which trim/model of ranger/tacoma to get

[bowlofturtle]

Considering getting a small pickup/SUV for daily and around the house stuff.

Never owned anything other then coupes/sedans/motorcycles. Since my current daily (g35x is sig) is getting 18mpg combined on 93 octane, i figured no other daily could be worst. I've wanted to dip my hands into a ranger or tacoma. I'm leaning on tacoma because all i've owned is imports but the price difference between the 2 are nuts!

Ranger and tacoma are on my list because they both seem to be proven platforms with a WHOLE lot of information and aftermarket out there. Maybe a frontier.

I'm asking for model and trim info. I want to spend maybe $3000-4000 on a late 90s or early 2000 model, 150k. Possibly an extended cab and auto trans. This will be driven in the winter as well in chicago. So AWD might be worth looking into. General research is showing the V6 models to get roughly same MPG as 4 cylinders.

I know there are ranger guys on here that know way more then they should on these. Looks like they are prone to balljoint failures, anything else to look at? Most likely rust will be an issue in my neck of the woods.

 

[Jarlaxle]

A 2WD 4-banger Ranger will get mid to high 20's for mileage with a 5-speed.

 

[thunderfog]

Tacoma frames rusted like [censored] from '95-'09. Now...some got new ones, so check that out. Other than the frames, Tacomas are almost a can't-miss truck.

 

[supton]

Originally Posted By: thunderfog
Tacoma frames rusted like [censored] from '95-'09. Now...some got new ones, so check that out. Other than the frames, Tacomas are almost a can't-miss truck.


Recent reading here and elsewhere indicated Rangers can have the same kind of bad frames. Obviously, fully inspect any potential purchase for this issue.

Don't know much about Rangers, sorry.

Taco, pre-1996 V6 was 3.0, and they have a rep for head gaskets, low mpg and low power. 1996 brought the 3.4 which is a good mill. Both are timing belts. Much later 4.0 is timing chain. 2.2 is timing chain but IIRC they can have chain problems. 2.7 came later and seems good.

Automatic 4 speed is a good if power hog. Beware recent radiator replacement and trans flush: the in-radiator atf cooling loop can fail, dumping coolant into the trans.

Both are part time 4x4 and cannot be driven on dry or wet pavement in 4HI. As such I recommend snow tires for winter duty. You can drive more in RWD with less issue, and use 4HI when there is enough snow on the ground to really need it. IMO, my 4x4 is the worst snow vehicle I've had, it would be parked if I had not bought snow tires. Poor snow handling compared to a lo po FWD.

 

[eljefino]

Man you're going about this all wrong.

18 year old truck and you're worried about trim lines when it should be

condition, condition, condition.

Don't "maybe" get 4x4 for snow. Get snow tires for your real car. A 4x4 will have been driven in the snow. A 2x4 will avoid it and its resultant rust.

I'd get a 2x4 ford/chevy/dodge stripper model full size... v6.

 

[HerrStig]

People generally unload Tacoma's in good shape on the open market. Usually there's a friend or neighbor looking for a good truck.

 

[pbm]

Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
A 2WD 4-banger Ranger will get mid to high 20's for mileage with a 5-speed.



That would be my choice based on price/quality ratio. (Used Tacoma's seem too pricey).

If you get a Ranger 4 cylinder it will either be the Lima...a great engine...or the MZR...another great engine, IMO.

 

[andyd]

In general 1/2 the price of a Taco of the same yr. Up here in the rust belt a Ranger can look brand new topside. Slide underneath with a screw driver and a face shield. Check the frame beside the gas tank and all the body supports and spring mounts. I like the 4.0 OHV in the Rat. The engine hasn't needed a single thing in nearly 5 yrs. When I base lined the truck. I changed all the filters. I topped off the anti freeze and that is it. I have pulled the back plugs and they were fine rich brown. Driving Miss Daisy at 65 mph, I got 21 mpg. At the time v8 150s got better MPG. The shift forks in the 5 spd broke and the pieces destroyed the gears. Electric shift is great if it and the vacuum powered hub locks work. If left in 2wd too long, this can get iffy. The Rat is blessed with manual hubs. I use a pair of vice grips to shift modes. It is presently in 4 high, wired in place, with the hubs unlocked.

The 3.0 is considered a dog with head cracks and general overheats resulting/ caused ? general Early model 4.0 OHC has timing chain troubles requiring an engine pull to fix. 4 cyl 4x4 Rangers are rare.

