Thinking about a Ford Ranger

On one had I've loved my manual transmission cars over the years. On the other hand traffic and driving these days is such **** I want more automation, not less. My new-ish truck came with an automatic, but if it were available with smart cruise control and any other features I would have gotten those as well.

What I really miss is 'small' pickups and the horrible way they package stuff, I don't need a 4 door or even a 5 seat pickup, but to get the package with the diesel that's what I had to have.
 
I like the new Ranger, at least in specs. New truck prices are absolutely ridiculous these days and even though the Ranger is no exception at least it isn't as bad as the F-150. That's the other thing if you look at towing capacities and such the Ranger is on par with yesterday's half-tons and the new half-tons are on par with the old 3/4 ton trucks. IDK about braking and handling but by the numbers that's what it says.

We have horses and a horse trailer to lug around, by specs the Ranger should be able to pull it but I'm not gonna take a chance on it. If it wasn't for that I'd definitely give it a look.
 
genna said:
I'm not sure what your point here is. Not enough accidents yet? they are recalling over a million F150s due to this issue before more accidents happen. I assure you that Ford wouldn't be spending millions on this recall if they or NTSB(if it was ordered) didn't think it was important. The fact that it's a relatively simple fix doesn't negate the fact that this problem can only occur in a "reliable" automatic transmission.
Click to expand...

Liability and avoidance of lawsuits is what drove this. It has much less to do with "reliability". The number of incidents per unit produced is in the statistical noise range, so it means next to nothing on a reliability scale. That was my point.
 
genna said:
That is true. And ATs typically need more service(more often and more expensive). It is also true that they often die right after servicing(if it hasn't been done often enough).
Click to expand...

I did my own auto transmission service on the F-150 I owned, new fluid and filter every 30k per the book. I sold it to my brother at 17 years old and 170kmi, and he's put another 30k on it now. Transmission is still original and solid.
 
genna said:
I'm not sure what your point here is. Not enough accidents yet? they are recalling over a million F150s due to this issue before more accidents happen. I assure you that Ford wouldn't be spending millions on this recall if they or NTSB(if it was ordered) didn't think it was important. The fact that it's a relatively simple fix doesn't negate the fact that this problem can only occur in a "reliable" automatic transmission.
Click to expand...
Trust me, it was ordered. But unlike an AD, the manufacturer has to pay for it.
 
My daily driver is an '08 Ranger that I bought new. It's got 108K on it now. My only complaint would be the mileage. Mine has the V6 and if I'm very, very conservative I get 18mpg max. I've always thought that pretty crappy. Otherwise it's been solid. Only recall that I recall is the airbag one that most vehicles out there are subject too.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Liability and avoidance of lawsuits is what drove this. It has much less to do with "reliability". The number of incidents per unit produced is in the statistical noise range, so it means next to nothing on a reliability scale. That was my point.
Click to expand...

the two are not mutually exclusive. there is clearly a problem. it's potentially affecting 1.6 million F150s. it resulted, so far, in 5 known accidents. maybe it would become 5000 known accidents in 5 years if not fixed or 50000. Or maybe it's limited to these 5 incidents. you cannot definitively say one way or the other.

Ford had issued 9, now 10 auto transmission recalls on F150 since 2017(total 26). I'm sure most are trivial, but then again, they cost a lot of money for Ford.

As far as I can tell, they have never issued any F150 recalls for a manual transmission
 
Last edited:
genna said:
the two are not mutually exclusive. there is clearly a problem. it's potentially affecting 1.6 million F150s. it resulted, so far, in 5 known accidents. maybe it would become 5000 known accidents in 5 years if not fixed or 50000. Or maybe it's limited to these 5 incidents. you cannot definitively say one way or the other.

For had issued 9, now 10 auto transmission recalls since 2017. I'm sure most are trivial, but then again, they cost a lot of money for Ford.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Recalls generally are a result of Ford (or any automaker) trying to limit legal liability. Most of it has little to do with concern for reliability of the vehicles and their various components. Every automaker has to expend money to deal with these issues, more-so than in the past when information wasn't widely disseminated among the populace and their own internal network. I don't view recalls as being particularly indicative of the reliability of a product, unless those recalls involve a significant amount of repair/replacement of components. Tesla can issue a software update OTA, and it's just "great service" and "innovative". Ford or Toyota issues a recall to do essentially the same thing with a ECU re-flash and it's a big deal. Just seems like your making mountains out of molehills on the recall angle is all.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Agreed. Recalls generally are a result of Ford (or any automaker) trying to limit legal liability. Most of it has little to do with concern for reliability of the vehicles and their various components. Every automaker has to expend money to deal with these issues, more-so than in the past when information wasn't widely disseminated among the populace and their own internal network. I don't view recalls as being particularly indicative of the reliability of a product, unless those recalls involve a significant amount of repair/replacement of components. Tesla can issue a software update OTA, and it's just "great service" and "innovative". Ford or Toyota issues a recall to do essentially the same thing with a ECU re-flash and it's a big deal. Just seems like your making mountains out of molehills on the recall angle is all.
Click to expand...

