Learn me 2001 Ford Ranger 3.0

Well, stroke of luck, I picked up a 2001 Ranger xlt 3.0 v6 with 189k miles for 300 bones. They claimed the transmission was leaking. I had helped them replace the radiator after jr had crashed it not too long ago. Today I hooked a battery up and dove it home. No leaks that I can find yet, seems to run pretty darn well. It needs some steering parts thrown at it, shocks, and tires. Abs light is on and I haven't investigated that yet.

Anything else to worry about? I've read about and ordered a new cam synchronizer out of an abundance of caution. I've also read they have some coolant leak issues, but I'm not seeing any signs right now of that. Anything else to know? I'm happy to have a little beater truck again, I miss having one. 

Oh, last thing: any tips for reviving a recent but flat battery? It's from 2018, but was left to sit. I threw it on the trickle charger to see if I can revive it, I remember a thread about reviving batteries, but can't find it.

What you have there is a $300 anvil. If neglected, the rest of the truck will fall apart around the engine, and the 3.0 will go on indefinitely. Slowly, but forever...

My truck shaped appliance is an '04 with a 3.0/5spd. I was specifically shopping a 3.0 because I tow a bit, but also scared of 4.0 timing chains with unknown provenance. This is my eighth Ranger.

If it is a manual trans, check the three shift rail plugs near the top of the trans for leaks. The commonly discussed coolant leaks typically come from the timing cover area. Take care of the deferred maintenance already mentioned, and enjoy.

Can't help much with what to look for- the time frame is way outside of normal...

But we had one of those back in the day, and it was a nice truck- towed our race car down to Florida once (the next year, we got a new lease but for a 4.0l).  Wasn't the fastest thing in the fastest thing in the world, but got the job done.

Other than adding a better trans cooler, one thing I would look into are air shocks for the rear.  After seeing a few of the originals collapse, I got a set.  And it made carrying or towing stuff a whole lot more comfortable, keeping the truck level.  If that's a 4 door, man that was addicting to get.

Now that I think about it- where are you?  I still have the shocks, and if you are willing to pay shipping, I'll send them to you.  They are kind of rusty, but they still work.

note to self:  trucks have rocker panels and cab corners in some parts of the world.  

gumby said:

What you have there is a $300 anvil. If neglected, the rest of the truck will fall apart around the engine, and the 3.0 will go on indefinitely. Slowly, but forever...

This. As long as it's got oil in it, and the cam synchro isn't chirping, you're golden. Don't waste your time/money on anything other than a Motorcraft cam synchro.

If it isn't leaking there is no fluid in the trans.

Rangers can run forever. 

Unfortunately  Ford discontinued some critical emissions control parts and if youlive  somewhere that a Check Engine Light will get you denied an inspection sticker you are done.   Its the reason I finally sold my 4.0 liter '97 Ranger to someone who didn't care about that.  I got $300 for it. 

great score. I really want a small truck. I'm leaning s10 but I don't rule out the danger ranger.

The 3.0 Vulcan is the cockroach of Ford motors.

Definitely underpowered, will run and last on crap gas, and will outlive whatever body/chassis/transmission they are put in.

In reply to alfadriver (Forum Supporter) :

Pm'd you on this very kind offer! Trying to keep this cheap truck as budget as possible, part of the fun!

In reply to Ranger50 :

All I can remember from selling those is that if a customer was aggressive in dealing he could get a full sized pickup for the same price as the Ranger and get slightly better fuel mileage as a result. 
The Ranger was Fords red headed step child built in Minnesota.  
The plant was always profitable for Ford yet they never upgraded it or modernized it and the union took complete control over getting rid of deadwood or underperforming workers for management.  

I've had 3 of these, an 04', 02' and a 95', all with the 3.0 Vulcan.  You can't go too terribly wrong on these trucks, cheap parts and easy to fix.

frenchyd said:

In reply to Ranger50 :

All I can remember from selling those is that if a customer was aggressive in dealing he could get a full sized pickup for the same price as the Ranger and get slightly better fuel mileage as a result. 
 

