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 04-05-2011, 09:14 PM
 
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, originally from SF Bay Area
28,381 posts, read 50,562,503 times
Reputation: 28605

Advertisements

I have had two S10s, both 4.3, and now have a Ranger. I agree with the others, only buy the S10 if it's the 4.3, the other engines are bad. I wouldn't buy one with more than about 150,000 miles if automatic, the trans will be about due for a rebuild. My ranger is too new to judge by, 2007 with 48k miles, but my son-in-law has a 2003 4 cylinder manual
with just over 100k miles, and has only had to replace the fuel pump at 97k and the shocks a few months ago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-05-2011, 09:17 PM
 
Location: Pomona
1,955 posts, read 9,197,283 times
Reputation: 1531
Quote:
Originally Posted by rfr69 View Post
Talking with people Ford people say Chevy's suck and Chevy people say Ford suck.
I fall into the category of Chevy people that recommends the Ford instead.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deez Nuttz View Post
However I will say this...if you get an S-10, try to steer clear of the 4 cylinder models unless you don't mind being slower than everything on the road/have people laying on their horns for you to move.
You mean like how UPS trucks have beaten mine's off the line?

FWIW, my daily driver is a '95 S10 with the 2.2L - an engine that was merely adequate in the Cavalier that weighs 600+ pounds less. So you can imagine how much worse it is when you have a load in the back.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2011, 09:25 PM
 
Location: Blue Ridge
20,888 posts, read 22,663,065 times
Reputation: 8634
I've had them both and I would say go with a S10. GM products tend to be easier on the body.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2011, 08:03 AM
 
Location: North Baltimore ----> Seattle
6,473 posts, read 10,725,881 times
Reputation: 3092
I've had two Ranger 4-cylinders - a '98 and a '99. Great luck with both of them (sold my last one because I had bought it while living in New England and the rust was getting bad, ran and drove great though).

I'm now inheriting from my father-in-law first Ranger 6 cylinder 4WD (movin' on up!). It's a '99 XL 3.0 with a locking rear diff and a 5-speed.

Anyone have any experience with this truck?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2011, 10:35 AM
 
Location: North Baltimore ----> Seattle
6,473 posts, read 10,725,881 times
Reputation: 3092
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merc63 View Post
The 3.0 is a decent engine, and a better choice in teh Ranger than the 4.0 (which gets the fuel mileage of a V8 F150 but without the useability). The 3.0 4x4 is a good combination.

My own Ranger was a '96 Splash withthe 4 cyl 5speed combo. In all the years I had it it was completely reliable and never needed anything but oil changes and standard maintenance:



Loved that truck and would have another if I needed a small truck. I'd look for a '97 or newer, however, for the A-arm front suspension and the 3" longer cab that they got from that year newer.
Yeah a good deal of friends from college and I all seemed to drive 4-cylinder rangers. It looked like a ford truck ad everytime we all met up somewhere.

One has about 325k on his '98, the other has 270k on his '96. My 4-cyl from those days got wrecked by a 16-year-old.

This 3.0 is in great shape. It's got a factory motor with under 50k in it after the first one went (don't remember the story there). Plastic floors, too. I'm psyched to get it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2011, 10:57 AM
 
Location: Texas
32,520 posts, read 17,636,768 times
Reputation: 18659
Default For what it's worth...

My son drove a 2000 Ranger with the 3.0L V-6 for about 8 years and was very pleased with it. My brother had a 1998 S10 with the 4.3L V-6 and everything besides the engine was lousy. He had problems with the brakes, A/C, paint, transmission, you name it. Both were purchased new.

I still drive a 1986 Toyota pickup with the 2.4L 4 cyl with over 200K miles and it still runs great.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2011, 12:12 PM
 
Location: Vancouver, B.C., Canada
10,715 posts, read 22,321,366 times
Reputation: 5137
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Continental View Post
Here's what I'd want



If you're considering anything 80s, you should also look into El Caminos.
man the chevy S-10 cyclone and the blazer based typhoon was one bada$$ PU

YouTube - ‪MW 1992 GMC Typhoon Road Test‬‏
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2011, 07:27 PM
 
Location: Just East of the Southern Portion of the Western Part of PA
1,225 posts, read 3,123,626 times
Reputation: 1435
The 2000 and newer ranger 4x4s are better choices because they finally got rid of those crappy vaccum hubs and went to a live front axle. Rangers are great little trucks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2011, 09:10 PM
 
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, originally from SF Bay Area
28,381 posts, read 50,562,503 times
Reputation: 28605
I had good luck with 2 different S10 Blazers, both 4.3, a 1989 and a 1994. Both lasted close to 200k. My parents have a '96 that just needed a new heater core at 110,000 miles.

I love my 2007 Ranger but it's still on warranty. My son-in-law has a 2003 with the 4 cylinder 5 speed and has just had to replace the fuel pump at 96k and the shocks at 110k.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2011, 10:34 PM
 
Location: H-town, TX.
3,398 posts, read 5,460,110 times
Reputation: 2104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merc63 View Post
The 3.0 is a decent engine, and a better choice in teh Ranger than the 4.0 (which gets the fuel mileage of a V8 F150 but without the useability). The 3.0 4x4 is a good combination.

My own Ranger was a '96 Splash withthe 4 cyl 5speed combo. In all the years I had it it was completely reliable and never needed anything but oil changes and standard maintenance:



Loved that truck and would have another if I needed a small truck. I'd look for a '97 or newer, however, for the A-arm front suspension and the 3" longer cab that they got from that year newer.
Actaully, when I was a frequenter at a few Ranger forums, we joked about the "3.slow" being that...four cylinder capability and v8esque MPGs. At least you knew what the 4.0L got you.

With 99-04 Mustang (especially convertibles) prices being so awful and in a market of their own, I'm thinking of dropping down some cash for a second vehicle to "rest" the F150 and have to debate a 2.3L SuperCab or just going with a 4.0L if I can find a 93-97 model that I can live with. My old 94 SuperCab is in Mexico somewhere...someone bought it to sell there.

Post 2001 trucks lost that crummy PVH 4x4, me thinks, since it was mentioned.
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