My hypothetical 2wd 4cyl 5spd Ranger thread

Love the old rangers and miss mine. 94 with 4.0, 5 speed, supercab, 3.55 trac lock diff, handling package, super engine cooling.

Really really miss that truck

[URL=http://s265.photobucket.com/user/derekrichardson/media/Mobile%20Uploads/image-90.jpg.html][/URL]

Lately I have been wanting to combine a regular cab 2wd S10 pickup with the frame from a 4wd 2-door blazer. Keep the 4-cylinder, swap in a Bravada/Astro AWD transfer case, stub up the bed and have a tiny 2-seat snow rig.

I agree on the 3.0L Rangers. Their not a powerhouse by any means, but they are very reliable. My brother has a 97 with the 3.0 that just passed 175k miles and all we've done to it is tune up bits, oil changes, and a leaky water pump.

Ranger50 wrote: Plus the square body died in 93, but the underpinnings stayed all the way until 03.

Wait, the G-body/dirt track stuff fits on the S-10 through 2003? I pretty sure I didn't know that, but it changes my Craigslist searches a bit.

I was much, much happier with the 4.0 4x4 extended cab version I had later but now wouldn't waste my time on 'half a truck' when there are thousands of full size F150s out there that do everything better than the Ranger except take up space.

If your favorite Ranger is the biggest, heaviest one, then yeah, you probably are better off with an f150. As said, the only ones that really appeal to me are the tiny ones.

Hijack: what do you get with the Ranger that you don't get with the old square body S10? On paper the S10 shares all of the g-body/circle track suspension stuff and I can't quite figure out what the Ranger brings to the table that outshines that.

For me it's a lot of little things.. The old square s10s have mostly dried up and the ones you still find are mostly beat. The 2.2 is extremely boring and while the early (hard to find) 4.3s are ok, the later ones are a PITA if you do your own work. The newer trucks also have very junky body/interiors in my opinion. They usually have doors that feel like they are about to fall off, a dent right in the middle of the front of the hood where people have smacked it trying to get the stupid hood to open, seat bottoms that have exposed metal worn through the fabric, and tons of squeaks/rattles in the interior. When they're nice they're nice, but they dont STAY nice.

On the other hand, Ford truck interiors from the mid-90s on are some of the most durable interiors in any trucks in my opinion. You get into a 1997 Ram and if it has ANY dashboard left and the top of the plastic door panels arent crumbling, i'd be surprised. You get into a 1997 f150 or Ranger and not only is the dashboard intact and uncracked but it will probably still be in 10 more years.

Honestly I have never been a fan of the 3.0L V6. Power of a 4cylinder with the fuel economy of a V8

Reliability was never their problem, they would run, just not with authority or efficiency.

and if you are doing a Ranger why not the 2.3/2.5? Those things are very peppy stock and have lots of mod options

Power of a 4 cylinder? You must be referring to something other than a NA Lima motor. Stock for stock the 3.0l will eat the 2.3l and 2.5l for breakfast.

A 2000 2.5l makes 119 HP @ 5000 RPM and 146 lb-ft @ 3000 RPM.
A 2000 3.0l makes 150 HP @ 4750 RPM and 190 lb-ft @ 3650 RPM.

2.3 Duratec in a 2001 Ranger 143 hp @ 5250 rpm & 154 lb·ft @ 3750 rpm. That is very much in striking distance of the 3.0 and much better fuel economy

My CL search is finding me plenty of autos but not many sticks...

In eastern MA: it's one of those things... Now that I've been thinking about this, there a 2wd Ranger about every 10 driveways and two in each parking lot.

From my experience, significantly more than half are manuals. Must be a regional thing.

In reply to ebonyandivory:

God I hope so, what I am seeing is just depressing

I went on CL looking for Rangers and there are a ton of them for cheap

The only thing holding me back from a Ranger is the extended cab vs the double cab. I really want a 4 door little truck. For my duty cycle it will work great. So that caps the ranger out, but if it wasn't for that, it would be my go to.

The newer 2.3 is much more fun to drive than the 3.0.

Even with a 5spd single cab the 3.0 doesnt feel great. As said, its main selling point is reliability and ease of service, but it's very underwhelming as far as power delivery and economy.