Ford Ranger Forum - Forums for Ford Ranger enthusiasts!

Go Back   Ford Ranger Forum - Forums for Ford Ranger enthusiasts! > >
Forgot Password? Join Us!

Welcome to Ford Ranger Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread

  #1  
Old 07-14-2011, 11:31 AM
JmmyHoffa JmmyHoffa is offline
Learning to use the forums
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 5
Default 2001+ Rangers

Hi, Im new to the forum & while i dont own a Ranger yet i plan too soon. Ive been looking at a 2001+ models preferably automatic.

I currently own a 98 S10 with a 2.2l 5 speed & previously owned a 99 Sonoma (same as S10) 2.2l 5spd. The sonoma I had to put 2 transmission in under 145k miles of use, then shortly after that the engine started knocking & low oil pressure readings.... My current S10 has 172k miles only had it for 20k miles dont know what previous problems it had, but current problems are broken driver side motor mount for the 2nd time, exhaust leak at the header (loud) uv joints going out again.

Ive come to the conclusion that the S10 is junk & im in need of reliable transportation.

So I have a few Q's maybe yall can help me with... Im looking for an automatic Im getting tired of replacing the clutch'es $800 a pop.

So are the 4 cyl. reliable on the 2001+ models ? How about the auto trannies coupled with the 4cyl. ? How many miles can i expect out of these trucks with good maintanance ?

How about the 3.0 v6 ? I already know to steer clear of the 4.0 v6's due to their timing belt tensioner & bad gas mileage. How about the auto tranny with the 3.0 v6 ?

Are there any known issues with the 2001+ models that need attention right away ? All info appreciated
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-14-2011, 11:39 AM
jacobxstanley jacobxstanley is offline
It's so cold in the D
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,080
Default Re: 2001+ Rangers

Quote:
Originally Posted by JmmyHoffa View Post
Hi, Im new to the forum & while i dont own a Ranger yet i plan too soon. Ive been looking at a 2001+ models preferably automatic.

I currently own a 98 S10 with a 2.2l 5 speed & previously owned a 99 Sonoma (same as S10) 2.2l 5spd. The sonoma I had to put 2 transmission in under 145k miles of use, then shortly after that the engine started knocking & low oil pressure readings.... My current S10 has 172k miles only had it for 20k miles dont know what previous problems it had, but current problems are broken driver side motor mount for the 2nd time, exhaust leak at the header (loud) uv joints going out again.

Ive come to the conclusion that the S10 is junk & im in need of reliable transportation.

So I have a few Q's maybe yall can help me with... Im looking for an automatic Im getting tired of replacing the clutch'es $800 a pop.

So are the 4 cyl. reliable on the 2001+ models ? How about the auto trannies coupled with the 4cyl. ? How many miles can i expect out of these trucks with good maintanance ?

How about the 3.0 v6 ? I already know to steer clear of the 4.0 v6's due to their timing belt tensioner & bad gas mileage. How about the auto tranny with the 3.0 v6 ?

Are there any known issues with the 2001+ models that need attention right away ? All info appreciated
the 4.0 is better than the 3.0, everyone who has a 4.0 loves it. Lots of people say the 3.0 has sucky gas mileage and power, when the 4.0 doesnt get much worse mpgs and has a lot of power in comparision
__________________
1992 Ranger XLT
2.3L 2wd 5spd
91 Mustang rear end, 373 L/S.
Quote:
Originally Posted by esrevnoc View Post
I'm trying to join Ranger Power Sports forum and they ask "What color is blue?" Anyone know how the heck to answer this question? Probably something silly but I'll be darned if I can figure it out.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-14-2011, 11:41 AM
Rango88 Rango88 is offline
N/A
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 9,031
Default Re: 2001+ Rangers

Out of the option of the 2 engines (4 cyl and the 3L) id take the 2.3L 4 cyl that came out in 2003, it has the same performance as the 3L and a lot better fuel economy, there are a lot of good automatic models and they are reliable engines from what i hear. I do love my 4L though
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-14-2011, 11:47 AM
GeorgiaRanger GeorgiaRanger is offline
Bronco!
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,188
Default Re: 2001+ Rangers

What Jacob said. The 4.0 has a ton more power then the 3.0 and it just gets a little less mpg. Every truck has their own problems and you can't get a perfect truck thats not going to have a problem or two. The ranger engines can last 200k+ with proper maintenance. If you want really good mpg and dont care for power you can always get 2.3l or 2.5(cant remember what it is).
__________________
Bronco in the near future!

2002 Gold Ranger (46k miles) : Totaled May 2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by chaddwalters View Post
Lmao like a good neighbor, FRF is there!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-14-2011, 11:54 AM
sgtsandman sgtsandman is offline
Tank Diver
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,078
Default Re: 2001+ Rangers

I would either go with the 2.3L that is out now or the 4.0L SOHC. Obviously, the four cylinder will get better gas mileage but will be on the weak side. I'm getting about 18.5 average on the 4.0, which isn't bad and the power is much better.

