go up as the value of the dollar drops etc.
Originally Posted By: widman
I had a 97 super cab 4.0 for about 10 years, hauling drums of oil all over. Sold it with about 250,000 miles on it and I see the "new" owner every couple of months when he comes in for an oil change. Still going strong, still running on 5W-30, and still not down 1/4 inch between 4000 mile oil changes.
The old pushrod 4.0s are good about not burning oil. My 1995 Explorer with 158K didn't burn a drop between changes.
A 3.0 4WD won't be a fast truck, but with 4.10 gears it's fine. My 2WD, 3.0, 5-speed auto truck isn't fast by any means, but it has plenty of power for me. I've driven it all over the East Coast and it's a great daily driver.
The Ranger is still in production and will be until 2011. It's still the second best selling small truck with sheetmetal that has been used for 16 years, an interior that has been used for 14 years, and a frame that has been used for 26 years.
I had a 97 super cab 4.0 for about 10 years, hauling drums of oil all over. Sold it with about 250,000 miles on it and I see the "new" owner every couple of months when he comes in for an oil change. Still going strong, still running on 5W-30, and still not down 1/4 inch between 4000 mile oil changes.
The old pushrod 4.0s are good about not burning oil. My 1995 Explorer with 158K didn't burn a drop between changes.
A 3.0 4WD won't be a fast truck, but with 4.10 gears it's fine. My 2WD, 3.0, 5-speed auto truck isn't fast by any means, but it has plenty of power for me. I've driven it all over the East Coast and it's a great daily driver.
The Ranger is still in production and will be until 2011. It's still the second best selling small truck with sheetmetal that has been used for 16 years, an interior that has been used for 14 years, and a frame that has been used for 26 years.
Originally Posted By: dishdude
How old is your son? If he is a teen, I'd get the 4 banger.
Yep, even my 2.5 I4 was enough to get me in trouble. It only had 120 HP, but that didn't keep me from spinning the tires and driving it like it was stolen.
My parents owned my current Ranger when I was in high school. The tires always lost a good bit of tread when I drove it. Even with the little 3.0 and an auto, it would smoke the tires though an intersection if I gave it enough gas. Good times.
Here's a pic of my 2001 2.5L, taken by my dad a couple days after I got it...
Here's my 2002 3.0...
How old is your son? If he is a teen, I'd get the 4 banger.
Yep, even my 2.5 I4 was enough to get me in trouble. It only had 120 HP, but that didn't keep me from spinning the tires and driving it like it was stolen.
My parents owned my current Ranger when I was in high school. The tires always lost a good bit of tread when I drove it. Even with the little 3.0 and an auto, it would smoke the tires though an intersection if I gave it enough gas. Good times.
Here's a pic of my 2001 2.5L, taken by my dad a couple days after I got it...
Here's my 2002 3.0...
Last edited:
Either 4 banger is a very durable engine. A manual is a must with these. they don't have that much grunt.
The newer 2.3L is noted for excellent gas mileage with the 5-speed.
The newer 2.3L is noted for excellent gas mileage with the 5-speed.
I have a 2.3L duratec in my 06. Love it very high rev and can get you in trouble if you're not careful. I'd only get a v6 if you're looking at a 4x4.
I have 2 Ranger's in my fleet (personal). One is a 1989 with 270K and the other is a 1990 with 242K. Both 2.3L w/ 5 speed. One gets 25 mpg city and highway, the other gets 26 mpg.
Good little trucks since they both survived being my kids first vehicles.
Good little trucks since they both survived being my kids first vehicles.
My next ranger will be a mazda b series, lol...
I really like the way the newer ones look.
I'd like a 4 cylinder with an automatic.
I really like the way the newer ones look.
I'd like a 4 cylinder with an automatic.
my '97 2.3L ranger was super slow/gutless and couldn't get 20 mpg's w/ mixed city/freeway driving. and the exhaust snapped off behind the muffler at about 60k. horrible ride until i installed some bilstein's. did i mention slow and gutless?
i call it the worst vehicle i've ever owned
i'd take a 4-cyl nissan or toyota over a 4-cyl ranger but i haven't driven any of the duraec models...
i call it the worst vehicle i've ever owned
i'd take a 4-cyl nissan or toyota over a 4-cyl ranger but i haven't driven any of the duraec models...
Originally Posted By: gtx510
my '97 2.3L ranger was super slow/gutless and couldn't get 20 mpg's w/ mixed city/freeway driving. and the exhaust snapped off behind the muffler at about 60k. horrible ride until i installed some bilstein's. did i mention slow and gutless?
i call it the worst vehicle i've ever owned
What's the history on it? It sounds like it had serious mechanical problems if it couldn't get 20 MPG.
My 2.5 got 28 MPG easily on trips between NC and AL. I'd have to dog the [censored] out of it to get 20 MPG. It wasn't fast, but that's expected with a four cylinder pickup. Mine was fast enough though...it hit the 97 MPH limiter plenty of times back when I was a little more careless.
my '97 2.3L ranger was super slow/gutless and couldn't get 20 mpg's w/ mixed city/freeway driving. and the exhaust snapped off behind the muffler at about 60k. horrible ride until i installed some bilstein's. did i mention slow and gutless?
i call it the worst vehicle i've ever owned
What's the history on it? It sounds like it had serious mechanical problems if it couldn't get 20 MPG.
My 2.5 got 28 MPG easily on trips between NC and AL. I'd have to dog the [censored] out of it to get 20 MPG. It wasn't fast, but that's expected with a four cylinder pickup. Mine was fast enough though...it hit the 97 MPH limiter plenty of times back when I was a little more careless.
it was a 2 year old ranger bought at the ford dealership. i can't remember the mileage but it was the newist vehicle that i've ever owned.
i have a lead foot and freeway traffic around here scoots along at 70-90mph. could explain the lower mpg's?
it also seemed like it had an over protective knock/timing retard program as it would really lose power when ambient temps got up to 80*F.
i have a lead foot and freeway traffic around here scoots along at 70-90mph. could explain the lower mpg's?
it also seemed like it had an over protective knock/timing retard program as it would really lose power when ambient temps got up to 80*F.
- Status
