What cheap truck?

Ranger50 wrote:

Secretariata wrote:

Ranger50 wrote: The Ranger just suffered from being anemic with EVERY powerplant Ford put up front.

The SOHC 4.0 v-6 wasn't quite anemic

I can say, I have never seen this unicorn. Maybe in an Explorer, but never a Ranger.

Every one I've seen was an automatic 4x4 extended cab.

I don't think the SOHC ever made it into the B4000.

It's a great engine to drive, but best treated as a throwaway item if problems develop. You're supposed to unbolt the main caps before loosening the head bolts, that's how floppy the block is supposed to be.

In reply to donalson:

Yeah something like that may be the answer for now and then buy a truck later. If I can find one...

Ranger50 wrote:

moparman76_69 wrote: And I will be fabbing/adapting other stuff to work on my Dakota.

Just like the article I found in an old Mopar Action mag, circa 1997? I should scan it in and post it up, but it was mostly take the suspension apart, install poly bushings and reassemble.

Mopar Action Oct 97 - Dakota Handling

Scanned in that article. I am such a packrat.

Do any of the full size pickups with gas engines get anywhere close to the MPG that the 2.3 and 2.0 Ranger's got? I've heard some folks have achieved 28mpg highway in those little four cylinder Rangers with a manual.

If I'm gonna get 18mpg I might as well just get a full size van.

PHeller wrote: Do any of the full size pickups with gas engines get anywhere close to the MPG that the 2.3 and 2.0 Ranger's got? I've heard some folks have achieved 28mpg highway in those little four cylinder Rangers with a manual.

Why not get a diesel?

Maintenance costs.

It's my understanding that unless your driving the vehicle lots of miles, a gas engine will cost less just with cheaper gas, cheaper oil changes, cheaper parts, etc. Not only that, but the diesel often have a higher purchase price.

I'd love to find a D250 diesel though.

93EXCivic wrote:

PHeller wrote: Do any of the full size pickups with gas engines get anywhere close to the MPG that the 2.3 and 2.0 Ranger's got? I've heard some folks have achieved 28mpg highway in those little four cylinder Rangers with a manual.

Why not get a diesel?

A diesel what?

PHeller wrote: Do any of the full size pickups with gas engines get anywhere close to the MPG that the 2.3 and 2.0 Ranger's got? I've heard some folks have achieved 28mpg highway in those little four cylinder Rangers with a manual. If I'm gonna get 18mpg I might as well just get a full size van.

Nope. Weight + barn side aerodynamics kill your mileage. Also, I found out having an open bed classifies your ride as a commercial vehicle in California. Research carefully.

In reply to PHeller:

It is a wash, when you have a higher buy-in with the diesel, but longer service life compared to a gasser. I have maybe $2000 in 10 years of engine related maintenance in my PowerStroke.

Ranger50 wrote:

93EXCivic wrote:

PHeller wrote: Do any of the full size pickups with gas engines get anywhere close to the MPG that the 2.3 and 2.0 Ranger's got? I've heard some folks have achieved 28mpg highway in those little four cylinder Rangers with a manual.

Why not get a diesel?

A diesel what?

Full size diesel truck?

JK949 wrote: Also, I found out having an open bed classifies your ride as a commercial vehicle in California. Research carefully.

Source please? I bet there is a weight limit on this too that you are missing.

PHeller wrote: I've heard some folks have achieved 28mpg highway in those little four cylinder Rangers with a manual.

My brother's 2007 long bed, regular cab, 4cyl/auto 2wd Ranger with low gear rear-end knocks down 26-27MPG on the highway.

My 2010 short bed, regular cab, 3.0 6cyl/manual 2wd Ranger with 4.10 gear rear-end knocks down 22-24MPG on the highway.

Ranger50 wrote: I can say, I have never seen this unicorn. Maybe in an Explorer, but never a Ranger. Plus have you ever worked on one of them? UGH doesn't even begin to explain the horror.

