Ford Ranger With 3.0L V6

"Logansteno: Bought a VW?" (logansteno) 01/09/2015 at 00:12 • Filed to: None

2

49

Something that might actually be slower than my Safari.

I found this wonderfully clean !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! Extended Cab with 4-Wheel drive. I even like the green color over what looks to be tan interior.

But, that 150 horsepower, 185 lbs-ft of torque coming from the 3.0L just doesn't sound powerful enough. I dunno, maybe the Ranger is light enough that it's okay.

TheHondaBro > Logansteno: Bought a VW? 01/09/2015 at 00:15

9

I assure you, it's quicker than a Safari.

Jedidiah > Logansteno: Bought a VW? 01/09/2015 at 00:17

1

It's pretty clean, but I prefer my trucks with full-floater dana 60s and monster offroad tires.

Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies > Logansteno: Bought a VW? 01/09/2015 at 00:19

0

They aren't that bad actually, remember that it's not carrying too much weight. My friend had one, it was quick enough.

Zipppy, Mazdurp builder, Probeski owner and former ricerboy > Logansteno: Bought a VW? 01/09/2015 at 00:24

0

had an Escape with 200 HP/200 lbft with a 3.0. Wasn't fast, but it was fairly beefy.

Denver Is Stuck In The 90s > Logansteno: Bought a VW? 01/09/2015 at 00:31

1

Don't get a Vulcan. So many issues

Logansteno: Bought a VW? > Denver Is Stuck In The 90s 01/09/2015 at 00:34

0

My girlfriends Taurus has a Vulcan with the same mileage and it's been dead reliable.

Denver Is Stuck In The 90s > Logansteno: Bought a VW? 01/09/2015 at 00:35

0

But when things go on em. They go expensive.

Logansteno: Bought a VW? > Jedidiah 01/09/2015 at 00:35

1

That's sounds a bit extreme for my commute to and from school and occasionally carry some wood and stuff from Home Depot.

Logansteno: Bought a VW? > Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies 01/09/2015 at 00:36

0

That's what I was thinking. I imagine this is a good bit lighter than my Safari. It's not like I'd be drag racing in it anyway.

Logansteno: Bought a VW? > Denver Is Stuck In The 90s 01/09/2015 at 00:37

1

You mean like nearly anything engine related? I can't imagine it being any worse to maintain than my 4.3 right now.

Denver Is Stuck In The 90s > Logansteno: Bought a VW? 01/09/2015 at 00:41

0

They have a service bullitin on em for the cam synchronizer. It's way in the back under the intake and the part costs $200. And it's unbelievably annoying to replace. And at that mileage the auto trans could go at anytime. And if it's the 4R44E don't get it. You'd get horrendous Mpgs

Logansteno: Bought a VW? > Denver Is Stuck In The 90s 01/09/2015 at 00:45

1

Mate, I drive a car that gets 11 mpg highway and has a transmission famous for failing. None of this shit scares me anymore.

As for the cam synchronizer, I have access to lifts and tools that'll make that job a cakewalk.

Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies > Logansteno: Bought a VW? 01/09/2015 at 00:46

0

It weighs around 3600 lbs, so I'd imagine that's a bit lighter than the Safari. It's enough power to keep up with traffic, not much more, but enough.

Logansteno: Bought a VW? > Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies 01/09/2015 at 00:48

0

Oh yeah, with my special seats and wood trim and stuff, the Safari is almost 1000 lbs heavier, if not more. The engine sounds like it's up to the task then. This just got more tempting..

Jedidiah > Logansteno: Bought a VW? 01/09/2015 at 00:50

0

Check these bad boys out. Full floater 14 bolt rear, dana 60 front, 4.56 gears and detroit lockers

https://greenville.craigslist.org/cto/4808588252…

Denver Is Stuck In The 90s > Logansteno: Bought a VW? 01/09/2015 at 00:50

0

Alrighty then, at least you know what you're getting into. But that price is way too high. I got mine for 2/3 of that and I have way less miles and more documentation. Try to get it for around 3k. In that condition it's worth about 4500

Logansteno: Bought a VW? > Denver Is Stuck In The 90s 01/09/2015 at 00:53

0

Yours is also a RWD '93. 4WD and being a '99, $5,000 is probably about where it should be.

Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies > Logansteno: Bought a VW? 01/09/2015 at 00:54

0

They are good trucks. The only person I know who has killed one, didn't know and couldn't be convinced that fluids needed to be changed regularly. He never saw his dad do it, so it doesn't need to be done(I'm 100% positive his dad got someone else to do it for him, just a hunch).

Denver Is Stuck In The 90s > Logansteno: Bought a VW? 01/09/2015 at 00:55

0

Ah didn't see the 4wd part. Ya 5 seems about right. Still try to get lower for it

Logansteno: Bought a VW? > Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies 01/09/2015 at 00:56

0

My dad has tons of friends with Rangers, all seem to have little to no trouble with them. I had been looking for an S10, but there's so few compared to Rangers locally.

Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies > Logansteno: Bought a VW? 01/09/2015 at 01:04

0

They did make a few more of them, which also means parts are readily available. So you wouldn't be giving up that luxury.

offroadkarter > Logansteno: Bought a VW? 01/09/2015 at 01:38

0

The vulcan is the worst

Cé hé sin > Logansteno: Bought a VW? 01/09/2015 at 04:52

0

Ranger with 2.2 diesel. Probably slower but fine for most users.

DipodomysDeserti > Logansteno: Bought a VW? 01/09/2015 at 06:28

0

I drove one for five years.

1. They are slow as shit

2. Bad mpg's for how slow they are

3. I put 150k miles on mine and it was dead nuts reliable.

jkm7680 > Logansteno: Bought a VW? 01/09/2015 at 07:30

0

It looks to be clean, and in pretty good condition. Check the Carfax, Watch for issues and try to get around $1,000 off the price and that'll be a pretty good deal. I'm not a huge fan of that engine though.

Roundbadge > Logansteno: Bought a VW? 01/09/2015 at 07:39

0

Not quite the same as what you're talking about, but...

I had a coworker who had a V6 4WD Ranger. He sold it and bought a big-ass mid-90's Lincoln Town Car, and immediately RAVED about how much better his gas mileage was afterward.

So, there's that...

Vimto > Logansteno: Bought a VW? 01/09/2015 at 08:02

0

My 2007 Tacoma 2.7L I-4 regular cab (159 hp) wasn't underpowered, but it only had 215-width tires and probably weighed less than an extended cab 4WD V6 Ranger. Was a 5-speed too.

mazda616 > Logansteno: Bought a VW? 01/09/2015 at 08:10

0

That looks nice! I want a Ranger or a Mazda B-Series someday. My wife and I want to buy a small pop-up camper and we will need a truck of some sort to pull it with since the CX-5 can barely pull itself. I'd want a 4.0 for towing, though.

Logansteno: Bought a VW? > Roundbadge 01/09/2015 at 08:14

0

Something tells me the Ranger will still beat the 11 highway I'm getting right now.

Logansteno: Bought a VW? > mazda616 01/09/2015 at 08:15

0

We always towed our Pop-up with the Safari. When we towed with the truck it felt like total overkill. I never expected something that can barely get out of its own way to tow something so well.

Logansteno: Bought a VW? > DipodomysDeserti 01/09/2015 at 08:17

0

As long as it's around as slow as shit as my Safari (0-60 in 13.5), and gets around 11 mpg, I should be okay.

Logansteno: Bought a VW? > jkm7680 01/09/2015 at 08:18

1

I've learned to be okay with the Vulcan in my girlfriends Taurus. It's great at highway cruising because it rides right in the torque of the rev band at 65-70.

Roundbadge > Logansteno: Bought a VW? 01/09/2015 at 08:21

0

I'm not sure whether I'd take that bet or not...

In any case, it looks absolutely beautiful. If it scratches your itch, I'd say go for it!

DipodomysDeserti > Logansteno: Bought a VW? 01/09/2015 at 08:30

1

It's by no means anoyingly slow. It's perfect for hauling shit and getting around. If you crave more power, there is a Whipple supercharger kit available.

Rock Bottom > Logansteno: Bought a VW? 01/09/2015 at 08:31

1

I've driven ALL THE RANGERS at one time or another, including this exact one (well, it's identical twin clone truck). My best friend got this one brand new in 1999 as a graduation gift from his dad. It was a very nice riding and driving truck, but glacially slow. I'm positive a similar vintage 2WD 4 cylinder auto Danger Ranger is faster.

