Another Ranger?. I know a guy with an older Ranger(year?)4cyl. The timing belt gave out around 60000 miles. Does the3.0L v-6 use a timing chain rather than a belt? Engine durability is prob.my biggest concern.Is the timing belt a weak point on the 98-03 4 cylinders? Chains are more durable,not?
Which Mini Pickup?
- Thread starter junebug
- Start date
- Status
Only the older 4 cyls from mid-2001 and older had timing belts, and even then, they're non-interference, so don't worry if it breaks. The newer 4 cyls and all V6s have timing chains. The 3.0 is an extremely durable engine, and the cam synchronizer gear is really the only weak spot on it. The 4.0s are very reliable too. Some Rangers with the 4.0 from 2001-03 had some troubles with the timing chain rattling, but the problem has been fixed since 2004. Pretty much all the the engines available are very good.
Yep...what exranger06 said.
Lima I4s have timing belts, but if it breaks, no worries. It's a very easy replacement and the engine won't be damaged. My parents broke two timing belts on their old '86 Ranger from neglect and both times it was back on the road within a day.
Lima I4s have timing belts, but if it breaks, no worries. It's a very easy replacement and the engine won't be damaged. My parents broke two timing belts on their old '86 Ranger from neglect and both times it was back on the road within a day.
Lima is the name for the family of engines that included all Ranger I4s from 1983 - 2001.5. They went to the Duratec 2.3 with a chain starting midway through 2001 production.
Grandpa had a 86? Ranger with the 2.0L.. I think. The timing belt or chain snapped blew the oil filter off but kept running. Never figured that one out. Didn't realized what happened till we were ready to leave. After the belt/chain was replace he drove it for another two years.
I looked at the Consumer Reports 2008 buying guide today at the library. It indicated (in the problem charts)that 2001 and 2003 rangers had transmission problems. Is this factual or subjective? They did not indicate manual or auto. I want an auto. behind a Duratec 2.3 with 2WD. Is this a good combination?
I think that's subjective, especially since they've had the exact same automatic since around 1998, and the same manual since 1990. I never listen to anything Consumer Reports says. A Duratec with auto would be a really good combo, we have one where I work with that setup. It has over 220k and the engine still runs beautifully, despite being beaten on every day of it's life. It's very peppy and fun to drive even with the automatic. Just flush the tranny every 30k and it should last a long time too. Maintenance is very important on those transmissions.
I don't see how the transmissions would be just problematic those two years. They've used the same transmissions years before and after. I know the manual trans in mine, can't remember the exact model #, there's plugs on top if they dryrot you have some issues. The only one I've heard of. Take what you hear from CR with a grain of salt. Don't know how about the auto but the 2.3 with manual if you replace the shifter with a shorter one wouldn't be any different than driving a sports car.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: junebug
I looked at the Consumer Reports 2008 buying guide today at the library. It indicated (in the problem charts)that 2001 and 2003 rangers had transmission problems. Is this factual or subjective? They did not indicate manual or auto. I want an auto. behind a Duratec 2.3 with 2WD. Is this a good combination?
I've had a 4R55E auto ('95 Explorer) and I currently have a 5R44E ('02 Ranger). I beat the [censored] out of them and have not had any problems. The Explorer had 158K on the original auto trans when I sold it. It still shifted like new, I'd drive it anywhere.
The M5OD manual is a tough SOB. The only problem with it is the internal slave cylinder that sometimes leaks.
I looked at the Consumer Reports 2008 buying guide today at the library. It indicated (in the problem charts)that 2001 and 2003 rangers had transmission problems. Is this factual or subjective? They did not indicate manual or auto. I want an auto. behind a Duratec 2.3 with 2WD. Is this a good combination?
I've had a 4R55E auto ('95 Explorer) and I currently have a 5R44E ('02 Ranger). I beat the [censored] out of them and have not had any problems. The Explorer had 158K on the original auto trans when I sold it. It still shifted like new, I'd drive it anywhere.
The M5OD manual is a tough SOB. The only problem with it is the internal slave cylinder that sometimes leaks.
My next vehicle is going to be a 2003+ ranger/mazda with the 2.3 duratech motor.
Great combo, a low mileage example is around 7-8 grand all day long.
My problem is that I'm living in the great rustbelt of buffalo. A 2wd truck stinks in the winter.
When I move to a warmer climate, the fwd saturn will go and I'll get one of those trucks.
Great combo, a low mileage example is around 7-8 grand all day long.
My problem is that I'm living in the great rustbelt of buffalo. A 2wd truck stinks in the winter.
When I move to a warmer climate, the fwd saturn will go and I'll get one of those trucks.
Earlier this year, I bought my nephew a 98 Ranger 4-banger with an auto transmission. The timing belt broke a week later, but like 06Ranger said, no damage was done.
I will tell you that 4-cyl Rangers with auto trannies can be dern near impossible to find. The 3.0L is far and away the most common engine.
Overall, my nephew is thrilled with it. I think he might be happiest with the 23 mpg.
I will tell you that 4-cyl Rangers with auto trannies can be dern near impossible to find. The 3.0L is far and away the most common engine.
Overall, my nephew is thrilled with it. I think he might be happiest with the 23 mpg.
Originally Posted By: simple_gifts
Can you explain why both the owners manual and placard inside the vehicle identify it as a rollover risk?
Not talking about handling....
You cannot negate the effects of a high center of gravity, narrow chassis and stiff suspension when an "incident occurs" in front of you.
When zooming along the interstate @ 70mph, imagine leaving the highway onto the barely maintained center median strip and ask yourself if you would rather be in a 4x4 Ranger or a 1987 Caprice.