That doesn't surprise me at all. Back in 2011 I got a job as a field service tech for a CNC equipment company. They gave the field guys fleet level Rangers that were dealer sourced and as bare bones as possible (4 cylinder/auto/RWD/short bed and preferably white) as a company vehicle. I was lucky enough to get a brand new 2011, and I think power windows was the only option it had. I was blown away when I saw the window sticker showing a price north of $25k....

That must've been one of the reasons why the older field guys lamented the company not simply going with base model F150's instead. I actually though a Transit van would've been a better choice. However when I brought it up during a meeting where the Ranger ending production was brought up, I was told the van would be much more attractive to theives..... You know as opposed to a pickup truck with a tool box cap with no side windows and an untinted glass hatch above the tailgate that an adult of average strength could simply rip open if they saw something they wanted bad enough. I didn't stick around long enough to find out, but I'm pretty sure they ended up disappointing those older guys and went to Colorado's and Canyon's.

IIRC, wasn't its positive effect as a light truck on their CAFE average one of the major factors in Ford keeping the Ranger around for as long as they did? 

In reply to shelbyz :

No most Rangers were built as V6 automatics and that combination was worse fuel mileage  in Rangers  than in  the full size  pickups. 
The only real justification  Ford, Dodge,  and GM  really had for selling smaller pickups was  they wanted to keep Toyota and Nissan's  total market share down.   By the 1980's car sales profits were on the decline 

At least according to a neighbor in Ford's Sr  plant management.  
Minnesota was the only plant required to demonstrate a 2 year payback on any capitol investment. I sold material handling equipment including automated.  A presentation I had that achieved a 3 year payback. Wasn't even given an audience beyond purchase department. 

My buddy had a 2wd single cab all through college. Don't think it ever let him down. We spent lots of time carting our mountain bikes around orange county to go ride. 

I bought my step son a 89 Ranger ($285)  it had a slipping trans, so we replaced it, and about a month later..slipping trans..he still drove it for 2-3 years like that.

frenchyd said:

In reply to Ranger50 :

All I can remember from selling those is that if a customer was aggressive in dealing he could get a full sized pickup for the same price as the Ranger and get slightly better fuel mileage as a result. 
 

What year was this? I am generally suspect of EPA numbers vs. real world numbers of a larger vehicle vs. a smaller one since larger ones are the most likely to have a big discrepancy between their EPA numbers and real world. It is very, very difficult to add weight, tire and wheel size, horsepower and drag area without affecting real-world MPG at least during similar years of vehicles. The car companies have gotten very good at making vehicles do well on during EPA test conditions (without resorting to Dieselgate shenanigans). I like to compare these claims using fuelly.com for mass produced vehicles.

In reply to GCrites80s :

That's the problem. The Ranger turned into the red headed step child at Ford and they neglected and neglected it. 
While the F150 was their cash cow  and what they could keep selling at a great profit. That got all the engineering. Competing against GM and Ford when fuel mileage was critical to sales success. 

Real world my big V8 4x4 gets 22 going to and from work and 24 on the highway.  I only lose 2mpg when I switch to E85. Mine  isn't even the best. In fact it's real close to the worst. That powerful turbocharged one is.   I think I have a little more towing power because mine has the trailer towing package. But just a tiny bit more towing power than the Turbo one.  ( I'm not even 100% sure of that. ) those big trucks get really great fuel mileage. ( and the EPA numbers now days tend to be slightly less than a careful driver can actually get. ) 

Oh and Chevy is a smidge ahead,  last  I checked. 
Want engineering?   Look at the tailgate on F150 pickups.  Your eyes can't see all the technology in a simple tail gate. But that is part of the reason 

Common  sense tells you a smooth cover will get better fuel mileage. Or tailgate down at least on an open bed. 
You'd be wrong. Myth busters tested it both ways.  Not once but twice. Real scientific back to back 2 identical trucks and then switched configurations.  
Myth busters hated doing it because it was massively boring and they couldn't blow anything up.  But they tested 2 trucks on 2 completely separate occasions. 
 