I had a '92 Ranger 2wd XLT longbed with the 4.0. It was an autotragic, but it also is the only autotragic that I kept for more than 1 year. IIRC the manuals weren't rated for the torque output of the motor or were just barely and had a high failure rate. I bought it for cheap with 50k miles and sold it 7 years later with 150k for 60% of what I originally paid for it. Kinda wish I hadn't gotten rid of it, but I couldn't afford multiple vehicles at that time and was concerned about future reliability.

Biggest pain about working on it was the crazy random mix of fasteners. Some were inches, some metric (including weird sizes like 16mm that don't come in most wrench or socket sets), some torx, and IIRC some were those 12 point torx looking bolts. I think I still have the weird wrench set to remove the fan clutch hiding in the garage.

PHeller wrote: Do any of the full size pickups with gas engines get anywhere close to the MPG that the 2.3 and 2.0 Ranger's got? I've heard some folks have achieved 28mpg highway in those little four cylinder Rangers with a manual. If I'm gonna get 18mpg I might as well just get a full size van.

My 2wd '92 Ranger with the 4.0 & auto got about 19 in mixed driving and 24 on the highway. I had a soft tonneau cover over the bed.

The '00 2wd extended cab Ranger with the 3.0 & manual tranny I had got about the same fuel mileage, but with much less gusto when you stepped on it. The cab was much more practical, but the lack of oomph was a let down coming from the 4.0.

Well, technically there are drop springs and spindles for the front and hangers for the rear, but they are quite a bit more expensive than S10 stuff. Add in the fact that they have an integrated hub/rotor and E36 M3 gets expensive fast.

Wait... how does the fact that the hub is in the rotor affect anything? Do you mean the spindle needing to have a stub axle versus a hole for a bolt-in bearing?

Lowering a dakota is NOT hard or expensive.. drop spindles and blocks.. I would say if you think dakota drop spindles are expensive you are just used to unusually cheap parts. hehe

Vigo wrote: Wait... how does the fact that the hub is in the rotor affect anything? Do you mean the spindle needing to have a stub axle versus a hole for a bolt-in bearing? Lowering a dakota is NOT hard or expensive.. drop spindles and blocks.. I would say if you think dakota drop spindles are expensive you are just used to unusually cheap parts. hehe

Brake parts are more expensive, no 20 dollar rotors like the S10. It doesn't affect the lowering process.

And yes I am used to unusually cheap parts, I deal with turbo dodges. Lowering a caravan is cheap and easy.

In reply to moparman76_69:

Since when are $35/each rotors, for either Dakota's or S10's, expensive? Yes, they are within a few dollars of each other and the Dakota rotor is even .8" larger.

Try $61 a piece. Guess I can get them cheaper at Rock Auto, but locally its 61 bucks. Truck is an 88 with factory 14" wheels.

I only paid $40, maybe $45, each for the ones on my 95 from NAPA. Even using online pricing, they are $51.99/each.

Maybe the 6 lugs are cheaper since they used them across more years, and only the oldest ones use 5, or something like that.

REPU

In reply to mguar:

Quit drinking your self serving kool-aid and read the man's post. Clearly, he wants mid 20's and UP in MPG's. you will NEVER get a fullsize over 22-ish MPG, including the overmarketed Ecoboost that can't even get 20 rolling downhill with a 30mph tailwind for 40 miles in neutral.

Transmissions... If the manufacturers would throw some cash in R&D, equal to the slushboxes, manuals would still hold an advantage.

Also, to exclude other players in this segment, just proves your narrow mindedness to make your skewed point, which amounts to being worthless.

Have a nice day!

Ranger50 wrote: you will NEVER get a fullsize over 22-ish MPG,

I managed to squeeze 24 mpg out of my Cummins for one tank, but it was painful to do. Slow too - never getting above 60 mph on the hwy. Normally I get in the upper teens.

In reply to Ian F:

Diesel is cheating. I was talking gassers, especially those in the "half-ton" segment.