I'm not insinuating that recalls themselves are necessarily an indication of reliability(as chances of failure). It's difficult to provide any meaningful statistical comparison between MT and AT reliability. Most will be anecdotal. So it leaves recalls as proxy of potential issues.

I'm not making mountains of it. I'm certainly not implying that all ATs are bombs waiting to go off. I'm just pointing out that AT is a considerably more complicated system than MT and even modern ones have issues not anticipated by the manufacturer pretty soon after release. Having some unanticipated problem that has to be solved by recall and many millions of dollars when AT is basically new, is not a good indication that this system is free of other unanticipated problems that may show up 80K miles down the road. Maybe or maybe not.
 
You can think about it, but don't do it. It wouldn't look good on my highway.
 
Lance F said:
My daily driver is an '08 Ranger that I bought new. It's got 108K on it now. My only complaint would be the mileage. Mine has the V6 and if I'm very, very conservative I get 18mpg max. I've always thought that pretty crappy. Otherwise it's been solid. Only recall that I recall is the airbag one that most vehicles out there are subject too.
Click to expand...

You're doing something wrong. My '04 Ranger Edge, V6, short bed, 5 speed, gets ~21mpg. It went up recently when I replaced the ignition harness and coil pack, along with not chugging and lurching while slowing down on uphill grades. New plugs helped a little, the rest gave more power and mpg. I inherited the vehicle in 2012 with 70,000 on it.
 
I had a ‘86, Mazda B2300, 4 Banger, I forget how many miles,
Then, ‘97 Ranger (Mazda B4000), V6 4L Auto. 10 yrs and 146K miles, ran great started to rust in the desert. 16mpg
Now have ‘07 Tundra, 5.7L, 11 yrs and 156K miles, 16mpg.
Notice a trend?

Will probably keep this truck another 1 or 2 years. Next move will recommend 4WD. Replace it after the move.
Undecided, Tundra$, F-150$, Tacoma, Ranger
 
Hank S said:
2WD. But it sits high enough that everyone asks if it's 4WD. sigh . . .
Click to expand...
Well then perhaps that could be what Lance F is doing wrong, i.e. nothing. I could definitely see a 4WD driveline doing 3mpg less than a 2WD driveline.
 
Hank S said:
You're doing something wrong. My '04 Ranger Edge, V6, short bed, 5 speed, gets ~21mpg.
Click to expand...

I don't know...I'm with Sooner on this one. I've owned a few Rangers over the years and they all got terrible mileage. And I drive like an old man.
 
Gerhardt said:
I don't know...I'm with Sooner on this one. I've owned a few Rangers over the years and they all got terrible mileage. And I drive like an old man.
Click to expand...
+1 for poor mileage on a ranger. I owned a few s-10s, which got decent (mid 20's) mileage. I bought a ranger, stick, with a 4 cylinder, and expected to get the same...I was shocked to only get mid-teens.
 
The issue with the older Rangers versus the new ones is the thirsty V6 and the 4-spd auto that was in them. The new ones have a a great EB 4-banger, and a 10-speed tranny. It will be MUCH more fuel efficient.
 
SoonerAviator said:
The issue with the older Rangers versus the new ones is the thirsty V6 and the 4-spd auto that was in them. The new ones have a a great EB 4-banger, and a 10-speed tranny. It will be MUCH more fuel efficient.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm not really sure why the conversation turned to the older Ranger, as they share nothing with the new Ranger except name. Well, it is PoA afterall :D.
 
SoonerAviator said:
The issue with the older Rangers versus the new ones is the thirsty V6 and the 4-spd auto that was in them. The new ones have a a great EB 4-banger, and a 10-speed tranny. It will be MUCH more fuel efficient.
Click to expand...
My wife got a rental car while on a trip last week. They upgraded her to a 2019 Ranger. She did a couple hundred miles of mostly highway and saw 20mpg. Not terrible but also nothing to write home about IMO.
 
I have been driving for over 50 years and between my wife and I, we have had ONE automatic transmission failure between us. An awful lot of my driving was in the Atlanta area with quite a few trips to Nashville (over Monteagle) to see family.

I have to go pick up a yard of pine bark nuggets tomorrow. I could use my wife's sedan, but that would make such a mess in her trunk so I'll take my 2015 Canyon. I have the extended cab and longer bed. I still have trouble calling a 6 ft bed "long" and the extended cab is only suitable for limited cargo that needs to be protected, or people with no legs. If I were buying a new truck today, I would definitely consider the new Ranger whereas I would not even think about one of the old Rangers, no matter how cherry it was.
 
Juliet Hotel said:
My wife got a rental car while on a trip last week. They upgraded her to a 2019 Ranger. She did a couple hundred miles of mostly highway and saw 20mpg. Not terrible but also nothing to write home about IMO.
Click to expand...

My 2004 Ranger with 3.0 V6 and manual 5 speed gets 20 mpg on the interstate at 75+; driving on the highway tomwork and back at 60, it's generally ~21.5. So how is the new zillion-speed auto any better? And how will the turbo last hauling gravel for my driveway, firewood and topsoil by the half-ton?
 