Let's say it's 1997-2008. The Ranger is equipped with the 3.0 and since this is America, we're going to assume that most of these are automatics. The F-150 is equipped with the 4.2 V6 and we have both 10th and 11th gen F-150s to choose from and we again assuming most are automatics. They are standard cab.

Here is the Ranger:

http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/ranger?engineconfig_id=12&bodytype_id=10&submodel_id=

And the F-150

http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/f-150?engineconfig_id=111&bodytype_id=10&submodel_id=

While the modal MPG of the Ranger is bimodal at 17-18 MPG, the share of trucks getting 19-22 is far higher than the F-150. The mode of the F-150 is 17, but the share of ones getting 18 is far lower than the Ranger. MPGs higher than 18 are nearly non-existant for the big truck. Then people are tempeted to say, "well, a V-6 has to work too hard in a big truck and spins a lot of RPM" So we switch to the 4.6 V8 and get this:

http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/f-150?engineconfig_id=60&bodytype_id=10&submodel_id=

Modal MPG is 14 with many getting 13 and a steep dropoff after 16. If we switch to extended cab in order to get a higher number of observations, modal MPG actually increases to 15, but the dropoff after 15 is much worse.

http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/f-150?engineconfig_id=60&bodytype_id=11&submodel_id=

Are the regular cabs more likely to be longbed and/or 4x4? We don't have that information in the charts. With the early trucks are there some stepsides in there that presumably get worse highway MPG? Dunno that either. This goes for Rangers too.

In reply to GCrites80s :

I'm getting 22 going to and from work. ( luckily not during rush hour typically)  24 on the highway in my 1/2 T 4x4 V8  2015 pickup.  I'm just over 50,000 now 

My 1997 Chevy 4x4 350 V8  averaged 17 to and from work with 19 on the highway. 

In reply to GCrites80s :

Regardless of what frenchy got in the real world, the Rangers did exist as a mileage offset to the F150, Explorer, Expedition, and Excursion.  Anything under 8500lb was offset by the Ranger via the cycle fuel economy.  It was a "good enough" vehicle that's only job was allow for far more proftiable trucks.  That's why it was essentially given away for many years- every time we got one, they were super cheap.

More importantly, if you find one in the condition accordian got, get it, especially for the price.  They are very good "good enough" trucks.  it's amazing that one can get one THAT clean, at a price that is normally reserved for rusty POS trucks.  I'd seriously consider getting one.

Ha! A lively discussion on the merits of the tiny Ford. Viva la cucaracha truck!

Now let's ask the next logical question, how does that boat anchor like boost....?

Thanks for all the advice so far folks!

AngryCorvair (Forum Supporter) said:

note to self:  trucks have rocker panels and cab corners in some parts of the world.  

The only way a 2003 isn't rotted out is if it's still, in reality, 2003

accordionfolder said:

Now let's ask the next logical question, how does that boat anchor like boost....?

They tolerate boost just fine, but don't expect a rocket ship. The lower intake is rough and tight. There's no valve lift to speak of. A custom cam, or aftermarket roller rockers with higher ratio can help. But, The valve springs aren't up for much more than lazy stock stuff, so if you're adding a bunch of lift and/or rpms an upgrade is recommended.

There was a Ford Racing/Whipple supercharger for the 3.0 Rangers. It ran 8-10 psi depending on the pulley and included a warranty, so there should be no concerns about the bottom end in that range. I've heard of stock bottom ends being ok at 18-20psi before stretching rod bolts. Most of the dyno's that I've seen for a 3.0/Whipple (in the dawn of the Internet, and lost in the sands of time) have been in the 210-220 whp ballpark without other mods. Totally bolt on in a couple of hours with no changes but a tune.

A long time ago there was a video of a Probe dyno run with twin turbos pushing something like 25 psi. I think he was around 330whp. That's the highest HP total that I recall, but there just aren't a ton of people boosting them or testing limits on the 3.0. Or if they're out there, they don't talk about their poor choices very much.