I wish the Rat was in better shape, It is sized right, has road manners and does what little 4 wheeling I do.

 

[Tdbo]

I know a little about Rangers since I have owned four of them.
If you want the best balance between utility and mileage, a 4 cyl 5 speed is hard to beat. I have owned 2 of them and averaged 23-27 MPG. I also at times abused both of them hauling things and never had an issue. They are tough trucks.
The nicest combo IMO is the 4.0. I had one of those in a 2004 with an Auto. That truck was a little hot rod. Gas mileage was high teens in general, with my best being 21 hwy. with cruise. I disliked the 2004 redesign and sold it to buy the Mustang in my signature.
My least favorite is the 3.0 W/Auto. that I have now. It is the worst of both worlds. The gas mileage of the 4.0, with the acceleration of the 4 cyl. It is a solid engine, but IMO, the 3.0 is a better engine for a Taurus than a Ranger. I ended up with it because I wanted a cheap truck and I got a heck of a deal on it. The body has held up well on it, and I have Krowned it the last couple of years to prolong it.
They are solid little trucks. However, find a Supercab if you can. The regular cabs are rather small, as I discovered on my first.

 

[01rangerxl]

Like eljefino said, you really need to be prioritizing condition, especially where you live.

If you come across a loaded XLT 4x4 Super Cab with a nice body, but no rear frame rails, it's not going to do you any good. You'd be better off with a base model XL reg cab with work truck wear and tear, but a solid frame. Same goes for a Tacoma or anything else. If you limit yourself to specific options, you might be in for a long search.

V6 Rangers do not get good fuel economy. The I4s, even the Lima (pre-2001.5), are much better in that respect. My 2001 2.5L got 28 MPG on highway trips. My V6s won't touch that. They get over 20 on the highway, but not by much. 15-17 MPG is usual for both of them.

I like the 4.0L OHV V6, but the SOHC is very reliable if the timing chains have been dealt with. I have seen many with over 300K miles on them and still running strong. Again, on trucks this old you need to worry about condition first. Check all the usual maintenance things. I've owned a 2.5, 3.0, and two OHV 4.0s and they have all been reliable.

You need to check all the usual things you would on any used vehicle. At 20 years old, there's no telling what a truck has been through. Things like ball joints are replaceable though, especially on a truck that's not rotted. A truck with newer ball joints and no rear frame isn't any good.

A good example of a truck to look at...
http://chicago.craigslist.org/nwi/cto/5509178892.html
Looks well cared for, the ad claims no rust (not "just a little rust"), painted rear bumper looks very clean, no rips in the seat, etc. The SOHC 4.0 would not scare me if it runs good. It's a later regular cab, so it has a little more room than the 1997 and older models (but still tight compared to a Super Cab).

This one might be worth a look...
http://chicago.craigslist.org/nch/cto/5505989110.html
Again, they claim no rust, and the rear bumper area looks very clean. Might have been brought up from the South at that age, or just not driven in winter.

A little more than you were looking to pay, but this one is very nice...
http://chicago.craigslist.org/nwc/ctd/5506160258.html
Texas truck with no rust, low miles, and a Super Cab. My 2002 is mechanically the same, but with more miles, and has been a great truck. The guy that we buy clips and fasteners from at work has a Ranger like this with over 300K on it, but looks and runs like it doesn't even have 100K.

 

[bowlofturtle]

I know rust is number 1 issue. Trust me I've wrenched on a plenty of cars to know about rust here.

Man that last red one looks like a GEM.

When i meant trim, i was referring to 4wd/2wd and engines. I didn't mean loaded or not. Obviously 2wd should have less things wrong with the trucks but if the 4wd is solid then i want that. Ideally i want a auto/v6/4wd or a auto/4 cylinder/2wd. Been looking into the mazda Bseries, which i guess is the same as a ranger.

 

[mjoekingz28]

The Prerunner Toyotas from around the millenium look to be fun, good looking and capable offroad.

 

[mjoekingz28]

A 4cyl ranger five speed regular cab could be fun if you want to scoot around town and haul a thing or two.

 

[dareo]

I'm partial to Toyota and often the Tacoma is overpriced. You may be able to find a T100 for the same or less cost. You get a bigger but not giant truck that will flat haul 4x8 sheets in the back. Just make sure you get the 95+ with the 3.4 and not the 3.slow, some even had 4 cylinders. My T100 has been worth every penny times five.