Why isn't the Ford Ranger a popular expedition vehicle?

DaJudge

Explorer
I have owned 4 Rangers in the past. They were excellent trucks. Never let me down. My last one was an '01 4x4 with the 4.0 and it got 21-22 on the hwy and usually around 17 in town. Much better than my Cherokee. I often regret getting rid of it and have been thinking about selling the Cherokee and buying another Ranger and putting a Flip-Pac on it.
 

Jeff@QuadShop

Explorer
I don't have any numbers but I think I see more Rangers on the road than any other small pickup

I agree, they are are tons around here. There is a delivery company here called Zip Express. They have a fleet of 4 cyl Rangers many with 300-500k miles on the origional motors.
 

3Deserts

Observer
My 1990 Ranger with the manual transmission has given more than I've ever had a right to ask of it, and it's pretty much never failed. It's ratty, sees more use as a work truck, is RWD, and lightly built more in a desert pre-runner style (with 33" tires, regeared LSD in the rear, Camburg front arms, Swayaways, Bilsteins and Deavers, and glass front fenders), but when my Jeep has been down, it's done well.

5554495037_727f4e196b.jpg


That's coming out of Saline Valley less than two months ago, on a road that's rough even without snow. I was followed by a guy in a 4WD Tacoma, and once we got back to the pavement an hour and a half later, he told me that as far as he could tell, I never put a wheel wrong the whole way; never lost traction, never slid, never skidded. Don't know how I did it that well, but it was an old beat up 2WD Ranger with a 2.9L V6 that did it.

I should also note that there is no lack of aftermarket support for Rangers. It's just that a lot of those companies may not be as familiar to the typical Expo or crawler type driver. Pretty much the sky is the limit with Rangers, from six figure multi link race trucks, down to a simple gear swap. Camburg is one of the better known ones; there are many more. I'm kind of removed from that world so I don't remember who's doing what, but the stuff is out there, and a lot of it is extremely high quality, with Baja racing pedigrees.

As for MPG? Ermmm...I'm SOL on that count!
 

milowag

New member
I had an '86 Ranger 4X4 with the 2.9 L and manual as my only farm truck from new til 1999. I got about 22mpg here in the mountains, and 27 on the interstate. I sold it with 176000 miles on it, and wish I hadn't - the guy who bought it still runs it.

The '99 model I replaced it with was terrible in comparison--only 14-15 mpg, weaker metal, etc. I figured if the milage was going to be that bad, I may as well go full sized, so I traded it.

But I loved the first one.
 
S

Squatchout

Guest
I bought a Ranger as my 1st new Vehicle in the mid to late '80s. It was one of the rare 4cyl turbo diesels. Very powerful and 30-36 mog on the highway. Great drivetrain but it was like a cartoon truck with the body and interior. I drove down the street and parts fell off. Yes it was that bad. The warranty work and and dealer attitude was so bad I've not owned a Ford since. Don't intend to again. I knew a few other folks that had similar experiences with them back then. We used to joke. Have you driven a Ford lately? No mine's in the shop again/still. I have a friend with a newer one now. They are a Ford fanatic but constantly complain about the mileage. They claim their f250 7.3 diesel gets better mileage than the Ranger. Shame it seems like a nice platform.
 

winkosmosis

Explorer
Too bad about the 4x4 only being available with the gas hog V6 engines after 1994.

I'd love a 4x4 2.3L manual Ranger that gets 25mpg.
 

Gaidheal

Observer
Our two vehicles are a Mazda B4000 4x4 (Ford Ranger with slightly different body) and a Jeep Wrangler Unlimited that's lifted, on 35's, has a roof rack and an 8-foot (!) rack on it that is adorned with shovel, antenna, 30 pounds of mud, a 12k winch up front, etc etc.

When we travel we take the Jeep just to save money on gas. :xxrotflma
 

keezer37

Explorer
It's too bad they are discontinuing it. In that other small trucks morphed into midsize ones and there being little downside to gas prices, I think Ford is wrong for passing on what is now a niche market, a true small truck. I'd update the power plants and leave the size as is.

A good inexpensive truck your not afraid to abuse or let a teenager drive.
 
S

Squatchout

Guest
I don't get it myself. The small trucks keep growing as the fuel prices jump through the roof. Now all the domestics are discontinuing their supposed mini trucks because they have grown so much they are the same size and price as a fullsize 1/2 ton almost. Same mileage too. While on every forum I'm on people are screaming for a true mini truck. Especially a diesel one. It's crazy $4 a gal gas and the new Taco is about the same size as the 1st gen Tundra! A good new small mini with decent mileage would get me to buy new again.
 

3Deserts

Observer
It's crazy $4 a gal gas and the new Taco is about the same size as the 1st gen Tundra!

Ain't it the truth. Tacos have just gotten massive. I've actually been thinking about replacing my Ranger with an early Tundra--I'd like to have a little better payload capacity--and see little point in a later Taco when the early Tundras with a manual tranny and V6 are practically the same with better payload specs. Plus I like the extended cab configuration with the suicide doors; it would be great to have if I need to use the truck but want to bring my young son along.

Interestingly, I've been noticing more and more old Comanches around lately. Maybe there are enough sharp would-be ute owners around that see the value in keeping a genuinely small truck running.
 

Mamontof

Explorer
. I really think it's just the Ford name - they just aren't as strong in the small truck market. .

Maybe it not about a Brand as more hay well maintained :ylsmoke:.....my FORD Explorer 1996 send to junk in 360 000 ....could run longer only no reason

repair afther car accident !
 
Last edited:

Caduceus

Adventurer
I dunno. The few I've seen/been in weren't all that comfortable - the seating, not the legroom. Maybe they're too economy?

In my area, Tacomas and F150s are king. not many Rangers. Suprisingly, I see a lot here in Kandahar, along with the Hilux. They seem to do just fine.
 

Nonimouse

Cynical old bastard
Third world troop carriers

Amazing how in the US they are 1/2 ton trucks, here they are 1 tonne trucks and in the middle east and Hindu Kush there is no weight limit - just throw on a DShK and 5 thousand rounds and drive off
 

Quill

Adventurer
I dunno. The few I've seen/been in weren't all that comfortable - the seating, not the legroom. Maybe they're too economy?

In my area, Tacomas and F150s are king. not many Rangers. Suprisingly, I see a lot here in Kandahar, along with the Hilux. They seem to do just fine.

My 99 XLT is the most comfortable one I have had, well next to the 87 that I put Thunderbird seats in. I know Toyota makes a good truck but it is somewhat fad driven. The Ranger may not be the best but is a good usable rig for it's class. I've consistently had good results for mileage with the manual gear box.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
187,988
Messages
2,900,684
Members
229,233
Latest member
cwhit5

Members online

Top