Hank S said:
My 2004 Ranger with 3.0 V6 and manual 5 speed gets 20 mpg on the interstate at 75+; driving on the highway tomwork and back at 60, it's generally ~21.5. So how is the new zillion-speed auto any better? And how will the turbo last hauling gravel for my driveway, firewood and topsoil by the half-ton?
Click to expand...
I don't recall anyone saying the NEW Ranger would be the perfect vehicle for everyone and everything. If I was due to buy a new vehicle, it would certainly fit my needs well. As for your '04 Ranger, well, it's 15 years old now. It probably doesn't even have USB ports or Car Play.;)

Do you really put a half ton in the back of an '04 Ranger often?
 
Hank S said:
And how will the turbo last hauling gravel for my driveway, firewood and topsoil by the half-ton?
Click to expand...
Well to be fair, all class 8 diesels utilize turbos to make their rated power and they hold up just fine under those large loads. I'm not really a fan of the new Ranger so I don't have a dog in that race but if I did, I don't think the fact that they're using a smaller engine and turbo vs a bigger engine would scare me too much.
 
Juliet Hotel said:
Well to be fair, all class 8 diesels utilize turbos to make their rated power and they hold up just fine under those large loads. I'm not really a fan of the new Ranger so I don't have a dog in that race but if I did, I don't think the fact that they're using a smaller engine and turbo vs a bigger engine would scare me too much.
Click to expand...

Don't want no smelly, noisy diesel!
 
JOhnH said:
...so I'll take my 2015 Canyon. I have the extended cab and longer bed.
Click to expand...

I've got an older Canyon I need to update sometime. When I test drove the newer models almost all of them were the 4 cyl. Do you have the 4 or 6 cyl? And what's your thoughts on the towing capacity?
 
Gerhardt said:
I've got an older Canyon I need to update sometime. When I test drove the newer models almost all of them were the 4 cyl. Do you have the 4 or 6 cyl? And what's your thoughts on the towing capacity?
Click to expand...
I have the six cylinder, but it is a 2015; the first batch of the "new" Canyon with the 6 speed automatic transmission. It had no problem with a full load of river rock (around a half ton) power wise. In fact, it seemed to run smoother with the heavy load than empty. But I believe they mismatched the transmission and the 6 cylinder engine in 2015. I don't like the way it shifts too early and seems to hunt for the correct gear which sometimes causes hesitation.

But when I had it in the shop for the "free" scheduled maintenance, they loaned me a 2018 Canyon. The difference was night and day. The new one had more power and shifted smoothly. I would have no hesitation to buy the new one, but I would test drive that and a few others (like the new Ranger) first.

The only reason I have a mid size is that a full size takes up more room in my garage. I have a good size double garage (25x26) but it is just easier to walk around the smaller truck than a full size truck. And I rarely (if ever) need a full size truck any more. I mostly haul landscaping materials (mulch or stone) and occasionally a piece of machinery like a mower, generator or a piece of furniture that is hard to get in a sedan.
 
Hank S said:
Don't want no smelly, noisy diesel!
Click to expand...

Other than the fuel, new diesels aren't any noticeably noisier or smellier.

I actually don't like it. At some point I'm going to modify the Ram so that it's louder and smellier.
 
JOhnH said:
I have the six cylinder, but it is a 2015; the first batch of the "new" Canyon with the 6 speed automatic transmission. It had no problem with a full load of river rock (around a half ton) power wise. In fact, it seemed to run smoother with the heavy load than empty. But I believe they mismatched the transmission and the 6 cylinder engine in 2015. I don't like the way it shifts too early and seems to hunt for the correct gear which sometimes causes hesitation.

But when I had it in the shop for the "free" scheduled maintenance, they loaned me a 2018 Canyon. The difference was night and day. The new one had more power and shifted smoothly. I would have no hesitation to buy the new one, but I would test drive that and a few others (like the new Ranger) first.

The only reason I have a mid size is that a full size takes up more room in my garage. I have a good size double garage (25x26) but it is just easier to walk around the smaller truck than a full size truck. And I rarely (if ever) need a full size truck any more. I mostly haul landscaping materials (mulch or stone) and occasionally a piece of machinery like a mower, generator or a piece of furniture that is hard to get in a sedan.
Click to expand...

The new Canyon/Colorado is a beast power wise. I actually prefer the older 6 speed as the 8 speed felt a little clunky to me and had to constantly shift in and out of overdrive on the hwy on hills. I had a loaner for about 2 weeks. Averaged around 20 mpg, think my best was 24 on a hwy trip. I wouldn't buy one today just because they feel so old and outdated. I think I would go with the new Jeep Truck.
 
Grum.Man said:
The new Canyon/Colorado is a beast power wise. I actually prefer the older 6 speed as the 8 speed felt a little clunky to me and had to constantly shift in and out of overdrive on the hwy on hills. I had a loaner for about 2 weeks. Averaged around 20 mpg, think my best was 24 on a hwy trip. I wouldn't buy one today just because they feel so old and outdated. I think I would go with the new Jeep Truck.
Click to expand...
Gladiator on Dana 60s is the way to go
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top