The rollover tendency of these vehicles is borne out by
1) testing
2) statistics
3) basic physics.
http://www.safercar.gov/portal/site/safe...0002fd17898RCRD
It is not a coincidence that the only vehicle that received a 5 star NTHSA rollover rating is the RX8; hmmm awfully low centered vehicle....
-T
I drive an 03 Chevy tracker 4x4 and it has very "stiff" front suspension with a large sway bar and fairly soft rear suspension without a sway bar. It also has a very high front brake bias. What this does is promote understeer so when I forget I'm driving a high narrow suv and a deer jumps out, there is a bigger chance it will understeer either from the front brakes locking or the outside front tire being overloaded when I haul on the wheel. The stiff front, soft rear suspension promotes understeer which at highway speeds is exactly what you want.
Having a lot of body roll isn't really going to help other than it gives you more warning that you do have a high centre of gravity, but it may allow more oversteer in an emergency and send you into the ditch to start your barrel rolls...
I do agree that a truck with a high centre of gravity isn't an ideal first car but 2wd with a four banger is the safest small pick up combonation.
Ian
Can you explain why both the owners manual and placard inside the vehicle identify it as a rollover risk?
Not talking about handling....
You cannot negate the effects of a high center of gravity, narrow chassis and stiff suspension when an "incident occurs" in front of you.
When zooming along the interstate @ 70mph, imagine leaving the highway onto the barely maintained center median strip and ask yourself if you would rather be in a 4x4 Ranger or a 1987 Caprice.
The rollover tendency of these vehicles is borne out by
1) testing
2) statistics
3) basic physics.
http://www.safercar.gov/portal/site/safe...0002fd17898RCRD
It is not a coincidence that the only vehicle that received a 5 star NTHSA rollover rating is the RX8; hmmm awfully low centered vehicle....
-T
I drive an 03 Chevy tracker 4x4 and it has very "stiff" front suspension with a large sway bar and fairly soft rear suspension without a sway bar. It also has a very high front brake bias. What this does is promote understeer so when I forget I'm driving a high narrow suv and a deer jumps out, there is a bigger chance it will understeer either from the front brakes locking or the outside front tire being overloaded when I haul on the wheel. The stiff front, soft rear suspension promotes understeer which at highway speeds is exactly what you want.
Having a lot of body roll isn't really going to help other than it gives you more warning that you do have a high centre of gravity, but it may allow more oversteer in an emergency and send you into the ditch to start your barrel rolls...
I do agree that a truck with a high centre of gravity isn't an ideal first car but 2wd with a four banger is the safest small pick up combonation.
Ian
Hi guys, What years was the Ranger 3.0L v-6 an iron block and iron head engine? As opposed to the 2.3 4 cyl.with an aluminum block and head.What mpg do the 3.0 L. get? Also, are the newer (last 5 yrs.)5spd. auto. transmissions "sealed for life" without even a dipstick? I want a 2001.5-2005 basic Ranger XL or Mazda B-2300. Which is the better buy?THANKS MUCH!!!
All 3.0 V6 engines in Rangers have an iron block and heads. My 3.0 gets 18-23 MPG depending on the fuel I use (regular gas or E85) and the kind of driving I'm doing.
The 5-speed autos are not sealed, thankfully. They have a dipstick and removable pan.
Either the B-Series or Ranger could be a better buy...get the truck that's in the best condition in your price range.
The 5-speed autos are not sealed, thankfully. They have a dipstick and removable pan.
Either the B-Series or Ranger could be a better buy...get the truck that's in the best condition in your price range.
Are there any real mini pickups now? Could I replace my 77 LUV with a newer version of it?
Originally Posted By: labman
Are there any real mini pickups now? Could I replace my 77 LUV with a newer version of it?
No, but there isn't a Honda Z car either. The Ranger is as close as you will get to a mini pickup these days. It used to be considered a "midsize" truck, but it is now the smallest street legal truck available in the US. I think it stays true to its small truck roots...simple, reliable, and more fun than it should be.
Are there any real mini pickups now? Could I replace my 77 LUV with a newer version of it?
No, but there isn't a Honda Z car either. The Ranger is as close as you will get to a mini pickup these days. It used to be considered a "midsize" truck, but it is now the smallest street legal truck available in the US. I think it stays true to its small truck roots...simple, reliable, and more fun than it should be.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
Originally Posted By: labman
Are there any real mini pickups now? Could I replace my 77 LUV with a newer version of it?
No, but there isn't a Honda Z car either. The Ranger is as close as you will get to a mini pickup these days. It used to be considered a "midsize" truck, but it is now the smallest street legal truck available in the US. I think it stays true to its small truck roots...simple, reliable, and more fun than it should be.
And with a 302-swap, can scare the [censored] out of people
Originally Posted By: labman
Are there any real mini pickups now? Could I replace my 77 LUV with a newer version of it?
No, but there isn't a Honda Z car either. The Ranger is as close as you will get to a mini pickup these days. It used to be considered a "midsize" truck, but it is now the smallest street legal truck available in the US. I think it stays true to its small truck roots...simple, reliable, and more fun than it should be.
And with a 302-swap, can scare the [censored] out of people
Is it possible/practical to get a "timing chain kit" and retrofit an older timing belt engine to a timing chain? I know of guys who race(circle track)the older Ford 2.3L. engines and am wondering if they do a chain conversion or just replace the timing belt when needed?
I have never heard of anyone doing that on a Ranger, though I suppose it is possible.
I really wouldn't get too hung up on the Limas having timing belts. It's a very easy job on them, and they will not be damaged at all if the belt breaks. Just replace it every 100K or so.
I really wouldn't get too hung up on the Limas having timing belts. It's a very easy job on them, and they will not be damaged at all if the belt breaks. Just replace it every 100K or so.
- Status
