BigOxley Posted June 17, 2012 Report Share Posted June 17, 2012 Don't want to spend more than $3000. Looking for a small pickup to make Lowes trips n' stuff. Came down to +2000 Rangers 4 or 6 cylinder 2wd. Nothing fancy. this thing would probably be used a couple of time a month. I found a 2003 regular cab with the V6 and a 178k miles. Anything I should watch out for? Any other makes that would be a better option? thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benner Posted June 17, 2012 Report Share Posted June 17, 2012 I know where an 89 ranger with a 2.3 turbo out of an SVO is with less than 100,000 miles is for cheap. Imo that's still the toughest built ranger they made. Let me know if your interested and ill get you info Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10phone2 Posted June 17, 2012 Report Share Posted June 17, 2012 Those 2.3 turbo's are no joke. I'm pretty sure one mid 10's in a pinto with a stock block from a junkyard and 30+ psi. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigOxley Posted June 17, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 17, 2012 I know where an 89 ranger with a 2.3 turbo out of an SVO is with less than 100,000 miles is for cheap. Imo that's still the toughest built ranger they made. Let me know if your interested and ill get you info how's the body? i'm wanting something solid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spankis Posted June 17, 2012 Report Share Posted June 17, 2012 I have one for sale that's obviously too new for you. That said, the trucks have been mechanically identical suspension wise since 1998. The 2wd trucks have coil spring front, whereas 4wd and Sport/Edge model 2wd trucks have torsion bar front suspension. The 4.0L V6 has been around forever, and they first started using the Duratec 2.3 4-cylinder (DOHC - truck-specific version of the 2.3 w/o variable timing + forged crank) in 2001. The 3.0 "vulcan" V6 was offered in the middle there somewhere, and it's a decent motor, but doesn't make much power and is basically a car engine they decided to put in the ranger. If I you're not going to tow/haul more than 1000-2000 lbs, I'd look for a 4-cylinder truck 2001+. If you're planning on doing much heavier work, I'd look for a V6 truck, specifically the 4.0L. The 3.0 V6 has basically no more power than the 01+ 4 cylinders, but just gets worse mileage. Also, if there is something you like/dislike more from year to year on the trucks, they haven't really changed the body/interior very often. Parts interchange from year to year like legos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Apex Posted June 17, 2012 Report Share Posted June 17, 2012 ^Avoid the 3.0, abysmal fuel economy even for a Ranger and it can't get out of it's own way. Of course IMO you should avoid a Ranger entirely, but that's me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SRTurbo04 Posted June 17, 2012 Report Share Posted June 17, 2012 ^Avoid the 3.0, abysmal fuel economy even for a Ranger and it can't get out of it's own way. Of course IMO you should avoid a Ranger entirely, but that's me. i disagree ive had a few rangers and love them. Its no full size truck by anymeans. but ive had a s10 and rangers and hands down ranger anyhow. great mpg reliable as hell, metric ton of parts availble, lots of aftermarket support if you wanna play. personally get a 4cyl 5 speed and your good to go Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigOxley Posted June 17, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 17, 2012 Sounds good guys. I think the one I found online is a 4.0. There is another around corner from me, probably a 4 cyl., for $2200. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1badeagle Posted June 18, 2012 Report Share Posted June 18, 2012 I had a 98 2.3 5 speed 2wd and it was sooooo slow. It was a good truck though. My dad had a 95 3.0 v6 5 speed 2wd and it was by far the worst truck ive driven. I liked the 2.3 better. I also had a sport trac with the 4.0 and it was a tank. Id much rather have all the extra power and 2 less mpg. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1badeagle Posted June 18, 2012 Report Share Posted June 18, 2012 I forgot to add I sold the sport trac with 238k miles on the stock motor/trans only oil changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EssFo Posted June 18, 2012 Report Share Posted June 18, 2012 I've heard bad things about the OHC V6's. I just sold my 94 4.0 (OHV) and loved it. Good little trucks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.