The four cilinder is rated to get about 27 mpg, plus or minus. I've been told by some they see that on their 2.5L engines (less horsepower than the 2.3L) but the best I've seen is a little over 24 mpg with an average of about 22.6 mpg.

Pick which poison you prefer, low power or low gas mileage.
__________________
Sgtsandman's Work in Progress
2011 Ranger XLT, 4X4, 4 door Super Cab. 4.0L, 5 Speed M50D-R1HD, 3.73:1, 8.8" open differential, Jason Pace cap
1999 Honda CR-V EX, RT4WD, 2.0L, 5 Speed MT, 4.56:1, open differential
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-14-2011, 12:40 PM
EMB1230 EMB1230 is offline
On my 3rd Ranger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,398
Send a message via AIM to EMB1230 Send a message via Yahoo to EMB1230 Send a message via Skype™ to EMB1230
Default Re: 2001+ Rangers

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rango88 View Post
Out of the option of the 2 engines (4 cyl and the 3L) id take the 2.3L 4 cyl that came out in 2003, it has the same performance as the 3L and a lot better fuel economy, there are a lot of good automatic models and they are reliable engines from what i hear. I do love my 4L though
Actually, the Duratec 2.3 was first used in the LATE 2001 models, the EARLY 2001 models used the OHC/Lima 2.5

But back to what the OP's original question, get a 2.5/2.3 if you want economy, get the 4.0 if you want power, get the 3.0 if you don't care about neither power nor economy but want something that is EASY to work on! BTW, by '03 the timing chain tensioner guide on the 4.0's was resolved. And oddly, the automatic trans is the strong of the 2 in theses trucks.
__________________
1987 2.3/TK5, 125K.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-14-2011, 01:09 PM
Rango88 Rango88 is offline
N/A
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 9,031
Default Re: 2001+ Rangers

Quote:
Originally Posted by EMB1230 View Post
Actually, the Duratec 2.3 was first used in the LATE 2001 models, the EARLY 2001 models used the OHC/Lima 2.5

But back to what the OP's original question, get a 2.5/2.3 if you want economy, get the 4.0 if you want power, get the 3.0 if you don't care about neither power nor economy but want something that is EASY to work on! BTW, by '03 the timing chain tensioner guide on the 4.0's was resolved. And oddly, the automatic trans is the strong of the 2 in theses trucks.
Thanks for clarifying the years, I had somewhere that there was a gap of a year between the 2.5L and the new 2.3l
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-14-2011, 01:18 PM
JmmyHoffa JmmyHoffa is offline
Learning to use the forums
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 5
Default Re: 2001+ Rangers

Thanks guys the s10 forum sucks alot of people & info but a bunch of childish posts & rude people

I think ill stick with the 4 cyl unless i come across a 6cyl deal that i cant pass up, i see alot of 3.0's & very few 4.0's.

gas mileage is kindof a concern, i dont drive too much but i still dont want to pay at the pump, I dont tow anything & i dont carry anything in the bed that weights over a few hundred pounds usually, (something i cant do with a car)
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-14-2011, 01:19 PM
Rango88 Rango88 is offline
N/A
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 9,031
Default Re: 2001+ Rangers

Quote:
Originally Posted by JmmyHoffa View Post
Thanks guys the s10 forum sucks alot of people & info but a bunch of childish posts & rude people

I think ill stick with the 4 cyl unless i come across a 6cyl deal that i cant pass up, i see alot of 3.0's & very few 4.0's.

gas mileage is kindof a concern, i dont drive too much but i still dont want to pay at the pump, I dont tow anything & i dont carry anything in the bed that weights over a few hundred pounds usually, (something i cant do with a car)
I'd still recommend the 2.3L over the 3L, but thats just me
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-14-2011, 02:44 PM
EMB1230 EMB1230 is offline
On my 3rd Ranger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,398
Send a message via AIM to EMB1230 Send a message via Yahoo to EMB1230 Send a message via Skype™ to EMB1230
Default Re: 2001+ Rangers

Quote:
Originally Posted by JmmyHoffa View Post
i see alot of 3.0's & very few 4.0's.
Yeah seems like with 2wd Rangers, the 3.0 is the most popular engine, even over the 4-cyl. But with 4WD there are more with the 4.0 than with the 3.0. Also, '08 was the last year for the 3.0 (in anything), 2009-11 2.3 or 4.0 were your only choices, much like Chevy did with S-10's for 1994 up untill they stopped making them.
__________________
1987 2.3/TK5, 125K.

Last edited by EMB1230; 07-14-2011 at 02:46 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Rangers, Rangers, Mazda B2300? DMac114 Introduce Yourself 11 05-11-2011 06:50 PM
2001 New to the Ranger Jordon Introduce Yourself 10 01-22-2011 03:49 PM
cams 4.0 2001 blazinranger 4.0 SOHC / 4.0 OHV Tech 2 08-09-2010 12:41 PM
2001 2.3 issue Futbol3157 4-Cylinder Tech 2 02-19-2010 03:34 PM
My 2001 XLT Old-skool1972 Vehicle Snapshots 53 09-07-2009 06:14 PM