U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Automotive
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-03-2010, 07:45 PM
 
Location: Eastern Washington
13,393 posts, read 42,738,435 times
Reputation: 11475

Advertisements

I think 10 to 15 is a reasonable estimate. This truck will not be super-thirsty, not with the 3.25 gears, but it will burn roughly 2X the fuel your Toy will.

You can put a good synthetic oil in the engine, trans, and rear end, *maybe* go with some low rolling resistance tires, make sure the front end is aligned to spec and to minimum toe-in, maybe crank in a couple more degrees of timing advance, etc. and get a bit better MPG but this truck is relatively big and heavy, and the aerodynamics are worse than a brick, so you probably won't crack 20 MPG.

Like I have been posting, this could be a good truck for you but I don't see it replacing your Toy as a daily. Don't freak out that you will eventually have to put a clutch in the Toy, find yourself a good indy shop there in Texas, they do exist. When the time comes, bite the bullet and take the Toy to the shop, drive the truck for the couple of days they take to do the clutch, bada bing, bada boom.

I have my Dad's old 65 GMC half-ton, I have put one of the old Borg-Warner O/D transmissions in, it has a 292 (which needs to be rebuilt) and 3.42 gears. In O/D it's geared stupid tall, I really should put in a 3.90 or 4.10 gear set. But anyway it will cruise 50 to 60 OK on backroads, doing about 1500-1800 RPM. I can barely get 20 MPG.

That said, unless you insist on driving the truck as a daily, 10~15 MPG is quite tolerable, really.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-03-2010, 08:07 PM
 
2,024 posts, read 4,472,889 times
Reputation: 1991
17 mpg sounds high, most likely low teens highway gas mileage. You can't beat a old Ford pickup for a daily driver so you should get one. That truck will have drum brakes up front which work just fine but a disc brake swap from a 1973-1979 half ton pickup would be better. If possible pictures would help to evaluate if that truck is worth it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2010, 08:10 PM
 
30,899 posts, read 24,229,648 times
Reputation: 17790
Quote:
Originally Posted by cobolt View Post
Thanks Mitch,

I didn't say what year Ranger b/c I'm not interested in any one year in particular or am not looking at any one in particular. But wasn't there a timeframe when the Ranger's were having some probs? I read somewhere that you should look at models before 1998 and after 2003 or something to that effect. I can't recall.

My Toyota is a five speed, so I do alot of shifting in town, alot of wear and tear on the clutch. I've not had to replace it nor have I had any problems at all, but I think I am a bit tired of driving a manual in the city and I take alot of road trips.

The 67 Ford had a C6 automatic transmission put in it recently and the 352 engine has been newly rebuilt, although a friend of mine says the 352 is a smaller V8. He also put in a new carb and electronic ignition. The guy is asking $2500 for the 67 Ford.
if the truck is in good shape, $2500 is a good price. the 352 is a solid reliable engine that puts out decent power. the C6 is one of the toughest automatics on the market today, and the 9" rear end with the 3.25 gears is an excellent compromise ratio in a super tough rear end. if you like the truck buy it and dont look back.

the ford ranger is a neat little pick up, and is a worthy little brother to the F series.

Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtundra View Post
First fact first, a ford ranger is not a ford ranger, it's a mazda pickup with ford badges,
you are quite wrong here. the ford ranger IS built by ford in america, it is the mazda pick up after 1983 that is a rebadged ranger.

the truck you are thinking about is the ford courier. that truck was a mazda built truck and was replaced by the ranger.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-04-2010, 07:52 AM
 
Location: The Great State of Texas, Finally!
5,321 posts, read 10,584,932 times
Reputation: 2395
okay so then what older year Rangers should I be looking at?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-04-2010, 10:04 AM
 
191 posts, read 624,540 times
Reputation: 67
I would look into getting a 2.3l or 2.5l 4 cylinder Ranger. They will get you much better mileage then any of the 6 cylinder models (2.9, 3.0, 4.0). I recently spent a couple months shopping for a ranger and I decided that I wanted a 2001+ because halfway through 2001 they switched to a new 2.3l 4 cyl powerplant. I finally found a 2003 2.3l, rwd and manual trans, which I am happy with and I get between 24 and 29 mpg. I drove a 1991 2.9l v6 Ranger and hated it. Had the power of a 4cyl and the motor was always caked with various fluids. The 2.9l's are also known for cracking cylinder heads. I know of no major issues with any of the 4 cylinder models.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-04-2010, 10:09 AM
 
191 posts, read 624,540 times
Reputation: 67
rbohm is right. The Ranger is built at the Twin Cities assembly plant! They borrow Mazda parts, however. The newer 4 cylinder motor is a Mazda and I believe the manual trans may be as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-04-2010, 12:06 PM
 
30,899 posts, read 24,229,648 times
Reputation: 17790
Quote:
Originally Posted by cobolt View Post
okay so then what older year Rangers should I be looking at?
in my opinion any ranger 1983 or newer in good shape will do you just fine. i have driven several over the years and all were good trucks. my preference would be for a newer body style V6 powered ranger with efi. that generally means ones from 92 and later.

Quote:
They borrow Mazda parts, however. The newer 4 cylinder motor is a Mazda and I believe the manual trans may be as well.
true, the ranger used mazda transmissions early on, and the latest four cylinder is a mazda powerplant. the original four cylinder though was the venerable 2.3 used in early pintos and mustang ll's. it had a couple of variants used in the ranger, the 2.5 and the 2.0.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-04-2010, 01:41 PM
 
Location: Sloooowcala Florida
1,381 posts, read 2,541,659 times
Reputation: 1174
I own a 1999 Ford Ranger and a 2007 Ford Ranger. Both good trucks. Excellent gas milage. Minimal repair problems. Good road handling. Overall a good truck. Also owned a Mazda B2200 in the past. Don't remember the year but drove it for 10 years when it finally developed a radiator leak that no one could find to fix. After 10 years though, I thought that was pretty good.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-04-2010, 02:45 PM
 
Location: The Great State of Texas, Finally!
5,321 posts, read 10,584,932 times
Reputation: 2395
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilson1010 View Post
First, the Ranger is a pig. Small and bad gas mileage. The 67 would be ok, but all the wiring and rubber will be a crapshoot. And, if you are not towing you do not need a V8, you need a straight 6. Ford made a great dependable 6 cylinder truck all through the 80's to the mid nineties and I had several. Great trucks. Run forever. Just get an F150 or F250 with the 6 and call it a day. If you can spend $1000 on a 6 cylinder truck from the late 80's you will have a museum piece.
When you say late 80's do you mean after 1986? I saw an 86 Ford F150 XLT today. Or should I be looking at 87 and after?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-04-2010, 02:50 PM
 
Location: The Great State of Texas, Finally!
5,321 posts, read 10,584,932 times
Reputation: 2395
Re the Ranger: can that 4 cylinder haul say, appliances, like a washer/dryer, or a fridge w/o obvious strain, or would I be better off w/the 6? I'm thinking that appliances would be the heaviest thing I would haul.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Automotive
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top