That being said, the 3.0 is a rock-solid engine. It lacks the bizarre German lineage of the 4.0 and the head gaskets won't occasionally shit the bed like that engine either. It doesn't make enough power to hurt itself (or anything else, really) so you won't be wearing the transmission out any time soon.

I say buy it. These late 90s Rangers are great trucks. They ride well, handle well, are generally pretty rattle-free in the interior, and look good. Probably the best trucks for the money, ever.

Rock Bottom > Denver Is Stuck In The 90s 01/09/2015 at 08:39

1

That's not true. They're extremely reliable engines. Then again, what do I know. I've only been driving Vulcans since the mid 90s...

Sincerely, Engineer.

Roundbadge > Vimto 01/09/2015 at 12:04

0

I've pretty much got the same truck except 2005, and the I-4 gets it around just fine. I've even spun the tires once, in a particularly grumpy mood.

Meatcoma > Rock Bottom 01/09/2015 at 13:23

0

the 2.5L 4cyl for 99 was by no means faster. They also are rock solid for only 150k miles then they grenade. I'd go for the 3.0 or the 4.0

Rock Bottom > Meatcoma 01/09/2015 at 13:45

0

That's... interesting if inconsistent with my experience. At one point in the late 90s I had a 1993 or 1994 Ranger work truck with a 2.3 (almost the same as the early 2.5) and a stick with nearly 400,000 miles. Nobody ever treated that truck nice but it ran great. I routinely loaded about 1,200 lbs of 55 gallon drums and bags of cement into the bed for deliveries without any reservations.

And it would run circles around any 3.0 4x4 Ranger I've ever been in (and I've been in a few).

Meatcoma > Rock Bottom 01/09/2015 at 13:48

0

The 2.5 is the same block as the 2.3 but the upper end was built to extract a bit more power out of it. I had a 99 that I finally sold with 240k on it. That was after I put the 3rd motor in it.

efme > Logansteno: Bought a VW? 01/09/2015 at 15:18

0

keep searching. back in october I picked up a 98 ford ranger 4.0L 4x4. has some issues but its almost 100%.

ironically the transmission went 2 1/2 months after I got it. the one I got had a replaced engine and rebuilt transmission within the last 100k.

I have $3200 sunk in it including the $1500 tranny rebuild.

jkm7680 > Logansteno: Bought a VW? 01/09/2015 at 15:47

0

It's just not a very quick truck though, I just don't know how it'll compare to the performance of the Taurus. 4wd in the Ranger would probably be a plus though.

Logansteno: Bought a VW? > jkm7680 01/09/2015 at 15:49

0

According to a few people, it's about as fast as my Safari, which for a truck is perfectly fine for me.

jkm7680 > Logansteno: Bought a VW? 01/09/2015 at 15:53

0

That's about 0-60 in 12 seconds or something like that? It sound like it's probably adequate, But it might get a little bit annoying after while.

Logansteno: Bought a VW? > efme 01/09/2015 at 15:53

0

That's the problem, I want a solid truck that won't need much anything. And I want one with less than 147k, the mileage my current car has. This is the cheapest one that has what all I want and looks good.

Logansteno: Bought a VW? > jkm7680 01/09/2015 at 15:55

0

About that. It's quicker than my Safari, which is perfectly adequate for a heavy ass people hauler.

jkm7680 > Logansteno: Bought a VW? 01/09/2015 at 15:58

0

Yup, The Ranger probably would be a little bit quicker with the 5-Speed though instead of the automatic. But you can't deny a column shifter!

efme > Logansteno: Bought a VW? 01/09/2015 at 16:26

0

well when I got it, it worked 100%. I felt confident in its durability since it had a rebuilt engine 30k ago, rebuilt transmission 80k ago. The odometer had 185k when I purchased. I can't pass it up due to the price disparity of my original price point (around 5k vs 1700)

the transmissions blew up and the original owner was surprised.

Vimto > Roundbadge 01/09/2015 at 19:57

0

I spun the tires when I was learning stick on it. Can confirm.